Pps-pro

[ted28]

What do people think of this method of running a planted tank? I will soon have a 65 gallon tank. Just might try it.

http/www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumap...de-pps-pro.html

 

[SuperColey1]

I think has been a reply in a thread a few months ago where Tom Barr sad that this was nothing new at all and had just been adopted on APC as a new way. Never used it as IMO EI is easie and a lot less hassle with not needing to measure things too accurately and not needing to test too often etc.

Just add to much of everything (within reason) and then reset with large water changes.

Andy

 

[Dave Spencer]

I think Zig is giving this method a go, so he might be able to give you his verdict.

Personally I like good old EI for the same reasons as Andy, but having people trying different methods on this site will always help broaden horizons, so I would say go for it.

Dave.

 

[plantbrain]

I'm not sure there's anything new vs the old PMDD which suggested and adds the same things and a daily routine, this adds a little PO4, not much but enough to cover the bases.

Otherwise, it's no different than PMDD, which by most accounts worked pretty well about 10-12 years ago when it came out.

Here's the list to make that:

http/www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/pmdd-tim.html

Add about 1/2 teaspoon of the KH2PO4 and that's about the same thing.

A few milligrams off here or there will never make a difference.
It's horticulture, not precise nuclear science measurement and micromanagement.

You can take EI and split it into daily dosing if you chose as well.


PPS Pro looks even more like the old stuff aquarists did years ago than PPS. Edward I guess saw a need to simplify things more than PPS, but in doing so comes extremely close to re inventing the wheel.

As far as adding a bit of the PO4, that was all myself and Steve Dixon, certainly nothing Edward thought up and figured out on his own.

That pre dates PPS by 8 years.
So does this article I wrote in 1997:

http/sfbaaps.org/articles/barr_02.html

And you'll note water changes and test kits, good accurate ones are suggested.
Rather than just test kits(PPS/PMDD in somecases), or just water changes(EI).
Several folks had always done the test kit and no water changes method in our club, but we all came to the consensus long ago that at least 25% weekly or more helped.

Later Edward decided to "add an option" of large weekly 50% water changes to PPS and still retain the name and do a way with test kit part. Well.....that's now EI, he never came up with that, whether you add the suggested amounts from EI or not, there is no specific recipe associated with EI, just a general range ......and that is flexible.

And we all know that plants can use a flexible wide range of nutrients and do fine in both cases.
There is no implication that one is better than the other if both target a decent range.

Plants adapt also.
As long as you are consistent.

Can you maintain a lower residual and dose daily?
Yes, does it work? Yes as long as you are consistent.
Can you dose say 2-3x a week? Yes, does it work? Yes.
As long as you are consistent.

EI has suggested that also.

The real issue I have is when clowns make the claim that excess nutrients are somehow "bad".
It depends on which nutrients they are talking about, CO2 is toxic and kills plenty of folk's fish.
We still add it.
NH4 is toxic as well.

What about NO3? PO4?
Then you have to ask how much is bad?
Then what about algae inducement?
You need to know how to induce the algae also.

Then you can test to see if your claims and hypothesis you make are valid.
I've spent the last decade + doing this and answering such questions.

It's plain many other that make such claims have never bothered, instead engaging in semantical baloney and games based on their pride.

If you have not done your homework and proven the relationships to yourself, I suppose it's easier to argue that way and not show it with test and methods.

This is not personal, I asked Paul Sears who came up with PMDD with Kevin how I could have awesome algae free growth with high PO4. He realized it and it shattered quite a few things/paradigms and the basis for algae control at that time.

Paul is smart guy too, very smart, but even so, the evidence does not suggest that PO4/NO3/Fe etc induce algae.

You can try and argue your beliefs all day long, try and find speculatory reasons for not adding sat 20ppm of NO3 a week etc, add hyperbole but that will never change the evidence. I want to know if such statements are real and can we rule them out or is there more to it than that.


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[ted28]

Geeeze! Sorry for asking

 

[john starkey]

HI Tom you are one unique guy love ya regards john

 

[JamesC]

I've had a good look at PPS-Pro just to see what it is all about. It is almost exactly the same as EI except you dose both macros and micros on the same day. It is also a little bit leaner than EI except for traces where more is added. Both potassium and magnesium are added daily whereas in EI they tend to be added once a week at the water change.

I did notice where people are having algae problems the answer was often to leave water changes for a few weeks. This would let nutrient levels build up a bit so fixing the problem of limiting. Others would just add more fertilisers each day.

I was actually looking at giving PPS-Pro a go just to see, but now I've worked out all the figures it appears to be almost the same as the very slightly lean EI I'm already dosing - except for traces where I'm adding a lot less. This higher level of traces puzzles me a bit as people say their shrimp are happier, but I'd thought that they'd be worse off.

Maybe I've got a brain block at the mo but here's my maths:

PPS-Pro - For a 250ml bottle it says to add 40g trace mix. For my 52 US gallon tank I need to add 5.2ml daily which comes to 36.4ml weekly. To get weight of trace mix (36.4/250)x40 = 5.8g

EI - For a 250ml bottle I add 15g trace mix. For my 52 US gallon tank I need to add 10ml 3 times a week which comes to 30ml weekly. To get weight of trace mix (30/250)x15 = 1.8g

This is quite a big difference IMO.

James

EDIT: I've noticed that I have accidently used the PPS-Pro calculator incorrectly which has doubled the amounts needed. The 5.8g of trace mix should now read 2.9g. This is much more acceptable. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[nry]

Traces are slightly curious for me: the SeaChem Flourish dosage for my tank is, by the bottle, 5ml per week. I dose 2ml 3 times per week for EI so I dose 6ml (albeit I am now using Tropica for trace now but the amounts are the same) - not a great deal more than that for the 'normal' tank which SeaChem state the dosage is for.

In a high light/CO2/high growth tank I wonder if traces should not be dosed at the relevant proportion, closer maybe (at a guess!) to 2 or 3 times the suggested dose on the bottle?

 

[JamesC]

The suggested dosing on the bottles is designed for low light non CO2 setups so will obviously be lower. This is also to protect the manufacturers as they will suggest the highest safe dosing if there is very little uptake by the plants. With EI plant uptake is much greater so higher dosing is required.

What I find strange is that EI and PPS-Pro are designed for the same type of setup, yet PPS-Pro has a significant higher level of trace dosing.

James

 

[nry]

No, what I mean is that my EI trace dose is hardly different from the non-EI, low growth dose suggested on the bottle. I'd have thought EI would have suggested a noticeably higher dosage, though maybe a ~20% increase (6ml per week instead of 5ml) is a 'higher' dose...

 

[JamesC]

Ah, I see what you mean now. Tropica state that I need to add 20ml per week and I add 30ml per week which is a 50% increase. Those figures used in the sticky are based on Tropica's Master Grow, but I think Flourish is pretty much the same. People who dose Flourish use the same amounts with no probs. The manufacturers quoted levels are only a very rough guidline that should work and won't cause harm in any setup. You will find though if you have very high light levels you will need to add more traces than what's in the EI thread.

James

 

[JamesC]

If anyone is interested I've calculated the weekly doses for PPS-Pro and EI for my 52 US Gallon tank

With PPS-Pro
Potassium - 10ppm
Nitrate - 21ppm
Phosphate - 1.4ppm
Magnesium - 1.4ppm
Trace - 5.8g

What I add under my slightly lean EI dosing
Potassium - 10ppm
Nitrate - 20ppm
Phosphate - 5ppm
Magnesium - 12ppm
Trace - 1.8g


Potassium is the same. I like to add it only because I've always done so and I believe a bit more won't hurt. Nitrate is the same. My phosphate dosing is higher but have found if I dose any lower then Green Spot Algae appears. My magnesium is higher because I have so little in my tap water. Traces are where there is a big difference.

James


EDIT: I've noticed that I have accidently used the PPS-Pro calculator incorrectly which has doubled the amounts needed. The correct figures for PPS-Pro are now as follows:

With PPS-Pro
Potassium - 5ppm
Nitrate - 10.5ppm
Phosphate - 0.7ppm
Magnesium - 0.7ppm
Trace - 2.9g

So now it is a lot leaner than EI dosing except for the traces which are a bit higher. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[plantbrain]

Geeeze! Sorry for asking

You asked and suggested it was new way of adding ferts.
It's not.

PPS pro does not acknowledge the obvious copying of PMDD as well as other folk's methods and bad mouthing them is a bit disingenious.

The post is not meant to be rude to you. I compared the methods, and other facets, not you personally.

Adding more traces than EI is fine, will it help? Doubt it, they are traces and that would very difficult to prove any growth rate differences unless very limiting.
I've added 5x the normal dosing of TMG and never found any differences in growth.
I once added 200mls of flourish to several 80 liter tanks just to see.
No adverse effects other than tea colored water. So adding it does not hurt, but some claim so using CMS due to copper for some critters like shrimp. I cannot verify that however.
So adding more traces.......hardly a novel thing in dosing. How's that a new method/new way, advanced?

The concentration and type of trace might play some role, but in general, EI has pretty rich Trace dosing and many claimed this to cause algae, much like excess PO4 and NO3, as Edward also claimed, calling them pollutants in one breath and nutrients in the other, then when that was disproven by empirical evidence he then claimed it was bad for fish, and anyone doing any research can show that's not true by empiricial evidence as well.

All to show he had something "new", and he comes full circle and suggest PMDD, the daily dosing of macros and traces perhaps with(The use of test kits is hardly "new") or without(EI frequent water changes method and PO4 dosing) water changes.

Same thing, different wrapper.
Did you bother to read PMDD?
EI came from that, as did the list of levels of parameters.
EI adapted water changes to avoid the list of levels any parameter to avoid using test kits.
PPS used the list of levels and parameters and focused more on liquid solutions + gram scales in place of dry teaspoons and suggested no water changes, instead relying on test kits to maintain the NO3 namely.

The list of levels and parameters suggest water changes, 25-50% weekly, it does not require it.................

EI does require some water changes however.
Which in not having to deal with test kits, is not a bad trade off.

One that I might add, Amano also suggest and about every decent scaper I've ever met and seen. Amano, myself and others have tried and avoided water changes many times, but we all know that doing them helps to keep the tank at a much nicer condition. Relatively simple approach to do and see for yourself. But perhaps Amano is also wrong and Edward is right.




Regards,
Tom Barr






Regards,
Tom Barr