Same type of thing as PMDD, you add plenty of other nutrients until you get GSA.
This typically gets rid of most species of algae and it takes several weeks, months to do.
Then you go back to dosing as normal I guess or tweak thing still the algae is all gone other than GSA which I hate personally.
I had a debate with the guy, could not get him to understand even the basic tenants of horticulture. No mechanisms as to why and why other folks do not have the same results or why things like indirect causes are at play. Nor what makes the most logic sense.
If you limit PO4 strongly it obviously will reduce demand for every other nutrients, CO2 and light..
This is because by it's very definition, limiting a nutrient strongly like PO4, will decrease the rates of growth of the plants. .
Less growth= less demand for CO2.
It's still the "tail wagging the dog" and does not address the very basis tenants of horticulture.
I do not think he understood that even a little bit. He does understand that higher levels ppm's etc are not issues and testing presents problems for many. It's sort of EI non limiting nutrients with PO4 limitation as the goal for indirect algae control via reduced plant growth.
He did not seem t get that relationship.
I tried a few times and when it was apparent I was talking to zealot.......no sense in discussing it further.
Focus on using less light if........ the goal is reduce algae. This places less demand and it a much more logical long term method. Generally CO2 management is the issue, sometimes not dosing enough.He is correct in not worrying about NO3 and other dosing methods at high levels, but the folks that are cured of algae this way, only have JUST NOW FOUND OUT ABOUT PMDD DOSING WHICH WAS KNOWN BACK IN 1995. It's a version of that same approach to algae control, but with less worry about specific NO3/K+, etc.
In fact, the level of PO4 limitation of the plants is even stronger.
I think he assumes it's a direct relationship and cannot see past it.
But...many like he, also see it as a way to deal with their algae issues and they do not care if it's band aid and does not address the root plant growth problem(which has little to do with algae).
Sort of like adding copper, and various other concoctions to kill algae.
The issue, and Amano is no different, nor are the folks at Tropica .....nor myself...........is much more about the real goal, which is plant growth. Healthy plant growth.
All 3 very different approaches all independently and over long time frames all come to similar conclusions and it has virtually nothing to do with algae.
Why might that be?
What things do each suggest?
Low light, good CO2, and good consistent care, water changes etc.
The algae are not really being limited, it's the plant's rate of growth that's been reduced via PO4 limitation. Can it get rid of some folk's algae indirectly?
Sure, but using less light will do much better and has.........just because it can work for some, does not mean it's a long term solution nor focuses of a root issue in management.
Hopefully that clarifies.
I think this guy thinks he is saving the world from the evils of algae somehow, but PO4 limitation for algae control predates him by well over a decade.
I really do not focus on algae directly, I focus on good plant growth, there's a huge difference there.
Both in aquariums, in rich water column, in rich sediments, in natural systems, the evidence is fairly clear about plants and algae.
where's my algae if this method works so well?
How am I able to cure every species of algae and have awesome growth from every 300-400 species of plant as well as ADA or Tropica?
Luck?
I can do the method and have, many did, it was called PMDD, quite popular back in the 1990's and into 2000's.
Rewording it, or calling it PPS or some other name does not change the fact that's mechanism is still the same principle.
What bothers me is that even when told and explained to them, they ignore it and poo poo you.
That's not logic or critical thinking, that's Crazy and ego talking. Then they run around trying to sell their belief based on correlation.
You always will get a few thinking "me too". Tell folks what they want to believe, do no ask them to honestly and critically question things/observations etc.
So he's got some things right, but has a ways to go in really understanding what all is going on with plants and algae.
So it can be like the classic, 'has enough knowledge to do damage, but not enough to realize the bigger picture".
Maybe he'll figure it out, but it'll take some personal questioning and growth to do so.
I actually like the guy otherwise.
As far as algae, I make little mention of it in EI dosing, only that excess etc does not induce algae.
EI is based on growing plants, not avoiding algae.
Unless you measure light and CO2 well, you cannot conclude anything about nutrients.........or results/observations.
Neither he nor Edward did this worth crap.
Light I can measure and it explains a lot of the issues folks have with poor plant growth and algae.
CO2 is even trickier.....but they know everything about both huh?
A test needs a control, without one........and good testing to see the other relevant parameters, like CO2 and light...you really cannot say much. These folks want to try and say more than than they really can conclude.
Regards,
Tom Barr