Vladimir Zhurov;3623 said:I have updated the calculator page.
Nitrate, phosphate, potassium and CO2 parts are ready for testing.
If an answer for number of spoons is "infinity", than I do not know how heavy is one tsp of a particular fertilizer. Please share this information with me.
Some fertilizers might be hydrated and I do not have information for all of them. Please share this information with me also.
There might be errors, typos and such, so please do not use it for actual dose calculation yet.
Philosophos;47103 said:What about the valleys form from uneven dosing? Things like sensitive chelates and K+ don't last long in any pure form. This is why a lot of the dosing runs Mg/Ca at WC time with other nutrients tagging along throughout the week.
I think a lot of this is guess work; tanks are very dynamic. We have a hard time getting an accurate measure on some nutrients in the column, let alone knowing what impact the sediment is contributing to any given species. IMO keeping non-limiting nutrients is easy enough given that most tanks will never blow through 20ppm NO3 in a week, plus nutrients from feeding, plus residual.
Don't get me wrong, I think plotting the dosage and knowing your controlled variables is great; I love to know exactly what I'm contributing when I can. I'm just not sure that it's correct to assume known bioavailability or concentrations of everything unless we can accurately test for everything.
So in short, the real question would be whether we can even tell if there's an advantage between a WC dump and even weekly dosing. I'm sure even a change in feeding would mess with things.
Lots to think about. I like the idea of the project a ton, but it's a big one to take on.
Neil Frank said:To increase the valleys and smooth out the long-term concentration pattern, i have been increasing my dose on the day of the water change. This could be added to your diagram to illustrate the results.
Tom Barr said:To add fish waste, you use a 90% waste function from the food that is fed, and if you know the food's % N, weight feed, then you can make an estimation.
Tom Barr;47112 said:Well, much like the spikes of nutrients added and the guessing, the plant's own edngenous storage, the vacuoles and roots and other organs can maintain a few days supply.
So maintainign some constant residual in the water is hardly critical.
For all the banther over the supposed need for stable accuracte dosing, plants are fairly flexible. What is important with them? How logn before they need to re work their enzymatic machinery and start applying a cost(less resources for growth=> more for resource acquisition) for reallocation?
No model will be perfect, but will give a rough idea of expectations.
CO2 polays a massive role as does light.
Hell, those are rarely tested well and the light is often never tested.
Yes, there's a lot of guessing going on, but not just with EI dosing, it's with every method,
Philosophos;47148 said:What you're saying is why I tend to value accurate, steady dosing over long periods of time. Messing with things and seeing what happens is fun; trying to manipulate growth forms is of course the next step after "keep it alive and healthy." I like to know what I'm dosing when I can, just so I can compare test results; things like showing 10ppm+ of PO4 when you're sure of dosing 2-3ppm is always a weird discovery.