Development of a new dosing calculator, come help

Wet

Lifetime Members
Lifetime Member
Aug 25, 2006
395
0
16
USA
I've never seen this awesome thread before. I am down for collaboration, Valdimir. I especially like the input gallons and water change schedule and get a graph of concentration vs time at 25, 50, and 75% uptake. i can't load the calc or download the source either. lots of good ideas here to split up already. dibs on the concentration vs time one as my hobby time permits :)
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
747
113
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.

Regards.

Vladimir.

I think if a light calculator could eventually be added, and get good data between light and CO2, then we could make a very nice calculator model for plant growth and expectations.

While it would not take into account various species of plants, too many I think, it would give a pretty good estimation of general patterns.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Wet

Lifetime Members
Lifetime Member
Aug 25, 2006
395
0
16
USA
Rough and dirty. Yeah, baby. Better said: needs lots of code clean up and junk.

Concentrations of Stuff vs Time using The Estimative Index: http://wet.biggiantnerds.com/ei/con_v_time.pl

Calculates with 25%, 50%, 75%, and 90% uptake.

Uses "Stuff" because it doesn't matter if "Stuff" in N or P or what have you.

Don't break it. Changes and improvements appreciated.

If you're no longer out there, Valdimir, I am going to start a new thread for these new tools ideas. GREAT ideas.

Example at 10ppm Stuff dosed 3 times a week with 50% water changes:


pie_image_reference.png


----------------

Added 0% uptake. Cleaned up the code a little. Made a little prettier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Neil Frank

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Feb 19, 2008
55
0
6
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. Contact me off line if you need further explanation.
 

Wet

Lifetime Members
Lifetime Member
Aug 25, 2006
395
0
16
USA
I like this, Neil. Also thinking about some optional field saying "I have a difference of ___ ppm for stuff between my weekly water changes" to show excess from fish, etc, or deficit, then using that for the uptake rate.

Some assumptions I made to make the code easier:

Uptake rate currently is defined as total weekly dose * the uptake constants, then averaged (not rounded) for every day.

If you dose 3 times a week, it is assumed you dose on days 1, 3, and 5 (say, Sun, Tue, Thu) that week.

If you dose once a week you do it after water change.
 

Philosophos

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,346
0
36
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.
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
747
113
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.

Few measure/weigh and test their feed, but boy...........so many love to talk about using test kits.
You can use fish food as a fert alone by itself also and measure the break down and weight etc that's added, then subtract 10% for the fish consumption retention.

I recall someone did a little study that considered fish waste/food as a fert for plants using small pots etc. Been awhile though.

Even a pretty lean uptake will still give you 20-30ppm range, using 15ppm of NO3 a week is not that much.
If you have more, bacteria denitrification occurring in richer sediments, then you start to get lower than you might think.



Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
747
113
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.

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,

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Wet

Lifetime Members
Lifetime Member
Aug 25, 2006
395
0
16
USA
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.

Added these options. Waste function also gets factored into uptake percentage. It is assumed you feed every day.

Also added the ability to say you're starting at a known ppm for Stuff.

Not a lot of traffic to this calculator so far :(

http://wet.biggiantnerds.com/ei/con_v_time.pl
 

Philosophos

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,346
0
36
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,

Regards,
Tom Barr

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.
 

shoggoth43

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 15, 2009
1,092
11
38
I'm not even sure what I'm adding for PPM to start with. I just dump in X amount of a TSP of the KNO3 and KH2P04 and then some x amount of capful of Flourish for the moment, so that's a pretty tough one to start with. I'm thinking perhaps I'm not your ideal test candidate, but it looks as though you're on your way in any event. Having a tank volume and a TSP calculation would be nice, but then you have to make assumptions on how much water is actually IN the tank and all kinds of other variables. Seems like a neat little project overall though. :)

-
S
 

jonny_ftm

Guru Class Expert
Mar 5, 2009
821
2
16
I like your calculator very much, really a great add-on, just to have an idea, very nice work

Any chance to have a flash or stand-alone version rather then a perl script online only calculator?
 

Neil Frank

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Feb 19, 2008
55
0
6
Very nice tool. and good choice of colors. A few small suggestions. If easy, please format the breakpoints value on the the vertical axis as integers or at most one decimal point. I hate to see more sigificant figures than the application warrants.

It may also be helpful to show the range in terms of intervals of 10, so let the highest value on the axis be the first multiple of 10 greater than the values currently shown. This will also make it easier to compare the first graph with the one that alters dosing after water change.
Thanks!
 

Wet

Lifetime Members
Lifetime Member
Aug 25, 2006
395
0
16
USA
Thanks, and for all the recent hits! Please keep the ideas and requests coming!

shoggoth43,

From your description you're exactly who I'd like to test this, actually :) There are already calculators (AquaticPlantCentral.com's Fertilator, FertFriend, and Chuck Gadd's site) that do what you're looking for. The idea is you take the amount of your dose, use it as "Stuff", then use this new calculator. Too much trouble? What if you could go to those other pages from this new calculator?

jonny_ftm,

Thanks! Stand-alone application or flash is unlikely since I think our cell phones are the best pocket calculators ever, my particular phone cannot do Flash, and I like tiny web applications :) I'm not a developer and it could be neat to learn something slick (not Flash) that I could be more familiar with when we need to manipulate data sets for work stuffs, though. We use rrdtool for lots of stuff and I may switch to it on this calculator, which will make it a richer web application at the least...


Neil,

Thanks -- I figured red=bad and the drop checker colors would be logical to most of us.

Re increments and significant figures: done. Sorry that was so sloppy. 10ppm increments for large numbers, and the number of increments changes for small (< 10 ppm) and very small (< 1 ppm) maximum limits. What do you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
747
113
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.

Well, long term studies and test are rare in the hobby.
What we think we might see in 2-3 weeks may not be all of the story.

Example; luxury uptake of PO4.
Over a season where the PO4 supply is plentiful during say spring, then absent during summer, then the plant needs to flower during the fall, it can because it has all this excess PO4 available that is not avauilabel environmentally.

It's not a luxury then..........or during times of low/absence, just like us and out fat guts:)
Plants take took a lot of these got to flower later in the year, those that did not........well.......

For our systems, adapting to light, stable good CO2 and nutrients can take some tuime, but most are 3-6 weeks or less.

So it gets down to the issues:
1. Is maintaining a certain range important?
2. What is this range for each nutrient?
3. How does light intensity/duration influence these ranges?
4. How does CO2 influence these ranges?
5. How much risk is there if the range goes over or under these targets?
6. How much risk are we willing to accept?
7. How much correlation is there between testing and the actual results?

Quite a few basic questions.

Many that have poo pooed me over the years rarely bother to answer any of these or give hard data.
Once you lay down some data, then the issue can be tested and comapred.
Generally ........leading to a falsification.

Is there much difference with respect to PO4 being 10ppm vs 3ppm?
Is there a risk?

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Philosophos

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,346
0
36
As for what PO4 does for plants, I'm honestly not sure. I kind of wonder why the fluctuations happen, but my empirical evidence is lacking enough detail; I can't even measure what's going on with potassium at the same time.

Most of my useful observations have been more towards GSA since it's an already confirmed observation. I've found that 5ppm may reduce GSA growth better than the typical 1-3ppm people aim for, but the issue practically disappears at the ~10ppm range.

At some points of the year the tank I've observed the most gets a lot more sun through the window. Besides some BBA issues, I've noticed that the increased growth can bring GSA with it. Increasing dosing during these times has reduced it.

To me this answers the question as to why the "EI lite" thread suggests dosing PO4 in ranges somewhere in the 11ppm range. Sometimes even what's typically non-limiting can change.
 

jonny_ftm

Guru Class Expert
Mar 5, 2009
821
2
16
Really interesting. I never payed attention at the PO4 dosing in EI. As I started with PPMD, when I migrated to EI, I sticked with the rule of the approximative N/P = 5-10 and didn't pay attention at the PO4 dosing recommended in EI.
So, I always dosed about 2-3ppm PO4/week. Never had any trouble, no BBA issues since I optimized CO2 and no plants issues that can't be solved by playing on CO2/light ratios

Now I'm wondering if I really need to increase my dosing of PO4 by a 5x factor? My answer is no, as my tanks do well with only 5x less then recommended.

I also observed that even without dosing NO3, depending on tank maintenance, bioload, feeding... the NO3 can be enough without dosing under some conditions. On the other side, I never could increase my PO4 levels without dosing KH2PO4, even by increasing bioload and feeding. So, it could be that PO4 consumption seems more important than NO3 under high light only because NO3 comes by other sources than dosing while PO4 is poorly available in fish waste and food, so needs to be dosed. In low light, NO3 can be some times not dosed, while PO4 still needs to be dosed, by in much lower levels that EI in high light

That's also explains why any calculator or EI rule will be very bad to estimate NO3 residual levels. It will only estimate minimal residual level. But, for other nutrients, I find the calculator and EI residual levels near reality, both on minimal and maximum ranges
 
Last edited by a moderator: