Dosing chart question! HHEEEELLPPPPPP!

[Qualityguppies]

I was planning on using this chart.
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/2819-EI-light-for-those-less-techy-folks

I got my ferts from http://www.aquariumfertilizer.com/index.asp?Option1=cats&Edit=2&EditU=1&Regit=2.

My question is are the recommend daily doses on the cart for use with dry or wet ferts.

For example would it be 1/4 of Dry powder of Mono potassium Nitrate or 1/4 of wet Potassium nitrate solution?

I know that my CSM+B Plantex has to be added to water but are the other doses set for use of dry or wet premixed solutions?

 

[Philosophos]

It's all dry dose. Wet dosing really depends on your concentration, usually involves combining a couple of compounds and gets measured in ml.

As it stands, I exist to spread propaganda about the advantages of wet dosing; it's worth looking into

 

[csmith]

:

As it stands, I exist to spread propaganda about the advantages of wet dosing; it's worth looking into

Care to go into more detail?

 

[JDowns]

I can't think of one advantage of dosing wet over dry, accept for smaller tanks when you start getting into "pinches". Otherwise a quarter teaspoon of "x" either dilluted in a premix or dosed dry is going to accomplish the same thing.

 

[Biollante]

Squeamish!

Hi All,

Reason people 'wet' dose.

Ease of dosing, especially smaller tanks.

Some of us are a little squeamish about some of our stupider critters ingesting the salts directly, this would be me, though I have no evidence this is a problem. When I have dosed dry, I have never experienced a problem.

Some folks, I think Dan would be one of these, like the sense of increased precision and control.

Things such as Calcium chloride that react (in this case exothermically).

So, generally JDowns, is probably right.

Biollante

 

[Tug]

I thought (there I go again) I should emphasize this one more time. All the chemicals recommended for EI are dosed dry, Plantex CSM+B included. In the thread "EI light" the dose for plantex is given in both dry dosing (tsp) and stock solutions (mL). They both provide the same amount of trace.

I have a ten gallon and twenty gallon tank and have a fear of small teaspoon measurements. I also like the ability to adjust the EI doses to meet my individual circumstances using premixes. But, the ability to control things can and did provide a false sense of security. In my case, I am just now realizing how easy it is to dose less then the recommended EI amounts with premixed solutions. This is not a problem I would have run into with dry dosing. It's hard to under dose a 1/32 tsp measurement.

 

[Biollante]

0.15625

Hi Tug,

Well instead of 1/32 teaspoon you could just dose 0.15625 grams.

Biollante

 

[shoggoth43]

Is that a heaping 0.15625 grams or just a flat measurement?

-
S

 

[Tug]

Mudlarking, or digging in the marly muck for clams with our bare feet.

That is true Biollante, but it is harder to over think a teaspoon measurement (at least that's what I thought until now). The EI method and a dry powder measured from a teaspoon, is a strait forward KISS. On the other hand, making stock solutions taught me to understand a little about fertilizer. Enough to be dangerous. Anyway, when talking about food and nutrition I am reminded of what my Italian Auntie would say, " What doesn't kill you makes you fatter."

 

[Tom Barr]

I still make a stock solution of Traces, old habit, but not required.

Whatever gets the stuff in the tank I reckon.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Philosophos]

Wow, one day missed and one sentence got this thread rolling.

I have no doubt you can keep a tank using dry or wet dosing; there's tons of evidence for both working. There are a number of reasons that I opt for wet though.

The first is accuracy. I find wet dosing makes it easier to keep better storage and contamination habits, so the compounds I'm working from tend to contain less moisture than keeping a bag out that's constantly opened. I've also found dosing by volume leaves about a +/- 15% deviance in accuracy, which isn't so great when you're dosing to .5 or 1ppm of something. Accuracy can be thrown off even farther by one localized clump for that matter, so your sample group isn't so hot when dosing is by the 32nd of a teaspoon.

Now even if that level of control were to some how only be as good as dry dosing, or a negligible difference, I'd still wet dose. Liquid stock solutions, once you've got practice mixing them, will save you time over the course of a month or year. I mix for 2 hours including cleaning everything I use to mix the fertilizers, and even one macro and micro bottle (I usually do far more) will last me a month or more. Dosing is reduced from about 5 minutes of scooping and mixing down to maybe 10 seconds; even a minute if you want to be cynical. If I have 5 minutes to dose a tank before I have to do something else, and I can do it in 1 minute, I have 4 minutes of uninterrupted observation time that I didn't before. I'm also more motivated to dose when it's that much easier to do.

As a final reason, I'd say reduced fertilizer use is a plus. I don't need to dose 15% more to assure that I'm not shorting anything. Even with the cost of deionized water, this saves me money. Being that I don't have a lawn to water right now I also can't always recycle 100% of the water that I use, so it's 15% less fert waste going down the drain.

Some folks, I think Dan would be one of these, like the sense of increased precision and control.

Feel free to let me know how reducing uncontrolled variables doesn't improve controls any time you like.

 

[Biollante]

No More Caffeine For Dan!

Hi All,

No more caffeine for Dan!

Indeed, I do feel free to let you know what I think; I simply do not accept your premise. :gw

First, I am solidly a stock solution evil plant monster, my “0.03125 gram” comment to Tug was of course a jest, and it is intended to highlight the dosing dilemma, especially when it comes to small amounts.
Second, I think you did a pretty good job of making my point, in your third paragraph when you talk about the plus or minus 15 percent deviance. I also agree with your fourth paragraph.
Third, my comment was not a “put-down,” and I rather admire your talent for fancy figuring!
​

To the degree that I disagree, it is with your fifth paragraph and my disagreement is more philosophical (which you ought to appreciate) than anything else. There is a graph Tom Barr uses, I have seen it a number of times, I am not sure the source:

[attachment=532:name]

Dan to me you are a “C” person, nothing wrong with it, as I said I am impressed by your ability to calculate so closely.

I am a “D” evil plant monster, a solidly middle of the “D” evil plant monster. While I find the stated reasons laudable, ultimately due to inherent inaccuracies, inconsistencies and what we used to refer to as “real world” conditions, I find the calculations cut to close for us average hobbyists. Generally, anything that takes us past two significant digits is unworkable.

Ultimately being a “C” type or “D” type can and will be successful, I believe, “real world” the “D” type is more sustainable.

I understand the sense of control I just do not think it is real. Since the reason for the control, at least my reason is the benefit of the flora and fauna in my care. Some times real control is letting go, if you really want to be bored I will tell you a story about "control" from my misspent youth pilot days...:gw

Biollante