EI question

[laka]

This is what Tom quotes as daily estimates of nutrient uptake in his article:

"Some Typical uptake rates at high light and CO2 levels per day (24 hours):



NO31-4ppmNH4
0.1-0.6ppm(do not dose NH4!It will cause algae)PO40.2-0.6ppm

These rates do not assume that you will show deficiencies if you dose less than this, but adding more than these rates will not help further plant health."

Easy enough

Now this is what Edward states his PPS-Pro system adds daily into a planted tank:

"I basically got what Edward says that each dose adds.

This is what I got: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Edward says:
NO3 is dosed at 1.05 ppm per day - - - - - - - NO3 is dosed at 1.00 ppm per day
K is dosed at 1.41 ppm per day - - - - - - - - -K is dosed at 1.33 ppm per day
PO4 is dosed at 0.11 ppm per day - - - - - - - PO4 is dosed at 0.10 ppm per day
Mg is dosed at 0.11 ppm per day- - - - - - -"


So what am i missing out on here guys?
I always thought black is black and white is white.

If as Tom says adding more than the recommended daily levels of ferts will not help with any additional plant growth in a high light/CO2 environment then where lies his criticism of PPS-Pro?

It does not make sense to me.

LAKA

 

[Tom Barr]

Has he has grown 300 species of plants?
Also, he's adding enough for what amount of light?

We do not know really, he does not use a PAR meter.
How much CO2?

We do not know that either because he cannot accurately measure that and appears to have not done so for quite some years. Seems recently he's finally gotten around to it, maybe not, I do not go to APC nor care to. Many of the PPS tanks listed on the APC forum where infested with various species of algae, namely BBA back about 2 years ago

Instead of pinpointing the root cause, Edward seem to assume that it was nutrient related. He was wrong.

He seems to think he still right that it is nutrient related with recent post about CO2 being too high at 30ppm. That's clearly wrong as well. And I can and have proven it.

If you limit PO4, and in this case it's about .1ppm or less per day, way below the uptake rate, how do you think that influences CO2 demand/plant growth?

It slows it way down.
So less CO2 is required.
Plants will regulate the by means of the most limiting nutrient by down regulating uptake of other nutrients. This is very old concept yet he seems to act like it's something "new" or "advanced" that he's figured out.

However, it's not a nutrient effect, it's still a CO2 effect for the BBA problem.
Limiting a nutrient merely slows growth down, it does not show cause for the algae, BBA.

Never did and I can and have proved this as have 1000's of folks that dose PO4 more liberally.

This is nothing new either, Paul Sears/Kevin Conlin also suggested PO4 limitation, about 12 years prior to Edward's new "Pro", but Edward acts like this is something "new".

It's not, anyone can read the PMDD article.
PPS Pro is not much different than PMDD.

What does PMDD suggest?
KNO3
K2SO4
Traces

Assumes 0.2ppm or less of PO4 from fish waste or Paul has stated to add a little, he's never said to keep it at zero ppm.

This method also suggested 15ppm of CO2.
Just like Edwards "new" research/idea/pps Pro.

Same thing.

Read here if you have doubts to this Baloney:
Control of Algae in Planted Aquaria

And a good run down:
Practical PMDD Information

And you'll note the cumulative build up effects, much like the graphes for EI's rational for targeting a range.

They also are very clear about fish and tap water concerns with respect to NO3 and PO4.

The light is also much less than today's standards.
Both case study tanks had 2w/gal at most.

Adding some inorganic PO4 to that, and it's about like Edward's "new" formula.

I added more PO4, about 10-20X more and never got algae.
The trade off was faster growth and since the nutrients where no longer limiting, now I needed to add more CO2, that's a logically and obvious effect.

How would I know this and be able to explain this?
I and perhaps 100's 1000's of folks did it back in the mid to late 1990's. I blew apart the argument that algae was limited by PO4, however, the focus on plant growth remained, adding KNO3/PO4/Traces/more CO2 etc where not my ideas and I do not lay claim to them. That is other folk's work.
I tested it and argued in support. That's all.

I have no issues, nor do others that use EI or modified versions thereof, with algae, plant growth etc. I grow any and every species very well.
I have no issues with long term health or behavior of any fish.

Nice scapes are done etc.
Same with using his supposed co-opted PMDD rehash.
Same with even leaner versions. Same with sediment rich approaches.

Look at ADA's nutrient levels.
Similar for PO4/CO2 but much higher for NO3.
However, there is no way to attain those CO2 levels with the pH/KH levels stated.

Thus the CO2 is highly questionable, most folk's CO2 ppms are.
If anything, errors in KH will slant things towards the higher ranges, NEVER to the lower end. I've yet to see any chemical that can cause that effect.

Plants can handle a wide range of NO3/PO4 etc, they have to in the real world, however they also down regulate other pathways to match that limitation.

That is what is occuring here, not black is black, white is white.
The world is more flexible than that and general shades of grey.

Get use to it.

I have not described non CO2 methods here either, many of the arguments Edward used in bickering with me about how terrible EI was, he never acknowledged. You can reduce these nutrient levels down even farther using CO2 limitation as well, and light limitation is even a better idea, but he's got a few years to go till he figures this out after everyone else tells him about
Of course it'll be his new formula that's the best, PPS Pro version 1.5 or something like that.

I already know what modulates growth in aquatic plants, I have for a very long time. I can explain it, new folks, bull dogged by marketing, my method is best attitudes really do not get a fair idea what method is best for their goals.
PPS use to be about a fair amount of micromangement and testing to maintain and certain range, now it's been modified after that did not attract many folks' support. Now water changes are considered/suggested to avoid that(Same as modifed EI ) , about two years after I suggested it and was a sticking point that he suggested was a bad trade off vs testing a lot.

Right...........

I know folks that BS when I see it.
You put a new wrapper on PMDD, tweak it tad, it's still PMDD, with or without water changes and testing.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Tom Barr]

BTW, here is a more conservative article I wrote with some pooled data and observations from the original SFBAAPS memebrs around 1996:
References

Compare this/these ranges with PMDD and with his "new method".

I've got about 10-15 years jump in the knowledge and experience gap and he don't like me because of it. No one likes it when to take their fire. However, I am trying to help folks and have them think for themselves, not believe some BS or go down those paths that led to many poor assumptions.

Folks will have issues no matter what, that's a fact, some will have it easier, some will not, but that does not mean the method is bad, the methods work, we are the ones that fail.

The trade offs for each method not be worth while to you or in general, but those trade offs should be discussed fairly and see what can be done to address them.

I've spent the time to understand and force each method to work to a high level.
I understand it that way and can offer advice about each method.



Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[laka]

I have taken aspects of both methods and married the two into one.

I am not comfortable with the CO2 levels that PPS uses. I feel it is way too low so have kept my CO2 levels at between 20-25ppm. (I tried 30 but angelfish stressed and yes i did have ample surface agitation. My CO2 is only on with lights.)
I agree this is probably the main reason for algae issues in PPS as well.

PO4 levels of 0.1ppm daily i also felt is rate limiting so i dose double the amount daily. This allows the ferts to all fall within your said daily parameters albeit at the lower end for PO4-being 0.2ppm daily.

EI requires regular water changes of 50% PREFERABLY ON A WEEKLY BASIS. As i stated on a previous post i have a 180g tank in my living room. I am not keen on automated plumbing as you suggested .
This tank used to be a cichlid tank and i religiuosly did 75% water changes weekly for 10 years! I've simply had eough.

I like PPS because with the leaner nutrients i should be able to get away with say 30% monthly water changes-light fish load.

If the above protocol of high light and moderatley high CO2 together with leaner nutrients dosed daily can give me good plant growth and no algae issues with monthly water changes , whom am i to complain?
I am more than happy with a 75% growth rate as opposed to a 100% growth rate that EI strives for.

Do you feel this modified approach will work? I have only been using it for one week after switching from EI . Any criticisms?

LAKA
LAKA

 

[Frolicsome_Flora]

I have taken aspects of both methods and married the two into one.

I am not comfortable with the CO2 levels that PPS uses. I feel it is way too low so have kept my CO2 levels at between 20-25ppm. (I tried 30 but angelfish stressed and yes i did have ample surface agitation. My CO2 is only on with lights.)
I agree this is probably the main reason for algae issues in PPS as well.

LAKA

Bear in mind that you can be nothing like that accurate in determining your co2, the best your going to get is within 5-20. Even with a drop checker its not really possible to determine better than that without any kind of serious test equipment.

EI requires regular water changes of 50% PREFERABLY ON A WEEKLY BASIS. As i stated on a previous post i have a 180g tank in my living room. I am not keen on automated plumbing as you suggested .
This tank used to be a cichlid tank and i religiuosly did 75% water changes weekly for 10 years! I've simply had eough.
LAKA

If your after a low maintenance tank, why dont you consider doing a non co2 setup? If your not going to want to do alot of water changes then your probably going to run into issues.. a large and extremely important part of EI is water changes.

Flora

 

[VaughnH]

The first step in low maintenance is less than "high light". The next step is to set up for water changes so they involve a minimum of work - either a very good Python type set up, or permanent plumbing. But, light is the determining factor for the maintenance needed. High light either means lots of pruning and fertilizing, or it means algae problems. (The opinions expressed are mine, and many may find reason to disagree!)

 

[laka]

I don't want a non CO2 set up because i have metal halide lights and i love the look of them. I have no issues with pruning and fertilizing the tank.
Yes you would run into problems if weekly water changes were not done with EI but i am not using EI doses.
I agree CO2 levels even with my drop checker are not that accurate so my CO2 levels are between 10-20ppm. I aim for 1bps/100litres of water so i have 5bps and pH drops from 7.1-6.3. I do not know what this equates to with CO2 levels but everything seems to be growing very well at the moment.

LAKA

 

[Tom Barr]

I do not think a non CO2 tank can be done well without an automated type, or a semi automated type water changer.

I've seen the dramatic results Alan has had over many years with his automated tanks and he has a 185 gal, has 3 Fire eels, the largest I've seen, about the size of a large man's arm each, a dozen other massive fish, he feeds them a great deal.

He tried every thing to get rid of algae and other issues.
Could not do it.

His Java ferns look gorgeous now.
Healthy growth, fish health and activity are way up.

This is not just for convenience, if you really care about livestock and you have high density, you do water changes, that's that way it's done.

Live with less density, or live with more water changes.

Water changes need not be entirely automated, a simple hard plumb drain and refill valve are all that is required. I've plumbed some posh offices with that type of set up so the clients can just turn and drain and fill a tank inside 30minutes on a tank this size.

Unless you are uncomfortable with bulks head and basic plumbing, this should not be a problem and is worth while.

Large fish are messier than heck, a good way to resolve that is to clean it.
Water changes are the best way.

The lowered PO4 rate is what allows the flex for the CO2 with Edward's supposedly "new approach". That slows the growth down.

If the fish seem stressed, try some decent surface movement.
All my tanks have good movement, not quite a rippling, not air breaking the surface etc.

I can add more CO2 easy enough. And with more current, the fish eat better, and the plants look better, tank is cleaner etc.

BTW, eI has never required much of anything, it's mighty flexible, weekly water change is just a simple starting point for new folks and to make the math for the build up easier.

I've often gone 2-3-4 weeks.
But..........the tanks always look better if you do the water change weekly, even the best most critical folks in this hobby I've ever met, will attest to that.
Edward ain't one of them either.

Amano, Jeff Senske, Jeff Kropp, David Oliver, myself, CAU, everyone.......
Can we do less?
Sure, do we?
No.

You can use the PPS pro if you wish, but there's nothing says you cannot run EI lean either, many do, say 50%, 25, % etc of the normal dosing.

It's only if you really want to explore the leaner side of PO4 that PPS Pro might be an issue that might be better, however, simply deleting some of the KH2PO4 is simple also from EI.

Anyone can toss together a mix and call it their "own" but it needs to flexible enough to work for everyone, EI generally suggest dry dosing so you can change and alter things without having to remix of make new solutions up.

You can vary KH2PO4, or KNO3, or whatever you want, your tap might have PO4, so you might not need to bother adding or wasting that.

I've never said much about anything ever being "required" for EI.
Edward like to make that assumption which is horse manure.
You can use it however you want. Obviously the farther away you get from the weekly frequency and the smaller % you do, the less accuracy you will have.

It just what some folks assumed on their own and limited their own thought process, not the methods.

I think you'd be better off making a hard plumbed line to do the basic water change. Hire a plumber etc if you are not easy about doing it, the 200$ or so will be well spent. It's an extremely simple solution that benefits all involved.

If you bother with a tank and care about the fish, the plants, have a 180 gallon tank if your home, this is small price to pay and not a lot of effort to solve things and never touch and water change device other than a turn of a ball valve again.

None of my clients have anything different and they have places I cannot spill anything. The room is worth more than I am

You do fast and quick when you are there.
I'm serious, this is a very simple solution.
After 3 months, I'd have enough on a 180 gal tank.


I think if your interested in less growth/algae, try less light.
Best bet.
Leaner N and P.

Just add TMG, K2SO4, perhaps GH booster, 2x a week, use 2w/gal max, 10hours at most(try 9 also), run CO2 good, add N and P at about 1/4 + 1/16th teaspoon 2x a week. That ought to hold things pretty well.

I still think you ought to just put hard plumbed drain/fill valves in, there's no sense in having a large tank without that set up in mind and installed.

Regards,
Tom Barr