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?
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.
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.
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.