laka;31638 said:
I just finished reading the sticky on EI dosing in solution. As usual highly informative.
Personally dosing in liquid form daily is much more to my liking than dry dosing every 2nd day, or was it every 3rd or....
Precisely.
Some are worse at that than others.
But if you miss a day, no big deal either.
Some find it easier to do a daily thing, others are worried, they like to leave for the weekend etc. Whatever gets you to dose a consistent manner.
That's a human issue however.
Same with making stock solutions, many are scare of that, that'swhy EI used teaspoons, something that was more familar and did not require scales etc.
The goal is to get folks ino the hobby, not scare them away with Chem lab
and be cheap and DIY.
Anyway, guess what. Did you know that EI solution daily dosing is 2.5*PPS PRO daily dosing?? with a little extra PO4 added, and weekly water changes 50%.
LAKA
EI is PMDD + PO4 done without test kits and dosed 3x a week instead of daily in dry powder form. Liquids have a long history of dosing use. Way before Ed ever posted a thing.
PMDD + PO4 is PPS, something I have been quite nasty towards Edward about for some time. He's never given any credit to PMDD, check out the dosing and the routine and concentrations off the Krib.
Plants use the same things, only the rates changes.
So the methods are typically all going to be rather similar.
Just dose more ...less etc.
There's never been advice not to do daily or liquids with EI either.
Or that it cannnot be reduced of increased, this is just a starting point target that covers all the bases for nutrients. You can and should adjust from there.
Just running the EI routine lean, we use to call this West Coast lean as some folks with lower light here used less to account for less light that my tanks.
Common sense. They had dosed liquids and PMDD prior and simply added SeaChem Eq and PO4 that Steve and I had developed to add to PMDD.
This was in 1996 or so. Quite a few years and widely available on line to anyone owning a computer. We detailed out the process and the method and the history behind it. Ed never has.
I guess he just came up with it all without any back ground searching?
Ya huh...........sure.
Then bad mouths that same methods he never looked at as well?
Come on.
This goes beyond "which method is best BS" and is really an ethics and infringement of other folk's work and credit. I have no issues debating the merits of various dosing routines and concentrations relative to light and CO2. However, it becomes personal when folks steal from others, calling this their own.
That does not help the hobby.
Even the calibration and the use of good test kits and methods was a decade prior to PPS. Who came up with that? Not anyone associated with PPS.
Why not check out the history and look at PMDD and check those dosing routines and methods?
Then you'll know.
Simply going daily with liquids and cutting it leaner does not imply your own method. Nor does it imply that richer methods are worse either.
There is no evidence that they are, it's just more non limiting.
Look at PMDD here:
Practical PMDD Information
Then you can run the similar comparison and see what you think. There was a history associated with other methods, why specifically they had issues or not.
And some of the things that are said in PMDD have been falisifed resoundly since 1995. Things like excess nutrients and PO4. Almost entirely by myself.
PPS is rehash PMDD.
Some of the same claims against EI that PPS crowd had where the same old myths I addressed and showed to be false back then.
Some apparently have no idea how to do back ground research
But ....used the same background research to make a case for "their" "new" method.
Go figure.
Read up on that, see what you think. It is very widel available, any google or Yahoo search would have pulled it with Aquatic plants.
This is not PPS's idea, even EI's dilution math is there as an infinite series near the end of the article, that's not my idea either. I do not try to make myself look like I developed it etc either. I give folks credit for something I took and applied.
Many folks think because they failed at richer ppm's of nutrients, that it must be the nutrients fault. They fail for many possible reasons, mostly light and CO2 errors.
You will read ad nauseum about nutrients ppmm's, testing etc, but you will not read much if anything about measuring light or CO2 with the same vigor.
You will not read about the rates of growth and how this applies to light, CO2 and nutrients. You will not read about how to test for other locations of sediment based nutrients, only the water column.
These are things that are important, not tunnel vision and seeing the bigger picture. If you think something is true, and what someone else said is false, then set up a test to see.
Make sure you did not over look something.
Then if what PPS claims that excess PO4 = algae, or too much ppm's of whatever = stunted tips, poor fish health etc, and you add it and do not see this result.......you have question whether it's true, so you do it a few more times, and then you know it cannot be true, at least for the reason claimed........
Then you move on to the next most likely suspect or suggest why they had issues and you did not etc. You do not do this:
"here's our conclusion, let's see what facts we can find to support it"
I look first, observe and see what I can test or do to see if the result will potentially verify or falsify the hypothesis............then I see if I can make some logical reasonable common sense conclusions if I am lucky.
If everyone else was saying excess PO4 = algae and I could test that was false, well..........I'm not going to say and assume they are all right and I must be wrong.
The results suggest otherwise.
Same deal with EI. If your goal is fewer water changes and lower nutrients, then use less light, consider non CO2 or Excel etc. These are also better suited for folks concerned about Ecology and using less resources, electrical/light and CO2 are two huge resources, why all the focus on nutrients?
That's BS logic
Do not fall for it.
Regards,
Tom Barr
