Re: EI vs PPS
Yep.
I think there is some utility in testing for those that have not done it(testing that is so they at least know how and what occurs) but..............this can be done with EI or PPS(using test kits to gain experience).
They converge as mentioned.
I recently just did a 5 week run without a water change on many tanks.
I like my water changes better as a habit and the cleanliness.
As mentioned, I did an uprooting without the water change and as predicted, algae bloom.
So if you do a re work of the tank, the PPS method without the water change is a very bad idea and this issue was known some 10 years ago off the APD.
Any big reworks require a water change.
The use of test kits to add/not add nutrients for planted tanks is hardly new(many decades old in the hobby).
The use of adding KNO3 to drive down PO4 is hardly new(USENET and PMDD).
The use of a standard dosing solution is hardly new(Various companies and PMDD).
These things evolved slightly over time.
The suggestion of not testing and estimating the uptake based on a very high light tank was new. No one suggested that it could work even if many had been doing it all along (The Dutch, Amano, myself and other folks).
Cheaper and easier for most human habits.
Both work, I and many others in our local group agree that the water changes help vs not doing them. If you have higher fish loads/feeding etc, this also makes a difference.
And if you use the water changes to avoid testing, then it's EI.
That is the main tenent of EI.
Edward maintains there something special about maintaining the constant K+ level. Of all the macro nutrients, that one has the least impact on plant growth. I've run that nutrient all over the place for a very long time, I've never seen any issue other than deficiecy and even that is very typically rare except with newbies. I also have not seen anyone test the uptake rates of K+. It's been estimated as have the other nutrients folks seldom if ever test. I have a K+ meter and it's quite accurate to 0.5ppm K+, other test kits have a resolution of 10ppm between the scale.
Folks can try it, then decide which they prefer.
Still, the automatic water changers make everything easier if that is the goal.
Why some have such animosity to EI?
Well, because it was new. Many liked their habits and notions.
Sour grapes also. EI solved a great number of algae related issues also and made all the test/advice etc go out the window.
Mostly because they feel it's too much of guess and they have been conditioned to believe the hobby is some exact science that requires monitoring of all these parameters and that they will learn something through all the testing. So they fierecely defend their rational and find a another purpose for the method (no water changes/K+ dosing stable) Many do learn, then they come full circle and end up doing EI.
As far as work, water change + no testing vs no water changes (or less) + testing are the main issues.
I think some did not like the advice to do a water change unless something was inherently wrong(eg algae bloom).
And a well run tank that's in good shape can get away with fewer % and fewer water changes. There are folks in out local group that have gone years without water changes, they do pretty good. Some test, some don't.
Most everyone is in perfect agreement that at least some weekly water changes make the plants and tank look better in the group.
I use to be in that test group, but realized that EI was much cheaper, easier than testing and a heck of lot easier to give advice with to solve folk's growth related issues.
Try giving PPS type advice vs EI advice sometime to a newbie or solve an algae related problem.
PPS could not solve most of the algae related issues for many folks, I helped out by pointing out the CO2 issue was the reason, not the lack of water changes. That was a key point.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Regards,
Tom Barr