dazzer1975;11846 said:
So, anyone have experience of using this dosing regime?
Yes.
Several memebrs did this about 10 years ago in our club.
Some of the most observant hobbyists I've yet to meet still to this date.
Myself and them as well came to the conclusion, as has Oliver Knott, CAU, Amano, Jeff and Mike Senske that large frequent water changes are essential for good conditions for fish and plants.
But if you wanna listen to Edward talk and buy into to all that, go for it.
The more I read about it the better it seems, and I have also read a few posts where basically Edward has been suggesting E.I. can actually be problematic when trying to counter certain problems.
Such as?
I've not found any issues with even the most finicky of plants, of which I can illustrate excellent helth and detail out a wide range of tap water conditions that the plants will do very well in.
He loves to suggest his method is better than everyone else's, but beyond that, I think ragging on another's method rather than understanding it and the goals/trade offs is simply a poor argument.
What are the other dosing regimes out there, seems to me, there are essentially 4:
E.I.
P.P.S.
Dosing in accordance to what the plants tell you
Dosing in accordance to a complete product line, i.e. ada or seachem etc
Are there any more options in terms of dosing regimes out there?
Yes, non CO2, Excel, Non carbon enrichment, low light, med light high light, substrate fertilization, something Edward rails against.
My older version of list of levels and parameters, it's about 10 years old now, basically EI, with testing. PPS with water changes: EI.
PPS with water changes and testing: List of levels and parameters.
No water changes: folks doing non carbon enrichment knew this at least a decade ago, personally I knew it about 20 years ago.
The product line up is out for me due to cost, but I also have to say that, while I am certainly no chemist, the dry powders, being the raw nutrients required, cant be beaten in any case? I mean, anything other contained within those products that the plants dont need are superfluous, and lets face it, the plants cant see the fancy packaging.
I've strongly argued this to be the case.
Some folks less knowing and certainly having not done much homework on the topics put forth by various companies seem to believe that these relative (to large agricultural corporations and farming research, 30 billion$ in CA alone per year) dinky fish hobby companies are going to hone in on some secret that's not already known in the agricultural field.
Not very likely.
Hormones, amino acids, tannic extracts and so forth, various chelators for cations etc.
None of these things are particularly research the hobby companies have done, they are taking research from something else and trying to use that for support.
Not research of their own,.
Of all the companies with the largest stake in such research, Topica, Oriental Aquarium are the two largest. They are the only ones that really do much there. FAN in the USA to some degree also, mainly with Tissue culture methods........not aquariums.
Few horticultural hobby companies grow plants in CO2 submersed tanks.
So there is little consideration given.
But we hear every 6-18 months about some new "miracle growth accelerator". increases your sword plant's growth by 50%" yada yada.......
None of this stuff works.
The molecular DNA based amplification methods for increasing growth/crop production also have interwoven limitations within the whole plant.
Plants grow for defind reasons, stick with those and let the fruity nerdy researchers mess with the other stuff.
I could make 10 solutions that I could chargeb 19.99$ for a bottle and make them sound all nice and furry and there would be a slight impact on the plants and some folks would swear it cures cancer.
But that is not the angle I do in this hobby.
I am not keen on BS and nor BSing the hobbyists.
It's a diservice to this hobby.
reading the plants comes with time and experience, I am starting to pick up on it, however, I am not dosing in accordance to what I see, with the exception of potassium or calcium defficiencies in which case I just top up alongside the e.i. dosing.
Sounds good, you'll get it and figure it out soon enough.
E.I. is basically a sledge hammer approach and while is extremely easy to follow, and may well produce favourable results, can cause problems with lifestock
That's a lie. I've tested it, and I've gone way beyond the limits of EI thatb I suggest.
160ppm was the breaking point for NO3
100+ ppm for K
10ppm for PO4
200mls of Flourish in 20 gallon tank for a week
GH: 24 degrees for several years
Note: no fish str4esses where evr observed, Discus, rare wild softwater fish, common fish, ottos/cardinals, shrimps did die at 160 ppm and above at 3 day exposure.
Now ask Edward for specific data rather than political BS spin talk.
If he has hard factual data, have him pony it up, but every time I ask, he never answers.......funny how that works.
When folks talk crap about other methods, they need to have actually tested it prior to bad mouthing it.
Sledge hammer?
Are you taking Edward's talking spin points?
and for me, is starting to bother me regarding the subtlety, or rather, lack of, with this approach
P.P.S. looks to be the answer we have all been looking for?
Now you sound like Edward, not a newbie.
How is a range of 10-20ppm of NO3 a sledge hammer?
Math does not lie. Nor does algae and observations of the plants.
EI has a very straight forward simple mathmatical formula.
PPS relies on test kits.
Test kits, poorly calibrated ones at that, many aquarist don't calibrate them also.They just believe what someone else says about them rather than calibrating them themselves.
I'm much less inclined to put so much faith into a test kit and PPS when Edward is not very rigorous about measurement of CO2.
Now gicven that N is 1.5 % of the biomass of a plant and C is 45%, I think it makes far more sense to test for CO2 in a rgorous manner than PPS and all the time that method waste and micro management issues.
Folks chase their tail, when they should be growing plants and focusing on
CO2.
What are your experiences and opinions on any and all of the above dosing regimes and are there any more dosing regimes out there that people have used?
Rather than asking, try it and see.
The proof is in the pudding.
State the lighting, tank size and I'll suggest something, then you can try PPS.
Then you can decide.
Regards,
Tom Barr