So, anyone have experience of using this dosing regime?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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?

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?

PPS is just another dosing method, but one that depends on testing for all of the nutrients and trying to bring them up using premixed concentrated fertilizers in water. Two problems: One is the obvious one - you need to calibrate all of your test kits to do this meaningfully. Another is that Edward makes some assumptions which have not been proven to be correct. But, people do use versions of PPS successfully.

What problems would those be?

Taken from APC PPS Discussion Thread - Page 5 - Aquatic Plant Central- aquascaping...a living art last post on page 5

One major difference that I see in what APC practitioners recomend vs. classical EI is that they see the index as indicating minimum values and have escalated ppm recomendations. Tom Barr for example, can often be observed claiming that much higher ppm values will not have detrimental effects. This implies that excess is preferable to shortage. While these concentrations may not often produce noticable algae problems I have observed that they can be quite detrimental to the health of fish.

My personal husbandry practice has backed off of daily supplementation and now includes a rest day. It is as follows: 1st day - 1/4 tsp KNO3 + 1/4 tsp enema, 2nd day - 10 ml TMG, 3rd day - rest, repeat previous 3 day cycle, then on day seven do a 10 gal. WC with 1/4 tsp Epsom salt, 1/4 tsp CaCO3 and 10 ml TMG. Tank size is 60 gal with 190 watts of light for 10 hours. Fish health has improved.

also
Yes, also better for the fish, they are healthier and live longer.
written by Edward in this thread:

50 ppm Ca and still Ca deficiency - Aquatic Plant Central- aquascaping...a living art

Anyway, apart from that, I would like a mature adult discussion regarding my first post, not who can piss higher tom or edward or anyone else, all I want to do is maximise my plant growing capabilities.

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.


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.


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.


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.


Sounds good, you'll get it and figure it out soon enough.


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?


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.


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

Or perhaps it's the odor ? I am acheiving my best results so far using EI...But I've only been keeping planted aquaria for a little over 39 years ? Something new may come along ? Again !!!

Excellent, thanks for that, I have always preferred the idea of water changes anyway regardles of fertilisation issues as the build of compounds (not a scientist maybe thats the wrong term? will just increase as the water gets topped up through evaporation as opposed to doing the water changes)

I am certainly not into allegiences and taking sides, all I know is that there is a wealth of information out there, and being a newbie and someone who does not and probably will never understand the detailed chemical processes at work, I just have to try and find my way through all the info out there.


Which is why I have posted this here as well as other forums, I wanted to garner a wide range of information and experiences regarding my post, and as much as I perhaps could have worded my original post better, I certainly do not want to "rag" on any person, over another, I simply want to know what techniques etc are out there and to try and make sure, if not already, I am on a decent path to getting my tank where I want it.


Ah yes, I meant in accordance with high tech principles, I know of low tech approaches and do appeal to me, however, I have yet to actually try it out and have read many of your posts (the ones I can try and get my head around LOL) and see and understand how light and its intenisty is the driving force behind any nutrient/co2 uptakes etc. Trust me, I am not a disciple of anyone, Edward in particular, I have recently come across this p.p.s. method and wanted opinions, thats all.


That is precisely what I thought re these new fancy ferts coming on the market, when the dry powders, to my mind at least, are all anyone would need?

even tropica, from what I understand of their set up in Holland, grow predominantly emmersed "hydroponic style", of course though, as with many things, I could be wrong


I absolutely believe that to be the case.


Now, take this any way you want to, but I have been reading tonight an exchange between you and Edward over on apc, old thread obviously, but, while my cynicism shines through at every opportunity, I did note and take on board your constant references to the "hobbyist" and whether they can afford all the testing equipment, spend time meassing about etc etc, so that message does and has gotten through about where your motivations lie.


Indeed

LMAO of course not, however I use the term to illustrate how e.i. is simply an easy unsophisticaed way to maintain a planted tank. Indeed, that is what you have said yourself, albeit maybe not by referring to it as a sledgehammer LOL


I understand the points regarding test kit calibration, and also the fact, regardles of calibration, that home test kits, just arent as accurate as perhaps they should/could be.


Considering I have spent probably around 3-400 pounds in setting up my pressurised co2 system (including all ancillory fittings and controller etc) then trust me, I am just as interested in establishing co2 levels as most people


I would, but I am a home hobbyist, running one planted tank which has recently been "redone" with new substrate and lots of new plants and am following the e.i. method, I perhaps should have asked these questions beforehand, but life gets in the way and you stick to what you know while hopefully, taking the opportunity to learn some more at the same time.


First off, thanks for the reply, much appreciated.

Here is my tank details.

40 uk gallon, 36-37 gallon of water owing to displacement.

36" length x 21" high x 16" wide

Aquasoil amazonia and powersand m

arcadia 4 tube luminaire 39 watt t5 tubes, 2x arcadia plant gro, 2x 6500k daylight giving total of 156 watts, working out over 37 u.k. gallons as 4.2 wpg, but the lights are probably 22-24" from surface of substrate

pressurised co2 diffused through ceramic/glass diffusor underneath filter outlet to create co2 mist, levels (given inherent inaccuracies of kh/ph/co2 relationship) comes out at 66ppm.

No lifestock in yet, newly set up with aqua soil so ammonia and nitrites still present.

Dosing every other day nitrate, alternate days trace mixture phosphorous comes from tap at 5ppm and lasts all week before water change replenishes levels at which point I also throw in some magnesium, as my traces contain boron instead of magnesium

Think that covers it?

And this last week (tank been running for 3 weeks now) a bright green filamentous hair algae has started up in tank, growing on back wall, and java ferns and anubias

And p.s. my HC has all but died.

water params today after 5 hours of lighting are:

Nitrate 20ppm
gh 280ppm
kh 40ppm
p.h. 6.0
Phosphate 0.25ppm (water change tomorrow)
calcium 100ppm
magnesium 7.3ppm

Good, you did not scare off


I think many are enamoured with the idea they can balance a system, adding only what is needed and removing plants as the export.

If this is your goal, then a non Carbon enrichment/(no excel/no CO2) is the perfect thing for you.

That method examplifies what is a balanced tank. Chasing each nutrient, buying a battery of test kits, calibrating each test kit peroidically(test kits get old and expire, your eyes get funny when seeign colors etc month to month etc, ask 5 folks what happened at a auto accident and you will get 5 different stories, point is: do not trust your eyes too much)


I know that gripe all too well myself
It's why I do what I do today actually.
I had several methods to help folks with in the past, I've reduced them down to the essentials, the simplest method will often be the best.

If you desire to know "why" that is a much more detailed explaination and requires a lot more work, understanding and thought, the "how"? That's easy.


Yep, I know where you are coming from and know what was said or you may have thought upon reading various opinions. A lot more folks do EI than PPS for many reasons. EI is in a dozen languages all of the over world with good reason.

Amano, and the rest of the folks all do a flush and dosing method.
A few try the balancing method, this is not the ownership of Edward, he likes to think and act like he came with everything all on his own, that is niot the case, many folks have done similar things all a long, probably before either he and I where born. EI is not particularly new, it's just extending the concept of making a calibrated solution but instead of doing 100% water change, you do a 50% or some fraction thereof.

Add some math to get a model of the range the routine produices and you have it.

Simple, easy and water changes are just the single best habit any hobbyists can acquire no matter what they are doing, especially for a newbie.


I would encourage you to try a few methods after you get comfy.
Non CO2 is really quite rewarding.

Is that PPS without testing(or you can if you want)?
Based on what Edward said, I argued it was, and then PPS is certainly not Ed's system That method goes back to at least the 1940's and much farther depending on where you draw the fully planted, scaped tank.

I really don't care if anyone follows me, I want them to use their own eyes, common sense, learn and make good assumptions and not be taken in by BS spin.

PPS has some things to offer, but some have added BS with it. There's no need for that, but in order to popularize a lot of testing, calibrating, micromanaging and a rather complicated way to keeping aquatic plants by any measure compared to every other method out there, I suppose that was what Edward felt was required. That's his own choice.


Yes, PMDD did this long before I sugegsted eI.
I added PO4, more CO2 and higher NO3/Fe etc
Then went to using the water change to remove the error from dosing issues.
I make no selfish claims to evolution of EI's origins.


For the aquarium plant trade, this makes much more sense do ing it this way at a commericial level.


It's called being practical as well as realitistic.
After a few decades, you stop thinking about asking others to do all this complex stuff and distill it down.

Most old timers fall into this group after awhile.
It's the person that knows a little that's the most dangerous.
Newbies are blessed in some ways, and old timers already know I'm right.

[quote]
LMAO of course not, however I use the term to illustrate how e.i. is simply an easy unsophisticaed way to maintain a planted tank. Indeed, that is what you have said yourself, albeit maybe not by referring to it as a sledgehammer LOL
[quote]

Haha, yes!
What is very deceptive is the science and testing involved that is behind it.
At the face, it seems simple, that's good and a quality that I think is useful for a newbie.

If you desire in depth modeling of plant uptake dynamics, we can go there as well

Most don't wanna, but it's there if you get more interested in it.
Many just want to garden and scape though, few get into the hobby to test water. Many view it as a necessary evil, well, by passing that makes many folk's much happier!!


Good, you have learned a good lesson already there!!
PPS is good in that respect, insistence on calibration.
I've helped a large number of folks doing the method as they often chase nutrients when they should be chasing CO2 levels

But folks wonder how I knwo this stuff, well, I must have tested at some point a lot

I really do not want to test if I can avoid it and have more confidence in my ppms with water changes and dosing known amounts of ferts.

One, well, 4 things less to fret over.

continued:

Ouch, I help folks find the best deals, we all do, locally there in the UK as well, I know many folks there and even the places to acquire the tanks, regs etc.


Yes, the hobby is forgiving there, we all have things that takes us away and bring us back, but the hobby is a very good one in the long run.



This is a lot of light, the t5's are quite brigth!!
I saw a nice ADA tank a few days ago, it was a tank about 2x this size and had 2x 54 w T5's and it had plenty of light and was a ADA style layout with so called high light plants.

More light is not better.
I'd run 2x39 w for 10 hours and add all 4 for 3-4 hours in the middle of day.

[quote]
pressurised co2 diffused through ceramic/glass diffusor underneath filter outlet to create co2 mist, levels (given inherent inaccuracies of kh/ph/co2 relationship) comes out at 66ppm.

No lifestock in yet, newly set up with aqua soil so ammonia and nitrites still present.
[quote]

Water changes!!!
2x a week, 50% or more.
Add carbon to the filter and or zeolite, this will be biofilter matierial after a 1 month when everything's settled down well.
This way you can shrimp/fish right away and not worry about NH4/NO2 etc.
The water changes will reduce any algae as well.


CO2, CO2 and CO2.
PPS would not tell you this.

I know these plants, I know the substrate and I know the lights.

Do this:

Clean off all you can, very well.
Trim leaves etc if needed.
70% water change.
Get some SeaChem EXcel if possible. Add the suggested initial amount every day for 5 days and clean and do a water change every other day.

Add more CO2. Ignore the pH/KH relationship, it's not going to tell you anything particularly useful.
Add enough CO2 to knock the pH to 5.4.

Dose this after each water change and then 3x a week there after w/50%-70% weekly water changeL:

KNO3: 1/3 teaspoon
KH2PO4: 1/10 teaspoon
Traces: TMG if you have it: 10mls

GH booster: SeaChem Equilbrium or your own CaCl2/MgSO4 mix(about 4:1 given your tap), about 1/4 teaspoon 3x a week

Everything else will be all about the gas, the plant biomass(pack as many as you can stuff in the there and trim later) and staying on top of things.

Try this for 1-2 weeks and see what you think.
Note: do the algae part for 5 days or so.
That should beat it back good.

You have the algae and poor HC growth for one reason: poor CO2.
Keep that pH way down there!!!

See the CO2 drop checker with reference KH solution from Hoppy's threads here for more info!!
That will give you a good idea of what is in the tank, fish are typically fine at this KH/pH with ADA soil.

I have direct experience with this which is why I knwo rpeciselt what to do here.

Note: PPS supports inert substrates.
EI needs no such constraints nor is fish load an issue, but you can simply add less to dial in any particular tank.

Note: EI was never designed to be rigid, 30% weekly, 80% weekly, 2x 50% weekly, 90% every two weeks etc, all are useful.

Watching plants and their growth over long time frames(not one week, rather, 3 -4 weeks with excellent CO2, this is the main problem for many why they think all this monkey business with ferts) are good ideas.

If you have all this ADA stuff, light/CO2 etc, you are likely very committed.
Green Thumbs up!

Regards,
Tom Barr