Hi Tom, I caculate fert dosage by the mean of fertilator.
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/f...fertilator.php

The teaspoon used is a 5ml spoon, those meant for medicine consumption.

However, I had difficulty achieving 20ppm NO3, 2 ppm PO4 and 20ppm K per dosage.
---------------------------------------------------
My tank volume is 25.5 litres(6.375gallon) and lighting is 3.6WPG(US)
My calculated results from fertilator are :

A) 1/8 tsp KNO3 and 1/32 tsp KH2PO4
NO3 = 15.63ppm
PO4 = 4.79ppm (too high?)
K = 11.83ppm

B) 1/4 tsp KNO3 and 1/64 tsp KH2PO4
NO3 = 31.27ppm
PO4 = 2.39ppm
K = 20.7ppm

Should I adopt the dosage from A) or from B) ?? If not, how much tsp of KNO3 and KH2PO4 should I dose to achieve the best results for EI.
Thanks you very much, Tom.

Regards,
zhan

With that lighting and with mainly stem plants, and thicker layout, likely the richer rotuine.

If you have lots of fish etc, less plant biomass, eg all Gloss etc, probable the first choice.

These dosing suggestions are simply target approximations, there's simply no need to too worried about precision, main thing is a consistent habit and good CO2.

That is FAR more important.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Sorry but this a 2 part question:
1-What is a good GH for multi type planted tank?

2-Where do I find a proper dosing guide for the EI method?
The reason I ask is if I use chuck's planted page his fert calculator is missing the other various chemicals that can be used and if I use the APD fertilator it seems more leaning towards the PPS method and also seems like some of the numbers are not the same as Chuck's site.
The other issue is when mixing trace mix with 500ml ro water how many ML of trace mix do you use for a 100G tank (every second day)?

If possible please give example for EI method on a 100G tank
Using KNO3,fleet enema and CSM+B also adding magnesium (epson salt) and calcium chloride.
Thank you.

For these curves, they are merely models, hand drawn, you'll note there are no units due to this fact

But if you want an equation, most graphical modeling pages will have them.
It's easier and addresses the topic here better if I leave that part out, it takes less time for me to draw a curve.

I think in terms of a graph, in pictures etc generally anyways, then go after the math and chemistry etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Hi,

I'm not sure where you get these figures, are they from the same calculator?
Seems odd, but when you get down to smaller units of measure, eg 1/32nd of teaspoon, a lot of error can be introduced.

But if you look at the ranges the dosing produces, 15-30 for NO3, 2-4 for PO4, K+ 10-20ppm, not bad, it's a range, not an absolute measure, none of our test kits generally can achieve that much precision anyway.

If you also add the GH booster suggestions in this, then you will have a higher range of K+, about another 10-20ppm.

I'd general say dose 10 ppm of NO3 and about 1-1.5 ppm of PO4 per dose.
5mls or so of TMG etc.

3-4x a week if very high light, high light 2-3x a week, low light 2x week.
Same amount , just less frequent.

Regards,
Tom Barr

See our nutri cal here, it's a dowloadable version and has some nice features.
Chuck's page is quite old at this point in time, but it was the first one, I've never done one, I do things the old school way
I did not have a cal to do it, so I still do chem that way unless I have lots of data to plug and chug.

The APD fertilator I honestly have no experience with, others like it, I do not use such automated methods,. I check each time I go through things.
So if you walked up to me on th street, I could do the conversion without my computer, calculators, text book etc.

PPS is well, a lot of testing and fuzzy words, but it's not as different as Edward seems to like to claim, much of the basic stuff that's said there was done many years ago, 10 based on my old article using Lamotte test kits which where calibrated and found to be accurate.

Note, that was no less than 1996.
Other issues are many seem to have issues related to over management of nutrients and testing and not enough based on things like CO2 and removal of organic fractions via large frequent water changes, which reduce the bioavailabilty of plant nutrients and trace metals.

But what do Amano and I know?
We both suggest that and have independently for some 30 years a piece.

Why?
It's easier that test kits and cost less and and and...........I have done PPS long before Edward came around with claims he did all this research that was already available on the web and published in articles on line.

He wants to claim it's new, no, never was. Nor is doing large water changes and adding ferts back after.

But not needing test kits and still providing good levels is new in the hobby, adding higher levels of nutrients is new, adding PO4 is new, knowing what causes various species of specific algae, that's new, being able to use hard tap water to grow most all plants, that is new, growing marine macro algae via KNO3 dosing is new.

I've got a very long track record and explored test kits far more than Edwards would ever want to know.

The goal is not to use them unless you have to, a smart monkey would figure out a way to avoid the hassle.

Add this to the pH drop checker and you do not have to test for any parameter other than mixing the solution once every 2 weeks in the drop checker and adjust the CO2 flow rate as needed.

So no testing of any parameter is now a reality. You'll also note what a stickler I am about testing and methods, CO2 in particular.

Perhaps Edward has learned more about CO2 in recent times, hopefully so, but good CO2 is critical to any evaluations or advice in helping anyone with nutrients, not doing so confounds the entire routine.

I went through the folk's tanks that where using the PPS method and found most, if not all of them had CO2 related issues they where thinking was due to a lack of patience, or some nutrient mis mangement. Edward was clueless to this fact.

If you really do balance the nutrients effectively with a test kit, let's assume you do and can, then you are left with the focus on CO2.

EI isolates CO2 very effectively as the main variable. Someone doing the PPS method effectively will also achieve a similar thing.

But...........PPS does not test for everything, it cannot.
It does not test for BOD/COD, it does not test for POC/DOC, it does not test for the SRP fraction of DIN fractions in the tank water, these are important as they reflect the bioavailability.
We test such things in science.
We also know how to make a calibration curve, something not discussed but highly relevant if you rely heavily on test kits.

Refusal to do water changes is the main advantage to the method, but if you really are after that and are a purist, then go to a non CO2 method, those are much easier to balance and achieve low work nirvana.

I make water changes easy as pie for myself(pythons, hard plumb drain/fills/automated solenoid water change systems etc), it saves me a lot of time and allows me more control. Amano does the same types of things.

Fish loading has much less influence when you do large water changes each week. Trace metal build up also is reduced via water change export.
Water changes also add CO2 and harass algae very effectively.

Some folks think the same old thing is something new and a few are tired of doing the same old thing, so it has appeal there. Personally I am tired of using test kits, I like to garden and that is why I got into this hobby, to do just that, not micro mange my tank ad naesum and play with test kits.

Few are different than myself also.

Regards,
Tom Barr

I like a GH of 3-9.
If you have soft water, 2-3 is fine.
I tend to add about 1-2 degrees extra in most any tap water.

There's a few articles on EI that show the list of dosing examples, you can scale them up.

For a 100 gal tank with good CO2, decent lighting:
I'd add:

GH booster, 2 degrees worth after a 50-70% weekly water change

Dose 3x a week depending on lighting:

1 teaspoon KNO3
1/4 teaspoon KH2PO4 maybe a tad less
Traces, I'd add about 20 mls, I'd use Tropica master grow personally in place of the CMS

Greg will be selling a new dry mix fert this summer after I'm done testing it.
It combines a few things that are best from TMG and Flourish and adds a few other things as well that are lacking in both products.

The ratios of nutrients in the trace are based on dry weight ratios from about 30 aquatic plant species. I'm not aware if anyone has ever done an exhaustive study on that issue, I know I have writing about every essential element.

It'll be about 50$ lb but will make 50 liter's worth, vs TMG at 69.99$ plus shipping for 8-10lb of water vs the 1 lb shipping cost.

So it's about 10-20X cheaper than either the SeaChem or TMG brands and is more effective over the typical KH values encountered in the hobby.


Regards,
Tom Barr