PPS Discussion Thread

[aviel]

Doesn't work,

Because nitrate uptake is 0 - plants pearl less after the first/second days - so waht do I do yet another 50% WC? Geeez 3 hours instead of 5 minutes testing for NO3?

Aviel.

[defdac]

It do work.

Up the KH2PO4-dose and you will rock bottom your NO3-levels in notime - if the CO2-levels are good.

You will probably now say something like "But my PO4-test says 2 ppm already!".

My response will be: That is probably DOP, not DIP. Add DIP in the form of KH2PO4 that the plants can utilize instead of DOP that can't be used until it is mineralized in the substrate (which takes a lot more time than the growth rate)

And you measured NO3 is probably DON. Add som DIN in the form of KNO3 and it will probably be taken up faster. In fact adding KNO3 despite high NO3-readings will probably plummet your NO3-levels. Try it.

[aviel]

Defdac,

No it won't work - not necessarily that is - po4 is not the only contributor - there could be others - it could be anything. And if po4 is @ 1.5ppm and you thought it's 0 and you add 1.5 ppm? then you have 3 ppm.... And you have 3ppms which are not consumed by the plants because something is stuck so guess who eats it first?

BTW - great tank and great movie you have there! Absolutely amazing - I put that link in the Israeli forum - come to visit www.freshreef.com

Aviel.

[defdac]

it could be anything. And if po4 is @ 1.5ppm and you thought it's 0 and you add 1.5 ppm? then you have 3 ppm....

See my edited post.

You have to know if you measured organic bound PO4 or inorganic. Plants doesn't use organic bound PO4 (fish poo) until it is mineralized in the substrate. KH2PO4 is inorganic and can be utilized directly by the plants.

When they get a lot of inorganic PO4 the NO3-levels dive. I promise you. If you're on target with CO2 that is.

[gnatster]

Tom,

In an effort to clear up confusion and misunderstanding would you be so kind as to create a new thread entitled Estimative Index (EI) and detail the process for all. Once created I will happily sticky it in the Fert Forum. I think this will help people to see another of the various methodologies available.

Thanks

[aviel]

Gnaster,

Yes that would be a good idea...

Daniel,

I said I do 50% water and yes I do add 0.35 ppm kh2po4 daily and my po4 test kits confirms that this is the rate of consumption so it can't be DOP or DON that I measure. Right?

But back to my understanding of Tom's method: no test kits, 50% WC once a week and add those nutrients daily. If so then I have no idea of what my nitrate consumption rate - it could be 0 ppm per day and it could be 5 ppm per day. Since I am afraid of bottom out of nitrate I must add 5 ppm per day. Since there are 7 days a week then I add 35 ppms per week. If the tank consumed 0 nitrate then I will have swings between 35 ppm right after WC and 70 ppm right before next WC.

PO4 is not the only problem - it could also be light, CO2, K, iron, molybdenum, manganse, u-name-it deficiency and maybe too much of something and you can't analyze it - you are not supposed to measure anything. The whole approach is that plenty of nutrients and (plentry of nutrients) X 2 is fine....

That approach could work if you know your consumption rates - if you are absolutely sure that your no3 won't bottom out because there's no reason for it to decrease by more than 1 ppm per day. But us newbies, when something is not pearling - we need to test, and check, and double check - no?

Right?

Aviel.

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by defdac

You told me this when I asked about this over at APD:
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plant.../msg00004.html

"The above references are for terrestrial plants, which have no ionic Ca++ floating around their leaves(from water+ CaCl2 which disassociates into their ions Ca++ and Cl-)"
With very low circulation that would be a problem I guess?
Traces I have enough of. The substrate is another matter. Perhaps I should try shoving down some CaCl2 by the roots and see if things get better - but if the plant have to transport things from the roots/older parts I guess it would still get curly leaves?

This whole thing of certain plant specific problems with certain plants is not a PPS issue.

This is more a specific dosing issue.
Aquatic Plants do not use Ca++, Mg++ from the substrate in nature nor in lab studies. So if you have enough in the water column, that's where it'll come from.
While you can test to see what you over looked, often a poor NO3 test or too low NO3 levels will cause issues similar to Ca,

Pearl grass is friggin weed, so is Rotala var green, if you stunt it, it takes a long time for it to recover. Same for Ammannia.

You need to be specific with the plant species. Testing can help as a good test kit and modification of your dosing routine can help to adjust for some funny plant's tolerances.

Generally in virtually all cases, folks need to add more nutrients, not less.
This can still be done with PPS also.

So you can see how the long term excesses influence plant growth over time without water changes. Still, I can add the nutrients back and keep them more stable using water changes and dosing.

Otherwise you end up chasing the nutrients with test kits and not being able to amintain a good standard reference solution without the need for lots of testing and other unknows such as oragnic interactions and by products.

While using RO removes some unknowns..........not doing water changes also introduces other unknows as well.

I can test inorganic ions, I cannot(well, I can, but few hobbyists use organic chemical testing) test for organic compunds of whichb there are many and how they influence things is very debateable but liltte has been done on it.

Most foplks that have tried not doing water changes and dosing had much better success by doing their 1-2 week water changes 40-50%.

That's not me, that lots of folks that tried to avoid water changes with a nice healthy planted tanks over time using CO2 moderately high light. After trying this for a few months , years, you'll figure it out and see for yourself.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by Its me

Hi,

Tom, there are a couple of things here you say that makes absolutely no sense at all; you enter in people heads ? You kidding me right ?

I'll let you answer that one

Need to know a lot about chemistry? Ok, here goes my experience now: not much people here try chems on their tanks, so talking with them about PPS, EI or PMDD is the exact same thing (chemistry is not the issue here).

Okay, which is easier to explain to someone?
Add 1/4 teaspoon of this "fertilizer" 3x aweek or..........

Test your NO3, calibrate this test kit and make known standards for these and also test 6 other parameters in the same way? You still dose both.

This is simpler than PMDD and PPS and over the long term, works better as far as plant health/growth is concerned.

I've tried to talk chem with folks, they freak. Some get it, many don't.
So if we say add 3 basic things, 4-5 if they have soft water, then it's easier.
If we call them ferts and add 1/4 teaspoon of this 3x a week, no chem involved.

Simple, easy and less pain. Results.........they are very good. If you do this simple routine, the results continue.

Not everyone wants to do water changes, fair enough, there are trade offs associated with that. What these trade off are is the focus of this thread.

What trades off seem reasonable to you is subjective to some degree, but what you trying to acheive with these trade offs?

Less work? Simplicity? Research? Better plant health/growth? Less algae?
Fewer water changes?

These are basic questions as to what your goal is.

So, all test kits are way bad. Ok, i assume you have tested them all, and i wont fight with you about this, after all... you invented the weel (sorry to talk so much about the weel but i found the expression hilarious).

Me too hehe...no all kits are not "bad", all kits should be run against a standard though to see if they are off scale or bad.
Many folks will never run their test kits against a standard, they will ask is this kit good or not.

No, I have not tried ever kit brand, I like Lamotte and Hach as far a somewhat relative reasonable costing hobby kit to suggest.
These have proven the best for the water monitoring industry and Reef aquarist who are far more inclined to drop $$ for testing, invest the time and to avoid water changes. Salt cost $$ so water changes are a balance there.
They still do water changes no matter how careful they are.
Even the top people do this. Amano does it. I do it. Reef folks do it.

Ask yourself why.

Automatic water changes: want me to put tubes around the living room, or put them inside walls to hide it ? Yeah right.

I drill into the wall and run them underneath, once done, I do not have to fool with it from then on. 4 hours saves me 400 hours per year and the water changes are consistent.

All I do dose some dry ferts, take 4 minutes a week.

You do not have to do this by any means, but you said the water changes were a problem.

If it takes you 90 minutes to change 35 gallons of water, that would be an issue for me too.

You create your own set of barriers to your own solutions.
I use to do that. Jedi mind trick or common sense solution to the problem?
I'm not poking fun at you, I'm asking you to consider what you are saying.
I've been on both sides of this fence. I've done both methods for many years. So have my friends.

Take in consideration Tom, you might have lots of experience, no one is telling the opposite, now assuming all your theories are right, and the rest is wrong, man.. you will need the voodoo to help ya out.
Being humble aint that hard to be, even for weel inventors.
Best Regards
Miguel

Personal attacks are not arguements of support.
That's what politians do, not scientist.

I'm not saying this is "wrong", I'm just asking to what goal do you hope to acheive? What is the purpose?

That is a very humble question and seem to have been lost in the personal issues.

To date, no one has offered a supportive answer.

I can suggest extremism on either side to make a case.
I am practical and solve things that make life easier and the plants grow better.

I'm trying to see what this has to offer that we have not already done 100 times long before any of you even had fully planted tanks. Myself included.

I have yet to hear anything new or a new method.
I do see an updated method that includes more testing, calibration of test kits etc, that's good if this method is your goal.
But folks used Lamotte and Hach kits years ago and tried this and these kits are pretty darn good and accurate IME/IMO.


Regards,
Tom Barr

[pineapple]

Tom,

Full marks for your interesting responses in this discussion. I appreciate your sense of humor and time. Your perpetual dedication is inspiring.

Can I ask you about the following?

Pearl grass is friggin weed, so is Rotala var green, if you stunt it, it takes a long time for it to recover.

Do you mean: Pearl grass and Rotala var green are hardy aquatic weeds. If, by some amazing chance, your fertilizing regimen causes stunting, they take a long time to recover.


Eats shoots and leaves

Andrew Cribb

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by gnatster

Tom,

In an effort to clear up confusion and misunderstanding would you be so kind as to create a new thread entitled Estimative Index (EI) and detail the process for all. Once created I will happily sticky it in the Fert Forum. I think this will help people to see another of the various methodologies available.

Thanks

Yes.

My points about PPS, I've done this and have made comments about how it worked, or did not work for me. I've tried it with CO2 , non CO2 and with a battery of Lamotte and Hach kits, so have other folks from year's past that no longer post on the APD. I've tried it with several ranges of light intensities.

These are comments directly related to this PPS.
It's nice to organize it further and make it more of a "method", but folks have been doing this for a long long time already. If you look back into past folk's experiences rather than folks with only a few years, you'll see some neat ideas and some things folk's learned.

It's better to learn from exepirence........as long as it's not your own.
This is one reason I post.
I suffered but am able to try new things to solve the problem and take a new way to look at the problem.

Some things folks can do......and avoid testing and approach it from a non CO2 prespective. No testing needed there.

I suggested that. I also know folks that have tried no water changes in high light CO2 tanks, we all slack off and try and dose over time and can see the results. They often are algae or stunted slowed growth.

Many very very good observational people have done this over many years. They watch the plants carefully and add what is needed.

Plant response is key.

This is one reason such a system will work in a non CO2 tank where uptake is lower do to CO2 limitations and lower light.

This is PPS exemplified. Or is it DW's apporach or is it a non CO2 approach?
Dosing PO4 to excess, is this EI or is it PPS?

The lines blur here.

These are some of the points I've made.
I'm not suggesting any method is "worse" or "better".

But there are trade offs for each main method and more wiggle room when you use less light, slow things down, don't add CO2.

These trade offs might be worth while for you or they might not.
I consider folks going through this testing process a "phase".

I do like to test a great deal for the record. But only if I am trying to answer a specific question, not as part of a routine. I want something out of my work efforts.

I realized that I did not have to test and could guess the rest of the week by doing large water changes.

Folks had issues with test kits, most still do.

Perhaps some day folks doing this will get lazy and wonder what good is all this data from the testing.

Not doing water changes introduces a number of unknowns, those assumptions can get you into trouble when you try to interpert things.

I have no idea why it takes some folks so long to do water changes, I add a hose, drain, add another hose, fill...or... automated water changes.

Those issues are easy to address.
It removes many assumptions and requirements.

Then there's a practical part: does it work well?

You try PPS at 4 w/gal for a year with no water changes and you try EI for a year. I'll let you decide for yourself.

Sharing info is good, I am doing that here in this thread. It seems I've considered both sides and few side of the coin many have not.

I'm asking why is this useful and why is it being used.
I asked myself this same question as well a number of years ago.


I tested some non CO2 tanks a few years back. I found they needed more K+, Ca, Mg, a little traces and fish food could do the rest. I added PO4 also, it had little effect on plants/algae.

I ended up adding SeaChem EQ as it had most everything I needed, and a pinch once a week added what helped the plants out.

Edward suggest adding GH(Ca/Mg) etc.

That mirrors the suggestions and what I've found also.

But I'm not going to test just to get out of work.
I do not do more work ...to get out work.

Regards,
Tom Barr