Yes, those are helpful and simplied Edward.
Good work. Tables for each tank size is nice also.
You can use the SS, PS, TE, GH or Mg, the same manner as EI dosing with TE and the teaspoon method for the dry ferts(seaChem EQ, KNO3, K2SO4, KH2PO4).
FYI, this was done a decade ago:
http://www.sfbaaps.com/reference/barr_02_01.shtml
Using the same fertilizer, dosing and using test kits and ranges for the most part. Some made liquid ferts and dosed mls, if they use fleet enema, they will also for the PO4. Targets individual tank's needs with test kits, Lamott and Hach in our cases in the Bay area to a range just like PPS.
Adding mls is better/more accurate, if you can get folks to make the liquids, few have the scales to weigh the fertilizers. But it makes dosing easier once they do that. PMDD folks did a very similar thing to my suggestions using the LRLP and they all used a liquid mls per day to dose.
I'm not sure the accuracy is really needed though(something I've argued previously about).
I could easily argue that even the best cheapy test kit is merely a guess within a range since the reference is also just a guess. You'd still be off by a little ppm without a more accurate test method.
I have a scale that is 0.1milligram accurate and high purity DI water, very accurate microliter measurement for the water volume as well as a nice colorimeter accurate to 0.01ppm NO3, PO4 etc and the ability to test all the plant nutrients not just the proxy for the trace, Fe which is a mess to rest anyway.
Compared to that type of testing, the AP, SeaChem and other kits are 500X less accurate or worse. You'd be guessing much more compared to EI and the range maintenance of PPS or RLRP or PMDD.
But............do we need that type of accuracy to grow plants?
No. So how accurate is good enough?
Same deal with the next step, EI, that used a pre existing hobbyists habit, the water change. Folks seem better about doing that than the testing from all the years I've helped folks.
It's less accurate than PPS/Testing, but you can easily do it and as you learn to tweak with kits, you can also learn tweak without them.
Today I am more interested in modeling, accuracy of various dosing routines.
How close do we need to be to hit the level that is acceptable and how well can those be predicted. Upper ranges of nutrients are also something not explored in a controlled isolated manner.
You may consider adding Fleet enema, SeaChem EQ etc to some of these PPS solution's to get equivalent concentrations.
That will give folks some more flexibility of the fertilizers they use.
But KH2PO4 is widely available these days as is MgSO4. CaCl2 and CaSO4 less so.
SeaChem EQ is CaSO4/MgSO4/FeSO4/MnSO4.
I'm not as keen on the CaCl2, I do not like it in the softer water.
I can be more liberal with the CaSO4, even though it's solutibility is lower.
While some seem to forget I suggested testing many years ago, I suggested EI since when helping folks on the web with limited resources, unwillingness to test, $$$, product availability and other barriers, that became an issue for many. You need to be creative to solve some problems.
Cheapy kits and making standards does work, if the folks actually make them and saves some $, but like a nice car etc, I like nice test kits.
I'd certainly mention 20x about the importance of CO2(or not if they go non CO2). People have more trouble with that and it's effect on nutrient uptake rates than anything else.
They will unfairly judge PPS or any routine if they don't do that correctly.
The solution standards and tables will go a long way to making this a better system and easier to apply much like PMDD except better and up to date. You added some flexibilty to it and this is a key thing. Not everyone will apply it the way you intended
Regards,
Tom Barr
Linear Mode
