Aquatic Plant Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 49 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
pineapple said:
Tom,
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
No, I was specific with Rotala, if the NO3 is allowed to to drop, Rotala will not recover quickly. It'll grow like wildfire if fed.

Yes. Pearl grass is a weed, if you have trouble with that, something major is up. Go down the list, CO2, NO3, PO4/K, GH, traces.

Add more than you have been.
You should see responses quick with that plant.

You missed something and over looked it.
You can still do the PPS, just do a water change and re set things and keep going.

You can always revert back to EI to re set things and then start down the PPS path to whatever end suits you.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
aviel said:
I have a high light high CO2 tank with all the nutrients and everything. I think NO3 consumption in this tank should be 5 ppms per day.
I think you are expecting a lot.
I'd shoot for 2-3ppm per day.
Substrate will play a larger role in PPs methiods and NO3, eg the denitrtification factor begins to become more of an issue and organic forms of nutrients that get bounded and complexed as the time passes from the last water change.

Here's a little trick you folks can use that enjoy the PPS method to remove this assumption with organic waste by products: activarted carbon, change and add this 1-2 weeks.
This will remove a lot of the organic fractions.

I told you folks I've done this in the past........
I got more tricks to be lazy and still get around issues.........
It's hard work being this lazy........

But I also know that if something goes wrong with the traces the consumption rate could be absolutely 0 - nil !! So I have to be preapred to both extremes... So I do my weekly 50% water change and add 5 ppm no3 per day. After all I don't want the no3 to bottom out before the end of the week - right?
No danger of that in your case.

So I add the full 5 ppm daily. Now if the tank consumption is 0 then by the end of the week I added net 35 ppms.
Test kit test kit test kit.
Brand? calibration? Accuracy?

Even at this 35ppm a week consumption(if we assume it to be correct, I doubt it highly) the plants will still not show signs of N issues.

Then to top that off, you do have fish and you do feed them.....?
More N from that. 5-10-ppm? I'd say at least.

So somethings are NOT adding up.

Now if I keep this routine I will have a tank with 35 ppms after water change and 70 ppm before next water change. Is that how I am supposed to grow my plants?
Huh? No you won't, the math behind a water change:

http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200312/msg00143.html

More about things other than NO3...so now you need to test several things, not just NO3.....

http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200501/msg00054.html

And all the time I have no idea that something is wrong over there. And if I test for NO3 and it's high - shouldn't I test PO4 to see maybe this is the reason? And KH?
Now you are seeing the issues involved, they can be overcome with a lot of testing perhaps......but much less so with high light+ CO2 tanks.....

Something I have said from the start...........
See non CO2 methods for real PPS systems.

If you look at Edward's tanks, most are low light.
I recall one 4/w gal tank. the rest are low light by many folk's standards.

That is a huge issue when addressing this concept.

Moreoever, I have a 190 gal tank - 50% WC takes 2.5 hours.

Aviel.
See automatic water changes.
It's easy to set up and it can occur slowly(preferred method), even if it takes 5 hours at 2 am till 7 am, so what?

You are not doing it.

I change a 350 gal tank, 80% weekly, takes me 45 minutes.

I have no idea what you and others are doing with the water changes, but dues, figure out a simpler water change routine!

Hard plumb a drain and fill valve.
Alan has a RO system set up for fhis 90 gal discus system.
Takes 6 minutes to do 80% including fill.

It takes time to set this system up but the results are better for the fish and plants.

And for you and the time you spend.

Automatic water changes are not that complex.
SFBAAPS folks have this on larger tanks.

They spend zero minutes doing water changes.
They spend zero minutes testing generally unless CO2 appears low, then KH, pH if they do not have a pen or pH monitor.

End result: more time enjoying gardening, aquascaping, fish, new plants, less time testing........

Water changing removes those unknowns and the assumptions that come along with it.

Your experiences with testing and NO3 are very common.
Often the results do not make sense, you can ask why and try and figure them out.

That's sometimes fun but tough to find out what is exacly going on with all the assumptuions that are built into it. It's going to go back to the whole Allelopathy arguement.

That occurrs with plant - plant intereactions, so you have to address what? 300 dang species of plants that all produce how many different compunds?

I think you will be very hard pressed to tease that issue apart, at higher growth rates, the plants will produce more of these compounds.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
aviel said:
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.
I've addressed this issue with some 250 species of plants.
That's no small feat.

How did I do this?
You use the brain, assume the maximum rates will be the most any plant will use. Add many fast growing plants to a tank, jam lots of light, CO2 and then start in on the nutrtients one by one.

I never did the traces individually, why would I?
Folks seldom add them seperately.

I did this for CO2, 30ppm seems good.
I did this for NO3, 3-4ppm per day is fairly dang high, I've seen drops of 8ppm in a day in rare cases.
PO4 varies, but issues are not a problem unless you bottom things out, still much to done there with PO4. I had rates from 0.2ppm per day top .8ppm per day. Other preciptation issues need to be addressed.
K+ is assumed to be at a 4:1 ratio with N, that's for Terrestrial plants though.......even so, even if the difference is 2-3x as much, you still have enough K+.
Traces, once everything else is well ablanced, then you try volumes of traces/unit time/gal of tank.

Test kits suck for Fe.
I've detailed those issues out for years.
How do you address that one?

But the issue of what is the max rate, then assuming that it will never be beyond this amount......that is a GOOD assumption.

You can create test and figure stuff out much more easily by making good reasonable assumptions.......

That testing that acheived this data with a wide variety of plants, that is useful testing.

You folks do this yourself, and tell me I don't like testing or try to avoid it.
That is a lot of testing, but I know what I need to know and answered my original question.

Now others do not have to suffer this same faith.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,552 Posts
This thread has certainly taken a turn that was not intended.

Let me state again, it is for the use of those using or having questions about the PPS methodology, it is not nor intended to be a yet another discussion by Tom on why the EI method is according to Mr Barr the only way.

Let me please reiterate.

Some people DO ENJOY the testing and other technical pursuits this hobby can offer.

This is more then one to skin a cat. Yet if we were to all blindly follow and not ask questions of one poster in this thread we would all have to take on faith that there is only one true way.

Now others do not have to suffer this same faith.
I believe you mean fate and not faith.

Why must you assume that any other way but the ways that you espouse here Tom are causing others suffering?

I can assure you that I am not suffering when I test my water, make stock solutions, spend more then 5 min on a water change or work with others that also find some or all these activities enjoyable.

I have no idea what you and others are doing with the water changes, but dues, figure out a simpler water change routine!
I find something therapeutic about doing water changes. Not all of us are looking for ways to take what some feel is a less desirable endeavor and automate or speed up the process.

I could go in for a long time countering many of the things Tom is trying to protect me from, but many of things other people find enjoyable.

Tom, please try and see there are other views and they work.

Others, please see that Tom is only trying to pass on, albeit with a great deal of passion, some of the things he has learned over the years.

We all have differing reasons for entering the hobby and differing ideas on how to maximize our enjoyment, There is no one "right" way. Just many paths that lead to the same point. That point being our own enjoyment.

Thanks for listening,
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
gnatster said:
Why must you assume that any other way but the ways that you espouse here Tom are causing others suffering?
Folks(not you) have said that it takes a long time to change water.
I responded to those comments specifically.
I gave as you like to say, "alternatives..........." to the issue.
You can chose to do it this way, but those are choices, much like doing water changes. I discuss those trade offs, that's very relevant to the discussion.

If you like to test, go for it.
I use many different methods at the present time. Not just EI.
I test all day at work, I just might like doing it.

PPS:

No one has responded to the organic issue or would the addition of activated carbon help or not...........what about mulm build up?

What about high vs low light?

"I can assure you that I am not suffering when I test my water, make stock solutions, spend more then 5 min on a water change or work with others that also find some or all these activities enjoyable. "

I like them too, but not everyone does.
I love a good hacking.
My own tanks are not enough, I'll go hack other folk's tanks as well.
I love to watch it grow in, I love to see how certain plants and respond to different treatments.

PPS:

Never said you were suffering, many folks trying it out might not see it that way. We sat around talking test kits and variables for a long time back 10 years ago. Some did water changes, some didn't.
We were all local and had different tap water, but all had a battery of good test kits.

The ones that did not do water changes and tested a lot did well, but not as well as the one's that did the water changes. You can simply compare the plants and see the differences.

That was group consensus, not my own.
The plants did not lie though.

It is a flash back to 10 years ago and then a decade or two before than with Dupla about the time I got interested in it and then even further back in the mid 1970's and before in Europe.

If someone wants to try to tweak and improve the method, any method, they will want to try new things. That's why you test is it not? See if something works or not.

If you are satisfied with the status quo and happy with the results you have, then stick with it I'm a different person than that, but that's fine if you are that way.I was for some years.

PPS
You can use that method as your control and try other things. then you'll know if dosing PO4(or whatever you chose as your variable) will work or not. Many never thought to do that a number of years ago and I got poo pooed then merceilessly. Now you add it:)

I've tested the non CO2 for awhile and found ways to improve upon that, ways to improve upon the reef and refugium tanks, marine plants, low light tanks, folks have issues and seek to better their methods and systems.

This ain't EI vs PPS or any method.
It's about approaching things and figuring them out so you can improve upon your method. You can still test all you want and not do water changes.

There are other variables you can change around to explore things.

"I find something therapeutic about doing water changes. Not all of us are looking for ways to take what some feel is a less desirable endeavor and automate or speed up the process."

Precisely, but the flip side is that automation and less need to work on the tank's maintenance. I like water changes as well. But I also like to have tanks with different methods.

Having explored many methods allows a greater understanding of them.
I suggest folks try this also, I suggest they try non CO2, marine and other types of methods.

The other side is the non CO2 tank, that slows the process down.
Folks can address the concept of no or minimal water changes at various speeds.

I know the method and if someone wants to do it, I can certainly help them achieve that. There are trade offs, some are willing , some are not.
I discuss those trade offs.

I have also suggested a number of things that will help and improve things and better understanding about what is going on with this method.

Oddly, you have not acknowledged that part.

Tom, please try and see there are other views and they work.
See? See what? See they are no different than what many folks did 10 years ago? Those methods "worked" as well. They still yank out lots of weeds for the auctions. Come on down and see for yourself. Gomberg has not done a water change in 3 years years and his fish have bred.
He's been doing this 15 years before you even considered it.

I've done many methods including this one. You ask me not assume yet you do it to me. Irony has no limits eh?

I asked a simple question a long time ago, how is this different than say a non CO2 method? How is it different than say a low light tank with CO2?
Why might it work at low vs high light?
Will it work better at high light or low light?
Wouldn't adding activated carbon help remove some of the organic build up?
Can we get away with more with a different substrate?

I ask questions, and they will continue to come for many years.......
If some one asks me for help and says they want to do this and that is the only way they want to do it, I will work with them and see they understand the alternatives as well.

But ultimately, I help anyone that asks to try and solve their problem and help improve whatever method they intend to do. It's a process and folks work through it.

Stay focused on the plants, not the personal issues.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
plantbrain said:
aviel said:
But I also know that if something goes wrong with the traces the consumption rate could be absolutely 0 - nil !! So I have to be preapred to both extremes... So I do my weekly 50% water change and add 5 ppm no3 per day. After all I don't want the no3 to bottom out before the end of the week - right?
No danger of that in your case.
I don't understand - what do you mean no danger - again - if there's a chance that my tank drinks 5 ppm per day and I feed it less then my no3 shall bottom out before week ends.

plantbrain said:
I understand that you explained this thing over and over and this thing has already been discussed. But one more time please: U are given a generic tank - you know nothing about the consumption rate and you are not allowed to test anything. Consumption rate could be 2-3 ppm per day, 4 ppm per day, 5 ppm per day, 1 ppm per day or 0 ppem per day. How much NO3 do you add and when? U will see that in order not to bottom out you will need big no3 numbers- but please show me the rouine that you suggest!!

Aviel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Several years back I ended up having to spend 90 days away from my home and my tanks.

My 55 Gallon tank at the time was well planted with healthy plants and a light fish + shrimp load.

My wife, who is not very much into the hobby continued to feed the fish every other day and supplement any evaporated water. Filters kept running, and CO2 kept pumping.

I was convinced that I was going to come back to a disaster of tank. Algae, dead fish, water parameters all over the map.

After 90 days I came back to probably the healthiest tank I have ever owned.

The water was crystal clear. Ph was stable at 6.7. Nitrate and PO4 levels where fine. The fish where healthy and the plants looked incredible.

From my Phd days at MIT, I remember some friends of mine in the hydroponics lab that would create this self balanced, self regulating mini eco-systems and leave them alone for many months at a time. I was always amazed at the clarity of the water.

Water changes ?

I am not convinced they are all together needed.

The only reason that Tom Barr method requires them, is because he takes the probabilistic approach that "if one throws enough arrows at a target, one will hit bullseye."

The Tom Barr Approach:
Dump enough chemical nutrients (in some ratios) in the tank and hope for the best.
The plants will take up what the need. If anything is left over, no worries.
We will change 50% of the water and start all over again.

Is this a bad method ? Nope !. It actually is a pretty good method.

Is it bullet proof ? Nope !. You dump chemicals in a tank with no refference of its current state. You depend on the water changes to make everything reset.

Is it the ONLY method ? Nope !

I think the PPS method also has merits. I like the approach.

Would I eliminate water changes ?

Probably not. I would be highly satisfied with a lesser % water change than Toms method, where a 50% change is practically required every week.

I think I will try a modified version of the PPS, and drop my water changes to 25 to 30%. Observe the results and adjust accordingly.

Be open to new ideas folks. No one has the correct answer here. This is Chaos theory at its finest. We are trying to bring equilibrium to a dynamic system. Impossible to do under the best conditions. The laws of science are against us.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Jackfrost said:
Water changes ?

I am not convinced they are all together needed.

The only reason that Tom Barr method requires them, is because he takes the probabilistic approach that "if one throws enough arrows at a target, one will hit bullseye."
Jack et al, that is precisely my dang point. That target is huge.
Everyone use to say it was small, I showed otherwise and explored that.
Non CO2 methods are super, they require no water changes...............

As you increase light and CO2, the uptake rates increase, it's no ecosystem, it's a production farm.

I've tried to show the extremes with high light/VCO2 and non CO2.

Each method can be balanced.
You can do this a number of ways.

But folks have it all wrong about needing some water changes in a so called PPS tank.....isn't a non CO2 tank the ideal method for PPS?

No one has answered this even though I've asked it many times.

It provides the best results to this method and you don;t need to test nor dose much beside water, and fish food.

How lazy do you want to be?

You can go the entirely different direction and do lots of water changes, there's no rule a good aquarist cannot eye ball and do 50% 2x a month or even monthly, depends on what you are willing to accept as a result.

I have not clean glass for 6 months or more, they are clean, so is that better?

You can achieve balance a number of ways, but the underlying principles are still the same and have been done for decades.
The Tom Barr Approach:
Dump enough chemical nutrients (in some ratios) in the tank and hope for the best. The plants will take up what the need. If anything is left over, no worries. We will change 50% of the water and start all over again.
Is this a bad method ? Nope !. It actually is a pretty good method.

Is it bullet proof ? Nope !. You dump chemicals in a tank with no refference of its current state. You depend on the water changes to make everything reset.
Nothing is bullet proof but it's better than anything else when comes to setting up a certain range of nutrients(if that is your goal, you eesentailly make a know standard to within a certain degree of accuracy---see the water chnage dilution math if you have any doubts........).
Current state is irrelevant because the range of nutrients and their ratios that supply good plant growth ARE wide, so the target is huge.
Same applies to non CO2 tanks.

So your arguement about the current state being meaningful is really not that meaningful.

I've tried this and tried to see if it held true, I've gone to some very wide ranges. Unless you have foul wastewater to do water changes, 2ppm Cu, As, or water that is simply unfit for potable sources, then it's unlikely.

What types of reference states will not be reduced by 50% water changes weekly down to a low level?

High fish loads are about the only I know of or blatent mistakes.

I think the PPS method also has merits. I like the approach.
Would I eliminate water changes ?
Probably not. I would be highly satisfied with a lesser % water change than Toms method, where a 50% change is practically required every week.
I think I will try a modified version of the PPS, and drop my water changes to 25 to 30%. Observe the results and adjust accordingly.
Many do this, is it really a method?
Test and add what's been used up?
I don't think so.

[/quote]Be open to new ideas folks. No one has the correct answer here. This is Chaos theory at its finest. We are trying to bring equilibrium to a dynamic system. Impossible to do under the best conditions. The laws of science are against us.[/QUOTE]

Well, you can build assumptions into any model, but this not a new idea.
What is the goal, less water changes?
Well then a non CO2 method would be a better approach.

You can mix these together various ways, that's mainly all I see going on here. I've done this method for many years and many others.

That's how I got an idea on uptake rates at various lighting values.
Then using that could suggest a dosing rate that would satify all plants and all light levels and not cause algae.

You can slow this "method so called PPS" down or up by adding more light, less, non CO2 and see for yourself.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Imo

I have been reading this thread for a while now and have gotten to the point where I must put pen to paper or in the cyber world fingers to keyboard.

Tom you are beginning to sound bitter and defensive is it perhaps that you recently set up a site that charges for YOUR supposed method that uses the shot in the dark technique and hope it works out? Or is it because you feel threatened by an approach called PPS that has provided people with solutions when the dose and flush method didn't work or are you just against anything that doesn't coincide with the way you think. I didn't realize there was only one way of doing things but evidently you have discovered the single solution. Congratulations!!!
In either case you have become quite transparent in your arguments and your criticisms.
As far as answers to your question go it is obvious you are not in this thread to find answers (as you already claim to have the answers) but only to criticize. However, we are anxiously waiting for the EI thread you were politely asked to begin, to promote your method. Perhaps it may be a good idea for you to promote your method there instead of here.

Direct quote from you
"method so called PPS"
"Many do this, is it really a method?" re PPS

I thought it was called PPS and not "so called PPS"
If PPS isn't really a method are water changes a method?

Let's take our own advice shall we Tom (and "we" includes me)
"Stay focused on the plants, not the personal issues."

In any case I am certain to receive a long winded response insulting me and using my words against me. But rest assured I will no longer post with respect to this argument as I feel it has turned into one person trying to flex their muscles over the opinions and the choices of others.
Welcome to America where your views are free to be expressed in a civilized manner.

Regards all (and my apologies to all at the same time for making my first post this one)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Let keep this civilized folks.

I think both methods work. As I said earlier "There is no silver bullet here".

If there was, we would not have hobby.

One would go buy your "Chia pet planted aquarium", add water, and go back to watching TV.

Its the challenge that makes it interesting.

Pick and choose what you want.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
cards said:
Regards all (and my apologies to all at the same time for making my first post this one)
Ya know, this will be be short and sweet, you did what the rest of the folks have done, personalize it instead of answer the _dang questions_ I've asked.

1.I asked what is the primary goal of PPS?

2. How is it different than say what folks often do when they get lazy and don't do their water changes?

3. What is new that's been brought to to table here?

4. How is this better/different than a non CO2 tank or an excel dosed tank?

5. Is testing water quality why folks get into this hobby? Or is it to grow plants?

6. What about mulm accumulation and detritus?

7. Wouldn't watching the plants be better than test kits for things like NO3, algae for PO4, some plants for traces?

8. Are water changes really tough?

9 Can this be done with Discus? Heavy feedings? Why? Why not?

10. Light levels?

From what I can gather from evasive responses that go after me personally rather than the questions about the mechanism or plants, PPS seems to be a method of micro managing the tank and requires daily dosing/testing to avoid a few water changes till things get to out of whack. Then a reset. Folks did this for years with limited success. I asked how is this different. Again no response just pathetic whining about Tom Barr. I have ideas about this and other things that will help folks consider what they do and how they approach things. Doesn't matter what method you chose. Each has trade offs.

This has nothing to do with personal stuff other than a lack of response to the issue. If this is the cat's meow, I'd support it 100%, but ...I ask questions.

Why attack me and evade the other questions? That often means you lack support of your argument/s.So Again, I'll repeat these questions till I get a response.

No answer is an answer.
This is your first post and it's about complaining about something personal and not related to the plants..........

You can me flame all day, I'll keep asking the questions that are about plants.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
plantbrain said:
1.What is the primary goal of PPS?
To tailor the dosing of fertilizers to the individual tank's needs.

plantbrain said:
2. How is it different than say what folks often do when they get lazy and don't do their water changes?
Do lazy people test their water?

plantbrain said:
3. What is new that's been brought to to table here?
Fertilizers are administered in a controlled fashion adjusting as the tank requires them.

plantbrain said:
4. How is this better/different than a non CO2 tank or an excel dosed tank?
This method is not exclusive of either situation, it is designed to work with all tanks.

plantbrain said:
5. Is testing water quality why folks get into this hobby? Or is it to grow plants?
To grow plants, testing or water changes, it's all just extra work, part of the hobby that some engage in more than others.

plantbrain said:
6. What about mulm accumulation and detritus?
A healthy growing tank is going to accumulate mulm and detritus, I don't remember the method including removing all filtration from the tank. Done properly the mulm and detritus should mineralize and sift into the substrate. Kind of like that fluff layer in a lake that doesn't turn into peat but soil.

plantbrain said:
7. Wouldn't watching the plants be better than test kits for things like NO3, algae for PO4, some plants for traces?
Do both, observe then verify, learn the signs and react to them. Remember, not everyone has been growning plants like we have for the last 20+ years Tom.

plantbrain said:
8. Are water changes really tough?
That depends on the person and where they live. It's not hard to imagine a situation where water changes might be very hard.

plantbrain said:
9 Can this be done with Discus? Heavy feedings? Why? Why not?
The regime is designed to accommodate any tank, within reason. A tank overstocked with large Discus isn't a candidate for a low maintenance method, an automated method maybe.

plantbrain said:
10. Light levels?
Any light level would be accommodated by this method. All you need is a planted tank as we know it and the desire to care for the plants.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,035 Posts
Hi Tom
How can one respond to the 30 pages of your Estimative Index Chronicle? You have posted faster then people could read. I am sure we got the point, the patented trademark water change you repeated 104 times in this thread alone.

plantbrain said:
1.I asked what is the primary goal of PPS?
There is several.
First is to limit the ™Water Changes. Believe it or not, there are people who do not enjoy it. So many people all over the world told you so.
Second is time. No one can change water as fast as you can and you can not test as fast as many people can.
Third is a comprehensive fertilizing system. The PPS takes care of NO3, PO4, K, Mg, Ca, TE, and CO2. Nothing is forgotten. The PPS does work with any water and any substrate. A system that is appropriate for aquariums from 0.5 liter to ZOO size mega tanks. This can not be said about the EI. The EI lack essential plant nutrients. Potassium is there only thanks to KNO3 overdose. Magnesium is absent, relying on accidental tap supply. The next is Calcium, another reason people in some areas could not be satisfied with the incomplete fertilizer.

plantbrain said:
2. How is it different than say what folks often do when they get lazy and don't do their water changes?
That depends on the outcome.

plantbrain said:
3. What is new that's been brought to to table here?
Please see Q1, Third goal

plantbrain said:
4. How is this better/different than a non CO2 tank or an excel dosed tank?
Confidence that nothing becomes deficient.

plantbrain said:
5. Is testing water quality why folks get into this hobby? Or is it to grow plants?
Is water changes why folks get into this hobby? Or is it to grow plants? Also, I have seen people testing more often with EI then they would have to with the PPS.

plantbrain said:
6. What about mulm accumulation and detritus?
Vacuuming and filtration is not prohibited.

plantbrain said:
7. Wouldn't watching the plants be better than test kits for things like NO3, algae for PO4, some plants for traces?
Not many have the crystal ball.

plantbrain said:
8. Are water changes really tough?
Why change it if it's not broken.

plantbrain said:
9 Can this be done with Discus? Heavy feedings? Why? Why not?
You don't want me to look for your own post about someone running a discus tank without water changes for 2 years. There are people running successfully the PPS with discus under MH. Certainly, there are limits how much waste can plants consume, laws of balance.

plantbrain said:
10. Light levels?
We run the PPS from 1 to 6 Wpg.

plantbrain said:
Folks did this for years with limited success.
Maybe you need to read the articles to understand the regulation principles.

plantbrain said:
Doesn't matter what method you chose. Each has trade offs.
duh…

Requires daily dosing? Yes it does, just like EI does and commercial products do.
I can ensure you there is no reason to do testing more often then once a week or less. This weekly testing is only for the start. Once the system is running, testing once after 4 weeks is adequate.

Edward
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
If one was to have some extra money burning a hole in my pocket, and doesn't have nor need a RO/DI system due to locally soft water, what good , average price TDS meter would you recommend?

Also now that your Discus tank is how you like it, and PPS is making your plants grow well, how often are you doing your "minimized" water changes Ed?

Ever figure out how to accurately measure pH in your 0 kH tetra tank at pH 5?

FYI;
I found I change 35 gal of water with a pipe out the window into my garden and a phyton to refill from kitchen sink with 82F water in about 20 minutes. That's while watching TV and working only during commercials. I stopped using the phyton as a gravel vac sink my water bill is around $100 (up 50%) per month and I am getting cheap. Rather spend money on new plecos and rare cories. I started gravel vacing with my Vortex D1 with the soda bottle attachment, so I vac and polish at same time.

I have seen the auto-water changer at fellow SFBAAPS member's house and it is not only really easy to setup and slick to do, but fairly cheap. Looks like maybe $100 in parts and tubing and about half a day of work including trip to store. Ah, if only I didn't rent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
skids said:
If one was to have some extra money burning a hole in my pocket, and doesn't have nor need a RO/DI system due to locally soft water, what good , average price TDS meter would you recommend?
I got a Hanna one from RandalB on simplydiscus.com for cheap, like $28 shipped if I remember correctly.

skids said:
I found I change 35 gal of water with a pipe out the window into my garden and a phyton to refill from kitchen sink with 82F water in about 20 minutes.
I do something very similar, first Python to drain out the door, then Python to sink for refill.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
Edward said:
Hi Tom
There is several.
First is to limit the Water Changes.
Believe it or not, there are people who do not enjoy it. So many people all over the world told you so.
I never said they enjoyed it. I said it could be made much easier. I also never said EI or any method must have weekly 50% water changes.
Many folks do it once every 2-3-4 weeks. Some do 2x a week at 30%.
50% weekly is just an easy to say middle ground that works for many with issues and allows them to re set their tank.
Plants and a tank does better with more frequent water changes, but it's certainly not required. As the frequencies of WC's decreases, so do the dosing rates. I would not add lots of KNO3 to a tank without also flushing it over a long peroid.

Second is time. No one can change water as fast as you can and you can not test as fast as many people can.
Actually I can smoke anyone on the list at testing, I have very nice testing equipment, I also have accuracy that exceeds anyone's equipment unless you work at a water quality labs, which, we have at the lab.
I use a NO3 test that uses a spectrophotometer. It's quite accurate(to about 0.1-0.05ppm NO3).
Most NO3 test kits take 5 minutes for resolution.
This is not an issue of speed of the user, that's the nature of reduction in the case of NO3.

Water change speed: I'm fast, I use larger diameter hoses and suck it out fast and refill. I also have set up plumbed systems that only require a quick turn of two valves to drain and fill. And then there's the automatic water changers for folks.................
I also have 14 tanks a several accounts. So if I do not do something about that, I'll spend a lot of work monkeying around.

Many of the tanks are non CO2, so in a sense, they are PPS.

Third is a comprehensive fertilizing system. This can not be said about the EI. The EI lack essential plant nutrients. Potassium is there only thanks to KNO3 overdose. Magnesium is absent, relying on accidental tap supply. The next is Calcium, another reason people in some areas could not be satisfied with the incomplete fertilizer.
Actually K is in sufficient amounts with out any KNO3 overdose.
If you consider the K and N ratios as far as plants, K is in excess at 4:1 ratios to N.

You are incorrect there in most all cases. Unless over 75% of the N is coming from fish waste, K+ is always in excess when using KNO3. Even then, I have suggested many many times that folks can use K2SO4.

The exception is with non CO2 tanks and with some low light/CO2 tanks with high bioloads.

But I've suggested some changes to non CO2 tanks to address this and the results are stunning.

Mg and Ca can easily, as well K+ be added and that is also suggested to maintain a GH of at least 3 degree and more is considered better. I've said that a few thousand times. If you do not do water changes for extended peroids, then you will need to add these. SeaChem EQ adds all 3, so adding it once a week solves that. MgSO4 is often added as a back up in small amounts if needed or CaCl2.
I generally will suggest folks add both or SeaChem EQ since few test kits available to hobbyists test for Ca and Mg individually if these seem potentially low. Doesn't hurt to add more GH anyway.
SC EQ is good for non CO2 tanks since one does not need to dose Fe/Mn either. But adding it does not hurt either..........

Confidence that nothing becomes deficient.
That's a good goal.
The question remains as to what else you are not able to test for that could causes issues...........
Many of those could be removed via activated carbon.

Simply running a canister full once a week or once every 2-3-4 weeks etc for 12-24 hours may really help in some cases to remove any organics you cannot test for.

"Vacuuming and filtration is not prohibited."
Neither are water changes:)
How do you vacuum and not do a water change?(there are few ways)

"Not many have the crystal ball."
Well many folks do know what plants respond to different nutrients because many folks have done the method and tried to add what the plants use up over the years. That would avoid more testing and plants don't lie.

I mentioned Mic umbrosum as an excellent NO3 indicator, Riccia for CO2, specific algae for other problems, Crypt "sheen" for traces, holes for K+, veining for Mg, and so on............
It's good to learn through experience as long as it's not your own.

That's where folks can help new folks.
This is much of reason I've asked specific questions.

You don't want me to look for your own post about someone running a discus tank without water changes for 2 years. There are people running successfully the PPS with discus under MH. Certainly, there are limits how much waste can plants consume, laws of balance.
And that law applies to all tanks.
Outputs = inputs
I doubt few would suggest that the Discus nor the plants would do as well as say a tank that got 2x 30% weekly water changes or a weekly 50% water change.

There are trade offs for not doing the water changes. What those are and methods to improve them were the orginal intent of this thread and folks precieved my comments as personal attacks.

Maybe you need to read the articles to understand the regulation principles.
duh…
I think I understand plant regulation quite well:)

Requires daily dosing? Yes it does, just like EI does and commercial products do.
Err no it does not.
Using your own words:
"Maybe you need to read the articles to understand the regulation principles.
duh…"

EI can be used dosing once a week in low light tank(say 1.5w/gal), the dosing amount does not change, the frequency does as the light increases, this takes into account the rate.
I've said this a thousand times as well.

I'd also counter that PPS does not require daily dosing either...........
A lot depends on the light level/use of CO2.
In some cases monthly or none at all.

I think what it can really help achieve is a marked improvement with respect to non CO2 tanks...........

Many cannot grow many species of plants.........
Why not?

Many non CO2 tanks folks just live with the issue of some plants not being recommended, or not being able to make it.

I know this can and has been improved.
I would suggest folks to try PPS on a non CO2 to see this effect for themselves.

Many non CO2 do not test to see what is going on and have assumed many things about algae. That is part of the method that is suggested, no need to do the testing but the trade off is some species are very hard to grow, I think you can do either PPS or get a green thumb and an eye and some indicator plants and do it without test kits.

Now there's a supportable "option" instead of a personal attack.

I can ensure you there is no reason to do testing more often then once a week or less. This weekly testing is only for the start. Once the system is running, testing once after 4 weeks is adequate.
Edward
Now that sounds good/better.
Try it on a non CO2 tank. I think many will be quite surprised.
I did, I did not call it PPS, but that is essentially what I did and my goal was avoidance of water changes altogether and still be able to grow hairgrass and Gloss in a non CO2 tank. I achieved that. I also found I did not need to test much by watching a few species of plants. Plants never lie, test kits often do. One thing I do like is the focus on calibration of the test kits. Very good.

Thanks for answering.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top