Jason Baliban said:
*wipes sweat from brow* Phew now that was a long thread!!! After all that reading....can we just talk about the differences between the two methods. Please correct me if i am wrong, both of these methods use the same ferts in about the same ratio to one another? It seems to me that the only diff is how often and how much you dose. Am I missing something. Asside from routine of doesing what is the difference?
jB
Originally that was the intent.
I see the methods as extremely similar as much as we might want to split hairs.
Both assume that algae are not limited by nutrients and that enough nutrients are added to support plant growth at a given light level, whatever that level of light intensity might be. Those are the several massive changes we have seen from other methods of the past including reef methods, non CO2 methods describe by Diana Walstad. Another is the test kit inaccuracies and the use of standards. That caused a great deal of confusion in the hobby. PPS would be plagued by issues here if this was not addressed since it relies on test kits. Traces and testing those are still an issue, although I'd argue a minor one for PPS. I eyeball that as does everyone for the most part.
If I'm going to eyeball that, I can eyeball other larger % nutrients in terms of plant health.
While testing is great and useful, especially to get a feel for some more advanced approaches, an aquarist can certainly move beyond test kits altogather with PPS over long peroids with most plants as they become more experienced.
One uses water changes and the other uses test kits to provide a stable environment for plants, but there are cross overs here and mixing between these methods, neither is exclusively a pure method.
I asked many questions to get people to think about these things.
A non CO2 method can be done in the method described by DW, Edward or myself effectively.
Plants can be used as your "test kits", fewer or greater water changes, % changed can be done, dolomite can be used, good test kits can be used, activated carbon, less light and it's influences.
I still find doing weekly water changes makes a tank look better than not doing them.
In giving advice to folks with algae issues, plant problems, PPS is tough sell due to all the testing and chem and requires more understanding for the user than say EI(Often it's a tough sell no matter how I suggest it as soon as you say KNO3.......), but non CO2 methods have both of those methods beat if fish food and tops offs are all you want to do, but you give up nicer growth and better results somewhat in doing that.
But to an experience person willing to test seeking a balance to their farm without water changes or a reduce number of them, sure, then it's a good sell. But I am thinking much further ahead than many assumed.........using the
plants as your test kits as you become more familar with the dosing and push pull of the dosing routines is what I am hinting at.
I know that many folks after a number of years are able to do this effectively.
Edward seemed to scoff at the viability of this notion...........it does work.
I know better........I use those kits to gain knowledge so I do not need the test kits forever.
In that sense, it's evolved further than PPS and requires more experience and knowledge.....also a tough sell......but PPS is a good path for folks seeking a more advanced approach to the nutrients pull/push effects or simply bored or have mastered EI or non CO2 methods. But like a water change, you can fall back on the test kits or water changes.
You can test and do all this with a non CO2 tank as well.
I did this the last couple of years off and on on the 4 gal cubes I had.
I also had a very nice tank in SB in 2002 with a nice field of hairgrass in a non CO2 tank. I think I can do it without test kits also (No water changes and dosing).
I found the higher the light, the more issues I ran into doing that.
The same can be said of any method IME.
Regards,
Tom Barr
