the magic # PPS pro is going for in your tank is 10 PPM?

[JackBlasto]

So Ive read the magic number PPS pro is going for in your tank is 10 PPM

does this mean given proper testing after dosing:

K2SO4 should read 10 ppm,
KNO3 should read 10 ppm,
KH2PO4 should read 10 ppm
MgSO4 should read 10 ppm

Trace mix should also read 10 ppm

Now the reason Im asking is Ive seen all the calculators that say add 59 grams of this and 60 grams of this... but that never really helped me because everyone starts with different water content so this starting point always just created more mystery to me. What would help tremendously is KNOWING the target I was going for (like is this 10 ppm rule accurate?) s I could customize my own plan once and for all. That said, someone please let me know is the goal of PPS Pro to have 10 ppm of all of the above nutrients??? Thanks so much

 

[Fresh2o]

I've been using PPS-Pro for about 2 years and while researching it, I don't recall the the 10 ppm rule. But your question seems valid because it appears to assume everyone has the same water chemistry. Or it totally disregards existing water chemistry.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[JackBlasto]

Well the 10 ppm rule makes sense for lets say Nitrate & Potassium, but I don't think it works for much else. Like Phosphate has to be low, and iron, etc.

This is the hardest thing for me wrapping my head around PPS Pro. I would love to see what the target goal of everything dosed in it is? This way I could adjust my doses to achieve that.

For instance, the potassium in my tank just read 6 ppm. Well, Im guessing that it should optimally be 10ppm for pps pro so I would need to up the K by 4 ppm. Now, I could be completely wrong here but again, I'd love to see what the goal of PPS Pro is?

 

[Delapool]

Could it have been a factor of 10? So say 20ppm nitrates (similar for potassium), 2ppm phosphates and er, 0.2ppm Fe (might be a little high).

 

[Caliban07]

I think iron was initially 0.02ppm but was increased by a factor of 10 for some reason. I don't think this applied to the other ferts.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...pro.html#/forumsite/20597/topics/39491?page=1

This thread. Contains the formula and the daily amounts. Some tanks report GSA following this formula such as fresh2o. Upping phosphate levels to combat this immediately means this is not PPS-pro anymore. PPS-Pro is a variation on PPS-classic that targeted specific uptake by species under a given lighting etc so it was based on what you had in your tank. You really had to test and monitor levels daily/weekly to calculate uptake and tweak from there. PPS-Pro is a more generalised version that has been adapted to provide indefinite daily requirements, reducing the need for water changes and testing. They're all one and the same really. EI gives you more room for error and also removes the need for water testing but some people just don't like to have excess nutrients in the water column that plants are never going to use only to remove them with a water change.

So if you go PPS-Pro then tweak up you head towards a hybrid variation. If you go EI then reduce ferts you head towards a hybrid variation. Plants are the best indicator of deficiencies.

Some people use floating plants to determine whether there are enough ferts in the water column. Plants like duckweed are closer to the light and have access to atmospheric carbon so if nutrients are limiting it will show in new growth fairly quickly so you know when to add more ferts.

EI is based on nutrient uptake of plants running on 6wpg of light. Any increase in lighting over 6wpg yielded no extra nutrient uptake. So If we use the calculated values that would be required to run a 6wpg tank we will always be in excess of what the plants require because no one is ever going to run a tank close to this level of lighting. If we add ample co2 (say 30ppm) in to the mix then in theory you should have a tank that is only ever limited by light and we can then use the light to control the rate of growth. Too quick, dial it down, too slow, dial it up.

I'm still not quite sure if I understand the benefits to PPS-Pro when EI is so robustly easy but then I have never used it. There must be reasons that people switch to PPS-Pro from EI or vice versa other than the ones stated above?


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[Delapool]

I'm not really sure to be honest how people pick. I dose to achieve certain levels so I've never understood how testing every so often can be skipped or how a dosing system can be 'locked in' when I assume tank plant mass will change in time.

I'm sure this is just me and my tank as the system seems to work. From reading through the threads for EI I think adjusting dosing to a tank is fine, not sure on pps-pro?

 

[Fresh2o]

When I was picking between the two (IE vs PPS Pro) my understanding was that the former flooded the tank with nutrients and the latter was a "leaner" approach. The former required a 50% weekly PWC whereas the latter did not.
I generally change between 25-40% per week and since I was starting out, PPS pro sounded easier and more appropriate.
Not sure what assumptions PPS-Pro makes in terms of plant density, lighting, and carbon availability. It appears to have worked for my tank as it has gone through varying levels of plant mass, lighting (low med to high), and no CO2, liquid supplement, DIY CO2, and pressurized CO2. The only adjust I've made with PPS-Pro was to triple the amount of phosphate and put the KNO3 in a separate container (I don't dose nitrate).


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[Caliban07]

I'm not really sure to be honest how people pick. I dose to achieve certain levels so I've never understood how testing every so often can be skipped or how a dosing system can be 'locked in' when I assume tank plant mass will change in time.

I'm sure this is just me and my tank as the system seems to work. From reading through the threads for EI I think adjusting dosing to a tank is fine, not sure on pps-pro?

I believe EI was estimated by growing the a range of plants including fast growing stems under a ridiculous amount of lighting. Therefore if we dose those levels we should in theory never be limited. That's why they say we don't need to test.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[Caliban07]

When I was picking between the two (IE vs PPS Pro) my understanding was that the former flooded the tank with nutrients and the latter was a "leaner" approach. The former required a 50% weekly PWC whereas the latter did not.
I generally change between 25-40% per week and since I was starting out, PPS pro sounded easier and more appropriate.
Not sure what assumptions PPS-Pro makes in terms of plant density, lighting, and carbon availability. It appears to have worked for my tank as it has gone through varying levels of plant mass, lighting (low med to high), and no CO2, liquid supplement, DIY CO2, and pressurized CO2. The only adjust I've made with PPS-Pro was to triple the amount of phosphate and put the KNO3 in a separate container (I don't dose nitrate).


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

This is interesting. I think your understanding is correct. I can't really find any information on how they derived the formula. It may be ratio specific too. Like for every 1ppm of x you need 2ppm of x.

It does sound tempting. What's the worst that could happen? My tank is pretty much irreparable at this point so I'm willing to give anything a go.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[PerfectDepth]

10 ppm of PO4 is way off. Did you mean 1 ppm? Here's what I came up with using an online calculator. These are weekly totals of a 6-day schedule. Units: ppm.

NO3 - 6.0
PO4 - 0.6
K from K2SO4 - 3.95 (total K - 7.98)
Fe - 0.6

The weekly total seems to be fairly close to a single EI dosage.

 

[PerfectDepth]

I believe EI was estimated by growing the a range of plants including fast growing stems under a ridiculous amount of lighting. Therefore if we dose those levels we should in theory never be limited. That's why they say we don't need to test.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

There are also suggestions for low-light EI dosage, which if I remember correctly is roughly one-third. So based on the amount of light, co2, plant mass etc in a particular tank, it's pretty easy to just pick a spot in between and "eyeball" an acceptable dosage without having to test much if at all. The idea behind EI is not to hit a specific target, just to fall within an acceptable range of nutrient concentration, not too deficient, and not too excessive. With that in mind, even as plant mass and nutrient demand increase, nutrient concentrations will be a bit leaner but could still be well within the acceptable range.

 

[Caliban07]

There are also suggestions for low-light EI dosage, which if I remember correctly is roughly one-third. So based on the amount of light, co2, plant mass etc in a particular tank, it's pretty easy to just pick a spot in between and "eyeball" an acceptable dosage without having to test much if at all. The idea behind EI is not to hit a specific target, just to fall within an acceptable range of nutrient concentration, not too deficient, and not too excessive. With that in mind, even as plant mass and nutrient demand increase, nutrient concentrations will be a bit leaner but could still be well within the acceptable range.

Exactly ?


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[JackBlasto]

After a week of careful monitoring it seems I am reaching what EI intends to by not dosing at all... ha... :face palm: I mean I am getting results in range of what I am thinking are optimal by doing water changes. Day 7 without any intervention of actually putting nutrients into the tank and it reads

No3 16.391
K 56
PO4 1.33

Started at

No3 17.27
K 100+
PO4 2.11

What this means??? EI can be accomplished by doing nothing at all if your tank just happens to be at that state which honestly I find interesting, unless Im missing something... because here is a case where actually buying (which I did so money lost), measuring, dumping in dosing (which I did meaning time lost) of ANY amount would actually be detrimental to the tank and reinforcing that although EI is supposedly easy to do, etc.... You have to know what your conditions are over time before attempting to implement it. Maybe Im missing something in how EI is supposed to be this test free solution but all I know is without continuously testing, I wouldn't know that I was already doing EI, by NOT doing EI

 

[Caliban07]

People normally rely on a dosing method when they are injecting co2 with high lighting as this will draw on nutrients more. Are your plants suffering?


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[JackBlasto]

People normally rely on a dosing method when they are injecting co2 with high lighting as this will draw on nutrients more. Are your plants suffering?


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

Yes, actually injected CO2 and high light and I still am showing through testing that I don't need to dose. In fact, when all this began I was dosing and my tanks water was yellowing and looked bad. I did two water changes and started testing daily and now the waters clear and my glosso pearls like crazy every day since I stopped dosing.

Im just trying to point out that anyone wanting to get into EI, step back and test first to get a good base line. Track a week before starting to dose as I actually started problems because I jumped right into following a cookie cutter amount and was way off track.

 

[Caliban07]

Yes, actually injected CO2 and high light and I still am showing through testing that I don't need to dose. In fact, when all this began I was dosing and my tanks water was yellowing and looked bad. I did two water changes and started testing daily and now the waters clear and my glosso pearls like crazy every day since I stopped dosing.

Im just trying to point out that anyone wanting to get into EI, step back and test first to get a good base line. Track a week before starting to dose as I actually started problems because I jumped right into following a cookie cutter amount and was way off track.

I'd give it more time. You can't really attribute your poor plant health to dosing ferts. There's not much around to suggest that excessive macros can cause plants problems or even cause algae at present. Micros on the other is not so cut and dry. Many people for and against the idea of micro toxicities. Many believe deficiencies in one thing can inhibit the uptake of another. So unclear, not enough evidence. Lots of cases though. Tom Barr would argue against micro toxicities. His case would be around 15 tanks and around 15 years of overdosing with no evidence of toxicities. I think he even mention he dosed CSM+B up to 10ppm accidentally with no repercussions. Not sure how long for though. Perhaps your water changes added more oxygen to the tank and saturation occurred. Just a theory. Is your trace mix yellow? How much did you add?


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[JackBlasto]

Ill give it more time and Ill continue to test because again, the point I'm trying to make is people blindly doing EI I feel is dangerous as mine has improved since stopping. My plants are doing better since stopping. Picture today after day 8 OFF EI. Its filling in well. All Im trying to state is NOT testing, jumping in to EI could be a bad idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[Caliban07]

As it fills in the nutrient uptake will increase. Just keep an Eye on it


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice

 

[Delapool]

Nice looking tank!

I agree that testing never goes astray. Also that high ferts levels shouldn't normally be an issue (same question on micros though). My only other thought is maybe plants need to adjust to different ferts levels. I know new plants in my tank will take a little to settle in even though the shop and I should be on the same water.

 

[Caliban07]

+1 on the excellent scape. Nice job.


Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice