# The entire fert forum needs a warning label. Some questions and comments re EI & PPS



## Osteomata (Jan 11, 2005)

*The entire fert forum needs a warning label. Some questions and comments re EI & PPS*

My head hurts. This forum should have a warning lable for those of us just venturing into fert theory: Warning! New aquariasts and pregnant mothers should limit their initial exposure to this forum to avoid disorientation, nausia, and incoherant mumbling.

Anyway: I REALLY REALLY do NOT want to start (another) debate on the EI vs PPS issues, but I do want to know if I have a good feel for the general nature of each system: As I see it:

EI:
- No/limited testing 
- Heavy water changes: 50% 1/week. plumbed systems encouraged.
- "Shotgun" approach: lots of ferts, control excess via water change
- Targets hi nutrient zones (range of values) through heavy fert addition, control excess via big water changes
- Rejects standard algae theory (excess P) in favor of Algae caused by lack of plant nutrient uptake
- Fert regime: frequency varies by user preference, but content of ferts pretty consistent

PPS:
- Extensive testing N/P/K/gH/kH/Ca +, requires calibrated quality kits
- Limited/rare water changes
- "Sniper" approach: careful targeting of nutrient needs
- Targets specific nutrient values through testing and then a revised fert regime
- Loosely adheres to standard algae theory cause (nutrient excess/imbalance)
- Fert regime: frequency - daily, content modified weekly

Does that sum it up? Anyway, my other question:
I have read many posts on this forum and also Tom Barr's EI article on his site. What I have not found, however, is the actual chemical composition of the EI doses. I see references to the dry chemicals, and mention of dosing traces on off days along with references to PPM zone targets, but I want to know how to mix the actual stuff with the required chemicals for a given volume of water. I am sure it is staring me in the face, but I don't see it. Is it the fertilator program that I have not downloaded (work computer, cant do it here) Any help?

Oh yeah, and if we are talking about a very small nano tank, is it possible to adapt the flouish line to the EI method (I have them, so why not use them)


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

Hi Osteomata
The discussions on this Fertilizing forum are not about competition. What we want to do is to offer a variety of options that will fit specific needs. 

Thank you
Edward


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)




----------



## Osteomata (Jan 11, 2005)

"Not about competition"
Absolutely agree, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that. Thats why I said I do NOT want to start a debate. I asked if I correctly understood the general nature of each system based upon the bullet format summaries I wrote. Your chart was helpful in that regard. Now about that formula for the dosing routines.....


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

Both EI and PPS are a huge PITA IMO. 

TW


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

TWood said:


> Both EI and PPS are a huge PITA in IMO.
> 
> TW




Nice chart Edward.

Both PPS and EI both address the issue from the plant's needs, both do not assume algae is caused by excess PO4, Fe etc.

I think many of us are guilty of narrowing the approaches and making them more rigid than they are when each is very close and flexible.

There's no rule that says weekly water changes must be done for EI nor 50%.
Therer's no rule that says you cannot do weekly water changes for PPS and then back off for awhile or do small little water changes.

There's no rules besides supplying the plant's needs for a given light/CO2 level.

One method not included here is the non CO2 method.
EI is not appropriate for non CO2 methods, wereas a PPS is.
Why? The tap water changes the CO2 content and plants/algae are acclimated to low CO2 levels. Changing this weekly confuses the plants and allows the algae to get and maitain a foothold.

Plants adapt well to non CO2 enrichment if you stabilize the CO2 level.
Adding a lot of CO2 for one day or the week messes it all up.

I've been dosing non CO2 tanks without any fish loads. No testing, just watching the plants to get ideas on the rates of uptake.

I'd like to pull the non CO2 method into this as well.
I know we can grow about any plant species in a non CO2 tank as well as a CO2 enriched tank, just slower.

The problems why many could only keep some species was nutrient related, most folks do not test that keep non CO2 tanks. PPS added to non CO2 tanks would allow new folks to keep very nice non CO2 tanks and observing more of the plants and less on the test kits. Similarly, you can do the PPS without testing (or as much) if you have a good eye and know the plant's responses well enough. I have in the past as have many others. 
But all methods that are successful,all focus on the plant's needs.

I've asked Edward to speak on the PPS at the AGA this year, don't worry, there will not be an audience of Tom Barr's asking questions We are much nicer in person, hehe.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## kretinus (Jan 19, 2005)

The bottom line is whatever the individual finds best for their situation and encourages consistent practices is what's best for that individual, at least in my opinion. It's a common weakness to define what we feel is best for ourselves as being whats best for everyone else. It's human nature. I find the EI to be the easiest for me, and I would definitely encourage anyone to try it, but I'm not going to tell anyone that it's better than other method because most assuredly, someone will come along with better results using another method and someone else will come along with lesser results.

When someone tells me that their way is best I usually just try to smile and avoid the debate altogether.


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

There is no best system. They all work if the conditions are right. It’s only a matter of personal preference what action is suitable. Some prefer this some prefer that. We all know there is no magic button. 

Edward


----------



## Osteomata (Jan 11, 2005)

Tom Barr,
One thing you might want to clarify on your EI page of your website:
Quote
• Dosing
1/4 teaspoon 4x a week (every other day)
1/16” teaspoon of KH2PO4 4x a week (every other day)
Traces added on off days as the macro nutrients, so 3x a week, 5mls each time
End Quote

This was probably obvious to some people, but I didn't understand if the 1/4 teaspoon was supposed to be straight KNO3 or some mixture of agents. Greg Watson set me straight. 
As for the traces, 5ml of what traces? Are you referring to a specific line of traces like flourish? I would think that different fertilizer lines would have different concentrations. 
Lastly, (and this may have been in the EI explantion and I missed it) are Potassium requirements met by the K in the KNO3 and KH2PO4? I seem to recall that Flourish Potassium doses K seperately in the form of K2SO3 or something.

As for Edward's post directly preceeding this one, I agree entirely. But it sure helps to understand each system before deciding which is suitable to your needs  And I can say that I am still struggling with some issues in both. Honeslty though, from the lengthy discussion between Tom Barr/et al in the PPS thread, it really seems to come down to "what do you find less of a PITA: Freqeunt testing or big water changes." Yes, this is overly simplistic, but in a way it's a pretty nice simplicification for us newbs, allowing us to focus our research down the lane we will most likely travel. For me, I think my random assortment of test kits kinda suck, and I find that I am not consistant in my testing, but I am pretty devoted to water changing, thus I'm preparing to adopt EI.


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

Osteomata said:


> Honeslty though, from the lengthy discussion between Tom Barr/et al in the PPS thread, it really seems to come down to "what do you find less of a PITA: Freqeunt testing or big water changes."


Neither are required to grow weeds underwater. Which is why I made my snarky comment about both being a PITA. I think there's (at least) a third way with infrequent testing and infrequent (or at least lower volumn) water changes. A way that acknowledges that real people with real tanks in real homes won't/don't/can't maintain a tank on a daily basis. Weekly at best.

TW


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

Osteomata said:


> And I can say that I am still struggling with some issues in both.


 APC members are here to help you.



> Honeslty though, from the lengthy discussion between Tom Barr/et al in the PPS thread, it really seems to come down to "what do you find less of a PITA: Freqeunt testing or big water changes."


Is testing NO3 and PO4 once a week too frequent for you? ok

Less of a pita, hm&#8230; 
Don't you find this fertilizing experimenting exciting? These systems are giving you the tools to control growth speed, growth shape, plant colors from green, red to purple. We have devoted decades of experimenting to develop the *easiest ways* to solve the complicated plant requirements.

Edward


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

There is a third way... It depends on what you want.

Low light, non-CO2 tanks fit the bill perfectly. I had a 200l planted tank once that I probably did two 25% water changes in a year on. No CO2, no high light, very little pruning.

But some people (me included) find it fun and a challenge to attempt different things. Of course before getting into a different way of doing things you have to be willing (and, of course able) to consecrate more time to it.

Another option is a non-planted African cichlid tank...


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

Yup, and a different third way is a moderate light (2 WPG) -with- CO2. Nice stable growth, lots of room for error.

I understand the fun of trying something experimental, but that's a science project and deserves to be identified as such. 

TW


----------



## Osteomata (Jan 11, 2005)

Edward said:


> APC members are here to help you.


Along with a bit of light snark like..


Edward said:


> Is testing NO3 and PO4 once a week too frequent for you? ok



No seriously, I HAVE recieved excellent help and advice from APC. Do you really see PPS as that simple from a testing standpoint? While I think that Tom may exagerate the testing challenge and underplay the water change issue a bit in his comparison of EI and PPS, I think he has some solid points about testing and PPS. It requires more precise testing with better/calibrated test kits, and (to me) it implies the need to understand the nutrient process better than a simplified method. 


Edward said:


> Less of a pita, hm&#8230;
> Don't you find this fertilizing experimenting exciting? These systems are giving you the tools to control growth speed, growth shape, plant colors from green, red to purple. We have devoted decades of experimenting to develop the *easiest ways* to solve the complicated plant requirements.
> 
> Edward


Heck Edward, I wouldnt have started this thread if I wasn't interested.


----------

