# Ferts - How much does it really matter?



## Skizhx (Oct 12, 2010)

Between EI and PPS-PRO I've sort of come to wonder...

Does it really even matter how much ferts we put in our water (as long as we're being sensible)?

Comparing my EI dosing to the recommended PPS-PRO solution...

I'm dosing 10 times as much KNO3, 29 times as much KH2PO4, exactly the same amount of K2SO4, and a little under twice the trace elements when using EI.

Granted this is dosed on alternating days. It would still seem that there is a gigantic margin of error here though.

So my question is what's the difference? Does it matter how much we put in if there's such a large margin of error? One school of thought says "You're more likely to get algae due to deficiencies" the other school of thought says "You're more likely to get algae due to excess".

Given that both methods seem to have varying levels of success for different people, and nobody has found a golden guaranteed technique, the actual amount of nutrients seems virtually irrelevant unless you're specifically striving to either speed up or slow down your growth. Then you have the El Naturel method which essentially solves the dilemma by throwing poo at it in the dark.

So yeah... That's what's on my mind right now while trying to figure out why my rosanervig wont show me any red 

Any opinions on this?


----------



## Diana K (Dec 20, 2007)

There is a gigantic margin for error, a very large safe zone for the macros (N, P, K) and secondary nutrients (Ca, Mg, Fe and some others). 
There is less room for error in many of the micros (B, Cu...). Some are toxic at levels that are just a bit more than the required amount. 

Macros: When in doubt, a little more won't hurt. 
Secondary: When in doubt, a little more won't hurt. 
Micros: When in doubt a little less won't hurt.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

With EI you do 50% water changes per week. With PPS you do no water changes.

The idea is that you use less with PPS and it gradually builds up. 
With EI you put a lot in then take it out. 

After a while they should both be at about the same level.

I would not change form the formula for either. (At least not at the start).


----------



## Skizhx (Oct 12, 2010)

I thought the point of PPS-PRO was that there was no build-up because you're only giving the plants what they'll use for that day.

So now I'm curious about the ratio of macros in EI vs. the ratio in PPS-PRO.

Furthermore, PPS-PRO adds MgSO4 (which I didn't include in my list above).

So a PPS-PRO run tank would maintain a higher ratio of magnesium and sulfate to the other nutrients by comparison to the EI system.

This has me wondering if maybe shifting my ratios will result in the colouration I'm hoping to obtain.


----------



## Crispino Ramos (Mar 21, 2008)

Skizhx said:


> So yeah... That's what's on my mind right now while trying to figure out why my rosanervig wont show me any red
> 
> Any opinions on this?


When you mentioned rosanervig, are you referring to Cryptocoryne rosanervig? If so, my C. rosanervig has red stripes - my nitrate is at 40 ppm and lighting is at 3 wpg. I also dose Seachem Flourish Comprehensive and iron chelate. Substrate - Amazonia type 1, Water - RO/DI 100%.


----------



## Skizhx (Oct 12, 2010)

No, I'm actually referring to my Hygrophila Polysperma 'Rosanervig'

Getting some red growth is really the last benchmark goal I have left for this tank. Accomplishing it would be very rewarding for me but I just can't seem to figure it out.


----------



## Crispino Ramos (Mar 21, 2008)

Skizhx said:


> No, I'm actually referring to my Hygrophila Polysperma 'Rosanervig'
> 
> Getting some red growth is really the last benchmark goal I have left for this tank. Accomplishing it would be very rewarding for me but I just can't seem to figure it out.


Does it ever turn red when it gets near the surface of the water? It couldn't get the red color when there isn't enough light or under the shade of taller plants. I also have heard from a fellow aquarist that his red plants turn red better with less nitrate, more potassium and iron.

Do you test the tank water for nitrate?

Good luck!


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

Skizhx said:


> I thought the point of PPS-PRO was that there was no build-up because you're only giving the plants what they'll use for that day.
> 
> So now I'm curious about the ratio of macros in EI vs. the ratio in PPS-PRO.
> 
> ...


The amount of nutrients you add with PPS pro is only about 1 ppm K, .1 ppm PO4 and 1 ppm NO3. That is not enough for plant growth. However, when you do this every day the levels build up to arround 15 ppm K, 1 ppm PO4 and 15 ppm NO3 which is ideal for plant growth. At this level, the plants take away 1 ppm of K and .1 ppm of PO4 and 1 ppm of NO3 a day so what you put in is what the plants use.
That is the theory anyway. What gets taken away depend on a lot of factors; so, it may not be easy to balance what goes in with what goes out.

The amount of Mg added with PPS pro is miniscule. If you have any GH in you water you can probably remove it.

I've been using PPS pro for about 2 1/2 years but I do a 20% water change a week and monitor KPN periodically.


----------



## Skizhx (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispino Ramos said:


> Does it ever turn red when it gets near the surface of the water? It couldn't get the red color when there isn't enough light or under the shade of taller plants. I also have heard from a fellow aquarist that his red plants turn red better with less nitrate, more potassium and iron.
> 
> Do you test the tank water for nitrate?
> 
> Good luck!


No, growth at just the very surface just gets yellow with a faint tinting of orange in it.

I really don't see it being a problem with light. I've got 2 x T5HO bulbs and a 65W CF running on the tank. My HC 'cuba' way at the bottom of the tank pearls brilliantly, and there's no plants above the hygro to block the light.

I've gone around checking the CO2. I get tons of pearling, especially on my java fern and windelov and C. Balansae. Like really, tons.

All my plants sway gently in the current, so I really don't think circulation is a problem here.

So given that I'm dosing plenty of iron, have plenty of light, and appear to have good CO2, and circulation, the only thing left I can think of would be nutrient excess inhibiting the colouration, as I understand that to be a possibility.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Do it! You know this already, but generally:

0) More CO2. 
1) Less N. 
2) More P.
3) More Fe.

You seem to have 0 and 3 covered. Moving N and P is good -- you're past the general guidelines of PPS-Pro and EI, get that the places they overlap are what really matters (feed the plants, keep it stable, take comfort in knowing the range for healthy plants is huge), have been watching your plants, and now are ready to dose to your specific tank and goals. 

I'd suggest stepping up your game and picking up something like L. senegalensis/'Guinea' (I believe Seattle_Aquarist is moving this right now) or R. macrandra or P. stellatus 'Narrow-leaf' - H. polysperma 'Sunset' is interesting and everything but the above plants are unique and striking and, well, tend to get redder further down the tank. A. reineckii is a good one for color, too, but isn't as responsive to the things you're looking to change as you delve deeper into what drives tanks.


----------



## Skizhx (Oct 12, 2010)

If you look back a few pages I made another post regarding my experience with EI where I outlined a modified dosing schedule from the EI guidelines where I was substituting KNO3 with K2SO4 in order to lower my N.

That did not make any real differences.

I suppose lowering P may be the next step, then lowering both if that doesn't work?

I think the most fussy plant I have is downoi. It not the most colourful, but personally until I've found a dosing schedule that I'm confident I wont be toying with too much, I'm hesitant to pick up more demanding plants.

I may replace my R. Rotundifolia at some point, or may mix another species in with it for some variety. Otherwise though I like the scape of my tank as it is and feel that the hints of pink/red will create softer focal points so as not to draw too much attention away from the fish (which are red... See what I did there? ). 

I may change my mind in the future, but for this tank I have no plans to change the plants.

For my next tank... Well... We'll see how long it takes for the obsession to sink its claws in


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Besides the color thing with H. 'Rosanervig', why aren't you confident with your current dosing? Is the tank healthy? From your posts I think you've got it down. 

I'd only suggest spending more time with the macros before getting caught in the real tiny (S, B) stuff, but again that's just me. I'd suggest increasing P before dropping it. This sounds crazy to some, but watch what happens to your plants once you're past 3ppm or so. 

(I think good P, like good Fe, makes green plants get greener and red plants get redder. Don't listen to me, though. I think you should follow your instincts, see, post, think about it, adjust, then repeat.)


----------



## Skizhx (Oct 12, 2010)

> Besides the color thing with H. 'Rosanervig', why aren't you confident with your current dosing? Is the tank healthy? From your posts I think you've got it down.


It's pretty well just the colouration.

The tank is healthy, I have no problems with algae, the plants are growing and thriving. Fish are healthy, enjoying a superb diet with live food (something else I've learned from this tank) and plenty of variety. The tank is going great.

It's my first real planted tank, and I've almost accomplished every single goal I could have set out for when I started.

It's for the sake of learning and experience. That's what the main goal of this project was for me, since I knew I would have to move and take it down eventually anyways. The fact that the colouration hasn't happened on its own sorta makes me want to understand it and figure it out even more.

It's like 'now that I've gotten the hang of the broader fundamentals, might as well see if we can't fine-tune it'.


----------



## countcoco (Dec 28, 2010)

Ferts are really the last thing to worry about in this hobby. Lighting, co2 and general environmental conditions are way more important than ferts, especially if you're using a substrate like aquasoil.

Ferts just seem important because there are so many people on forums that obsess over them and are constantly arguing about which chelating agent is the best, etc. I'd recommend that you take a look at some of the tanks that placed in the aga aquascaping competition. A lot of contestants just dose K, iron and traces with fantastic results. 

Downoi isn't really sensitive to ferts, especially ferts dosed through the water column. It's very sensitive to gH and light levels though. IME, it thrives in tanks with a rich substrate, moderately hard water (gH 7-8) and medium lighting.


----------



## Skizhx (Oct 12, 2010)

So if there's such a huge range of acceptable nutrient levels...

Where exactly does algae play in?

I understand that lighting, photoperiod, water circulation, water quality, etc take a lot of responsibility for it. But methods like EI seem to be aimed at helping new hobbyists run a planted tank both successfully, and without algae.

I believe it was Tom Barr who did his experiments where he purposely crashed his tanks and induced rampant algae growth, and discovered that nutrient deficiency was much more likely to induce algae than nutrient excess.

However by that logic PPS-PRO tanks should be expected to see tons of algae until the ferts have had the chance to accumulate, and with this wide margin of error, why would some people see improvements switching from one to the other?

Again, to me, the information seems to indicate that there's more of a ratio balance at play here more than anything else. I mean if you think about liquid plant fertilizers for houseplants. They all clearly advertise their nutrient ratio. None of them advertise the quantity though.


----------



## Diana K (Dec 20, 2007)

I think there is a lot more going on when algae is growing than just a one-line answer. There is a complex of issues, and the way to solve it is one step at a time. Change one thing, and if that seems to help a bit, maintain that, but change something else. If that hurts (algae grows worse) then reverse that item and change something else. One step at a time. 
Similarly with fertilizer issues. Change one thing. Monitor the responses. (good and bad), If you like the results, but it is not all the answer then maintain what you have done, and change something else. 

Keep track of the changes, and take pictures of the plants with the same lighting, same time of day and compare. Growth, color, density...


----------



## countcoco (Dec 28, 2010)

Skizhx said:


> So if there's such a huge range of acceptable nutrient levels...
> 
> Where exactly does algae play in?
> 
> ...


I've never read any of the studies on the barrreport, but you need to take anything you read on that website with a grain of salt. It's in his own interest to push the idea that high levels of ferts are good since ei calls for ridiculously high N-P-K concentrations.

A theory regarding algae growth that has a lot more scientific validity behind it is the redfield ratio, which, in a nutshell, states that with an N ratio of ~16:1 there is very little risk of algae.

The reason why prepared fert solutions prominently list nutrients in percentages (eg 10-10-10 = 10%N 10%P 10%K) is because of outdated labeling laws.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Couple things worth noting:

1) Many tanks in the AGA competition can't be more than 6 months mature -- imo -- and while aquascapers experimenting with layouts is awesome, this is a different challenge than the kind of growing/hobbyist/presumably-long-term tank Skizhx describes and EI and PPS-Pro are designed for.

2 related to 1) Especially in non-US countries, aquascapers spend lots more time on substrate and nutrient rich layers, not just the Aquasoil mentioned by countcoco

3) For clarity, it's a misconception that PPS-Pro proportions are all that different from EI. Here's a post from Edward. http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/44283-pps-pro-question-ppm.html#post329515

Here's that 1ppm NO3 daily dose under PPS-Pro for the first month (1ppm 7x a week):


Here's out-of-the-box EI, just the nominal recommendation for NO3 for the first month (~3.33ppm 3x a week):


Here's PPS-Pro after 6 months:


Here's EI after 6 months:


It's not very different at all once plants start uptaking the food, assuming we're feeding the plants! Both approaches have the same method for avoiding algae. EI just says the upper bounds don't matter. PPS-Pro says if you pay a little more weight on the input building a stable system is easy.

4) An aspect of PPS-Pro we forget is guys who use PPS-Pro -- I'm thinking of Andy Ritter, ray-the-pilot, Freeman, etc -- tend to be proactive curious guys who are fine with moving their target after watching their plants. Again, this is more good gardening than method.

(I'm trying to encourage you to just keep gardening while you ask these questions and experiment with targets and method because I think this more valuable than any text.)

5) Disclaimer: Not a scientist except in the way all gardeners who watch their plants are scientists. But I don't think ratio matters as much as you're thinking, Skizhx. I think stability, good ranges, and slowly adjusting the system (via dosing in this case) do.

What do you do to get better color from your other living things: fish, shrimp, etc?

What did you do to stop algae and badness?

6) Side note: stopping NO3 dosing isn't necessarily the same as crashing N-levels to get color. Growth rate and uptake have to be such that they overtake what is inherent in the system (fauna/biological processes, substrate, whatever is in the water column...)

Hoping this helps.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

Hey wet, nice charts!

Actually, after doing PPS pro for over two years and checking KPN regularly I can say that KPN do not keep going up like your charts say. After a while, the amount you put in is equal to the amount that gets used or replaced with water changes. 

K and NO3 stablize at about 10 - 20 ppm and PO4 is usually below 0.5 ppm. The only time stuff built up for me was when my plants were eaten up by fish.

BTW I do a 20% water change per week. I do not recommend doing no water changes.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Hey ray-the-pilot. Just an append to your first-hand experience that it models as expected. (Food input fudge-factor can be added under "optional.". This is based on 90% of food becoming waste, with the other 10% retained by fauna, which copies how Plantbrain does it.)

Neat with hybrid EI/PPS-Pro -- "good gardening" -- is it works with monthly water changes, too. 
PPS-Pro's standard dosing, 20% monthly water changes. Watch the yellow and green lines, which are the assumption that the plants consume 75% to 90% of NO3 added to the tank. 


(purists may argue the goal of perpetual preservation is to get to 100% consumption. I argue this is impractical [algae] and export of the water column is good, like ray's tank or, say, houseofcards and HeyPK's pwc-as-a-habit examples. That would be the green to bottom-of-the-graph zone above, which is 90-100% uptake by the plants.)


----------



## Skizhx (Oct 12, 2010)

Wet, you have provided an abundance of great input in this thread, many thanks for your time.

What I find particularly interesting is that in all your graphs, it appears that EI is actually maintaining LOWER ppm in the long-run.

Another difference I noticed is that EI reaches its peak PPM levels at roughly 56 days, whereas your chart of Ray-the-pilot's 20% water changes with PPS-PRO indicates that nutrience peaks appear to stabilize after about a year (I wouldn't run a tank without water changes unless it was a plant only tank, and from what I've observed most people seem to feel the same way. The write-up for PPS-PRO does recommend water changes for tanks with fish, I believe).

So I'm now thinking since EI has gotten my levels up, I wouldn't notice much difference transitioning into something like what ray-the-pilot's doing. This way nutrient levels do less shifting around from one day to the next, and 20% water changes means I wont have to shut off any equipment when I do my changes, and less less turbulence for my lower plants to deal with since I'll be refilling from a higher water level. Seems sensible to me at least (yeah I know, my water change methods could use some fine tuning for convenience).

*Regarding PO4 and my hygro*
According to fertilator and petalphile's calc my current macro solution adds roughly 2.2-3.2ppm of PO4 per dose. It's a 29gal tank, but with substrate, driftwood, etc, it's hard to know exactly how much water's in there and of course because this was my first tank I didn't take note of how much water I used to fill it because I didn't know any better *sigh*.

I calculated those levels as 29gal for the low end, 20gal for the high-end.

This is in accordance with:
20-40 Gallon Aquariums
+/- ¼ tsp KN03 3x a week
+/- 1/16 tsp KH2P04 3x a week
+/- 1/16 tsp (5ml) Trace Elements 3x a week
50% weekly water change

Following this dose over 3 months in a 20gal tank:









29 gal









It seems plausible to me that my levels may be too high since many of my plants are slower growing crypts, and not the fast growing stems that EI was originally formulated with in mind, so perhaps my uptake is not so high and PO4 is accumulating to inadequate levels.

But as we've learned in this thread there's an awful lot of wiggle room to shoot for the high end... And quite honestly, I haven't had any actual problems with plants, algae, or otherwise. So this has sort of brought me around to thinking that PO4 probably isn't the factor here one way or another.

Plants seem so simple, straightforward, and fool proof from the surface. Then you get your thumb wet and realize just how involving this hobby can get. At times I would almost compare it to trying to draw a perfect circle freehanded


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

Skizhx said:


> Another difference I noticed is that EI reaches its peak PPM levels at roughly 56 days, whereas your chart of Ray-the-pilot's 20% water changes with PPS-PRO indicates that nutrience peaks appear to stabilize after about a year


I can tell you from actual experience that your water will stabilize in about a month on PPS-Pro. Also, I do 20% water change a week. Not 20% water changes a month.
I actually 2 x 10% changes. 10% on Saturday and 10% on Sunday so the actual water change is closer to 19%
RTP


----------



## Skizhx (Oct 12, 2010)

I'd overlooked that his graph was showing 20%/month. I thought it was showing 20%/week, my bad.

Thanks for clearing that up though.


----------



## bosmahe1 (May 14, 2005)

I think Wet was trying to show that PPS Pro works with 20 % water changes per month and graphed that to show that.

Ray-the-Pilot,

Are you using the original recipe for PPS Pro or, did you modify it for your tank? If so, what did you change?

I've been trying PPS Pro for about a month and so far, it seems to work well. I added more kh2po4 than the original recipe because, when I used EI, I had to increase Po4 slightly to eliminate Green Spot Algae. Just wondering what you have experienced.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

bosmahe1 said:


> I think Wet was trying to show that PPS Pro works with 20 % water changes per month and graphed that to show that.
> 
> Ray-the-Pilot,
> 
> ...


I use the original recipe with extra PO3. Based on actual water tests in my tank, PO3 goes away fastest. I usually add an extra 0.3ppm every other day.

I've also fooled arround with variations on the micro formula but I basically use the CMS + B recommended.

I keep my CO2 on the low side dark green in my 4 deg KH drop checker. This is about 20 ppm.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

Sorry for not explicitly stating this, but Ray's described dosing is graphed under the "models as expected" link in my last post, aka here:



The example in the last post was about how a hybrid model between EI and PPS-Pro can be appealing and mathematically sound -- ie, within ranges both methods agree with.

Skizhx,


> Then you get your thumb wet and realize just how involving this hobby can get. At times I would almost compare it to trying to draw a perfect circle freehanded


You might be interested to know that I tell every nerd who asks about my tanks that this really is the perfect hobby. There's something artistic. There's something nerdy (and as nerdy as you want to be). There's something zen about growing and keeping a garden. It's just perfect. Even with my breaks over the years, I am sure it will be a lifetime hobby.


----------



## bosmahe1 (May 14, 2005)

ray-the-pilot said:


> I use the original recipe with extra PO3. Based on actual water tests in my tank, PO3 goes away fastest. I usually add an extra 0.3ppm every other day.
> 
> I've also fooled arround with variations on the micro formula but I basically use the CMS + B recommended.
> 
> I keep my CO2 on the low side dark green in my 4 deg KH drop checker. This is about 20 ppm.


Have you tried spiking your traces with Fe DTPA or anything? I mixed my CSM+B, 3 to 1 with DTPA and then measured that out according to the recipe. Since I have no way of measuring the result, I just watch the plants. So far, so good. Since I've been using PPS Pro, my nitrates stay at about 20 ppm and Phosphates at about 5 ppm. That's measuring with API test kits, uncalibrated but, probably close enough for government work. I will probably cut my weekly water changes from 50 % to 30 % and see how that goes.


----------



## Skizhx (Oct 12, 2010)

> You might be interested to know that I tell every nerd who asks about my tanks that this really is the perfect hobby. There's something artistic. There's something nerdy (and as nerdy as you want to be). There's something zen about growing and keeping a garden. It's just perfect. Even with my breaks over the years, I am sure it will be a lifetime hobby.


Heh, I realized this about 40 pages into Ecology of the Planted Aquarium before I ever set up my first tank 

It can get stressful at times though.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Both EI and PPS have much more wisdom behind them than I previously thought.

I think I heard Amano is discussing both methods in the next issue of Aquajournal. This is an interesting thing because AquaJournal is not about the techie side of planted aquariums but about aquascaping. If Amano himself has decided to break his own rules and talk about EI and PPS in the AquaJournal then they got to be something special.

But I maybe mistaken about the article. We may never get to hear what Amano thinks about EI and PPS.

--Nikolay


----------

