Newbie Guide to PPS-Pro

[plantbrain]

Not sure I agree, if you take in context of the other recommendation: 15ppm target.

The CO2 flow rate to keep the tank at 15ppm during the day, is less than half what is required to keep it a 30ppm. So assuming 10 hours light cycle, you are only using 20% more if the flow rate required is half. I suspect it is less than that.

Well, do you think you achieve the same growth rate with a CO2 of 30ppm vs 15ppm?

No, you do not and there's a mountain of hard evidence that clearly and definitively shows this. See Bowes, Van, Haller for more.

If you lower lighting to say 1.5 w/gal, I can grow plants fine at 15ppm, I can grow plants at 3-5ppm or less at that light lvele, and I can grow plants fine at 30ppm at that level of light.

Why?
Light is the limiting factor

Same with adding "just enough" lean methods for nutrients.
The plants cannot not fully use the light or CO2 because they are limited by the nutrients.

This works okay also.

ADA does that also, but they add nutrients to the sediments as well in that process, thus get more out of the leaner dosing with better plant growth/health.

We have done this in the West coast in our club and did a lot of testing in the 1990's and early part of the 2000's. Some of us went very lean, others, went richer.

I think it is true, that many newbies are not aware of the dynamics between the various methods, or limiting say PO4, reduces the NO3 uptake demand. Or that low NO3/PO4 also reduces CO2 uptake or that more light = more work/growth/nutrients/CO2 demand.

Most do not want to be bothered testing nor know how to go about it also. They just want to grow plants in their tanks.

Thus their goals define the method, not the other way around.

.......and that my friend, is why I suggest a number of methods, not just EI:idea:

I am sorry if I come off wrong to you, I am not a salesman, only in person will I try and sell you a car:dance2:

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[plantbrain]

Those who follow his approach to plants will be highly successful.

No, they are human, we all are.
We all fall off the wagon so to speak.

That being said I was very annoyed by a few comments:

KNO3 is still KNO3, it is not "more" than fertilizers, never was, never will be.

I never said otherwise. The PPS-Pro solutions are fertilizer. Duh!

You missed the point:
All fertilizers are the same, whether they are PPS, EI, Non CO2, ADA etc.

The system is about more than fertilizer, but an overall approach concerning lighting, CO2, PH and aeration.

And so is EI, ADA, non CO2 methods etc
Something I've pointed out in the previous threads about how they regulate on another.

You cannot take a method without the rest of the s main parts of growth, they define the rates of growth. What is implied is that adding "just enough" or limiting CO2 uptake through nutrient limitation is better.

It's not, it's just slower uptake.

If you use less light, then you need less CO2, so 15ppm is not a target except in a few cases.

The talk about it being system means you need to know and be aware of the dynamics and why a tank might need 30ppm in one case under higher light and good nutrients ppms and another might not need that much.

Edward has not gotten there.
He might eventually, but we in the bay area figure this out a decade ago.
And no, it was not just myself.

"
The solutions are tailored for that overall approach."

It will not do well without understanding why things are regulated to begin with. Such claims such as the CO2, or higher levels being bad implies a lot of fallacies without test and good methods for evaluations.

"CO2 ideal is ideal, at least that's what all the research literature(Bowes et al, etc etc, a mountain of evidence here) say and what growth rates suggest."

First question is do we want optimum growth rate? I don't. I don't have lawn mower for my tank.

That is goal and the goal, not the method defines that question, if we are farmer, then yes, we most certainly do, many aquarist are farmers and many want high growth rates for pruning and gardening goals..........some are more concerned about less work and nice decent looking tank, then non CO2 methods apply much better.

The generally accepted(Primary research and the practical test) max yields for CO2 are about 30ppm, some plants may do better at higher levels, some at lower levels, does PPS or EI address that? EI does.

If a plant does fine at 15ppm and another 35 ppm, which level would be best for management?

35ppm, not 15ppm.
The 15ppm plant still has plenty available and so does the 35ppm plant.

Second is why does Amano (who Tom reference) run a large percentage of his tanks at 15ppm?

He doesn't
Read the pH KH values, there's no way those can exist.
I've measured similar tanks and looked at the plants, and some friends have measured the ADA tanks.

Sorry for venting, but Tom's post implies I had not done any reading or had a vested interested in PPS-Pro. Neither is true.

[/quote]

No, no need to say sorry, I did not imply either of these.
I go after the idea, not the person, so have you.
You have enough knowledge to question and think about things and that is good.

But think the arguments all the way through.
Light drives CO2 uptake, which in turn drives NH4/NO3 uptake which drives PO4 uptake and K+ uptake and so on down the line.

Agreed?
Makes sense? Logical?
Most would say so.

Now, from and goal driven management perspective as well as a farmer perspective, what would be the first thing we would want to focus on if we wanted to slow things down?

Light.

Next?

CO2.

After that?

PO4/Mg/maybe NO3/maybe Fe etc.

So that understanding allows you to address any method.

Light is the starting point.
Adding enriched levels of CO2 is hardly natural
We did this for one reason: increase growth rates.
the added growth allows us to do more gardening etc.
some like that, some do not and prefer and more patient method.
Many of the older Dutch scape contest used no CO2 and did as good as any today. Took longer though.

You are somewhat new.
You will make mistakes, we all do.
Edward, myself, everyone, that is how we learn.
Don't take it personally.

We just do not keep making the same ones too many times, at leasts I try not too. hehe

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[snickle]

Thanks for the link. I had not read that actual article before.

This guide was never designed to be a sales pitch and I apologize if it comes off that way. It was compiled to try to get the newbie (myself) who had already decided to use PPS-Pro a good starting point. It was posted in on another site in a forum dedicated to PPS-Pro, not a general forum.

I was expecting a fair amount of reaction to the guide when posted here, that is why I sent neoprodigy the link to the other forum and asked if he thought it would be acceptable to post here. He said it was, so I did.

So for the viewers, if you feel like trying PPS-Pro, the guide should help. If you are not trying PPS-Pro, then the guide does not apply, so should do no harm.

 

[plantbrain]

S-
I wanted to say, that you did a fine job of condensing and making the PPS method easier for new folks to understand. Do not stop trying to do that please. I think many see it and think it's more complex than it is.
Once you do it, then you see it's not quite that way and becomes old hat pretty quick.

Yes, I've tried it and many did with some variations for many years in the distant past.

I came up with EI namely in response to this article, it's from about 1996.
Note leaner values, Test kit use! Other differences, less water changes etc.

http://www.sfbaaps.com/articles/barr_02.html

This was reviewed by the entire club at the time as were other articles.
Using a test kit monitoring system to balance things.
But you will note my suggesting for Lamotte and other higher quality test kits and methods.

Thanks for the link. I had not read that actual article before.

This guide was never designed to be a sales pitch and I apologize if it comes off that way. It was compiled to try to get the newbie (myself) who had already decided to use PPS-Pro a good starting point. It was posted in on another site in a forum dedicated to PPS-Pro, not a general forum.

Yes, I have little doubt here.
You are excited, I am not trying to dull that, I can assure you that.

I was expecting a fair amount of reaction to the guide when posted here, that is why I sent neoprodigy the link to the other forum and asked if he thought it would be acceptable to post here. He said it was, so I did.

So for the viewers, if you feel like trying PPS-Pro, the guide should help. If you are not trying PPS-Pro, then the guide does not apply, so should do no harm.

Keep refining the article and see how you can make easier for a newbie.
Discuss other methods in context.

Newbies are hit with many methods, most claim to be the one for you.
I try to make a system as easy as possible for a user. They can tailor it to their needs, goals from there.

EI, PPS, some of my older methods etc, PMDD, Dupla, ADA, non CO2 etc can tweaked some.

Most all systems do better with lower light, good CO2/nutrients.
Or no CO2 at all.

From 2002

Non CO2:

Reef:

As you can see, I am not a one method aquarist.
Start with one of your choosing that best defines your goals.

I think given your professional background PPS will appeal to you.
I started as an Engineer as well, but Botany got me, got me good too

Oh well, do what you love, it ain't work:dive:

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[snickle]

Tom,

Thanks great couple of posts.

I think I agree with most of it. Need to let it percolate through my brain.

The one point I feel obligated to make is PPS-Pro is not designed for maximum plant growth. I had this conversation with Edward and he accused me of trying to be a farmer. The point is healthy plants with a minimum of effort. That includes having to trim, so the growth rate under the PPS-Pro setup will be under EI or other system designed for maximum growth. Which is what I want, unless my fish start eating through the landscape, and then maybe I need to go maximum growth.

Thanks again for your input.

 

[plantbrain]

Nothing wrong with being a farmer, you may need to know what optimal growth is and is not.... to make the comparison after all...

What some folks are seeking, I think that is what he is trying to say, is that we can better manage the routines by limiting nutrients, but not "too much".
What is too much? I'm not sure but I do know if you ask 5 planted tank folks, you'd get 5 different responses...........

I see things very differently having gone down that road decades ago, as well as discussing things with folks smarter than Edward or I about those concepts. I have no issue giving credit where it is due. Today I am one of the few left on the web from that time period that still post.

I know that light is the driving factor in management of growth, why walk such a careful edge adding just barely enough nutrients to keep things going???

Some species may suffer. CO2 will be easier to manage with less light as well and the O2 level will be more stable too.

And it cost you a lot less money for less light, less electric cost, better coloration to your eyes fish are better colored and not as washed out.
Algae, no matter what causes, are less intense with less light.

That would suggest that light, not CO2 nor nutrients would be a far better modulator of managing growth and aesthetics there, than nutrients or CO2, and unlike nutrients/CO2, lowering light makes the management of lower CO2/lower nutrients far more easy/robust.

So rather than railing against PPS as method, I just showed you how to get even more out of it.

The same was true for PMDD of which the List of Levels and Parameters came from and eventually morphed into EI due to people's lazyiness with testing and test kit errors/lack of calibration.

Less light is great.
Why not minimize that rather than nutrients to maintain good plant health?

PPS started out as a method to dose without water changes and included a lot of testing, most saw it as very complicated. I looked at what folks where doing and many had BBA issues, they focused a lot of effort on nutrients/testing, and almost ignored the CO2 issue.

Now lighting is being added over a range(something that was missing with PPS's 1st incarnation- folks did this many years ago as well), CO2 is being reduced to 15ppm, Amano style dosing is being used to further lower nutrients down(many folks are not interested in daily dosing, I leave for the weekend etc).

That's fine.
It'll work, but so will PMDD and limiting PO4, something clearly done 12 years ago. 15ppm CO2, limiting PO4(0.2ppm or less), keep NO3 around 3-5 ppm etc, 0.1ppm of Fe residual etc. So theyb are trying to limit Fe, NO3 and PO4 at low levels.

That's very old hat.
See here if you have doubts:
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/sears-conlin.html

It's all right there, 1996, and was worked out a year or two before that.

The point is healthy plants with a minimum of effort.

Well then Diana Walstad's book is for you!
It details out a non CO2 approach.
That goal is best achieved with that method, not PPS, not EI, not ADA etc, and I dare anyone to suggest a plausible argument otherwise.

No dosing at all(once a week if you chose), just feed fish.
Plant growth is slow, water changes only once every 3-9 months, sometimes less. Very little trimming, no costly CO2 gas systems that make unnatural CO2 levels in the tank, growth is still good and nice, just slow.
No risk of ever killing any fish with CO2, something plenty of folks have done.
I have not after all this either, yet.........

The arguments for the Non CO2 as far as routine for little work cannot be beaten nor is anything PPS related going to unsurp that.

That method has been around since the start of the planted tanks with the Dutch in post WWII, about 1940's or so we started seeing nice pictures of fully planted tanks and competitions there. Diana Walstad gave the method a lot of support and revitalized it perhaps single handedly in the 1990's.
I have no conention with her method either, just a few of the reasons why and synthesis issues, for the most part, that is the best book for a hobbyists out there.

I took the non CO2 method and used an inert substrate and dosed the water column and gave routines and methods for that, they predate PPS/the APC etc and they add "just enough" which is very easy to target without water changes and test kits because the growth rate and demand is so low.

The ratios of ferts are added based on an assumed max growth rate with and without CO2. This is about a factor of 10-20X slower than with adding CO2 gas at 4-20X normal levels.

So if you have an algae issue that takes about 2 days to appear in a CO2 enriched high light tank, it'll take a month to slowly appear, if at all.

Algae prefer CO2 as well, they also do poorly in lower light vs high light.
Plants tend to be better at light gathering than algae.

Most of the ADA tanks(ADA only adds high light for 3 hours in the middle of the day, the rest of the time it's low light+ nutrient rich sediment-NO3/NH4/PO4/Fe etc), Dutch and European tanks are also lower light.

That is the defining method for lazy planted aquarist.
I argued with Edward about that a few years back, like many questions, it was ignored. I address folk's questions, always have.

You want to use the same arguments as the non CO2 methods being natural and reducing work(so why not suggest that if that is really Edward's goal with his method?) but at the same time you want to argue that richer nutrients are bad in the same breath yet advocate adding them in the form of CO2 and other nutrients.

You cannot have both arguments present and appear logical.
The goals conflict, adding CO2 increases growth, which is what he is arguing against with respect to EI (I just lower light, add less, about 2/3rds etc if I want slower growth, heck EI is meant to be modified after all and taken with a grain of common sense, not written in stone), it complicates the method, it does not simply it.
We can chose slower growting plants, less light many thyings reduce thwe work load for planted tanks, I use automatic water changers using solenoids and timers, or simply hard plumb a drain and refill with a carbon filter to remove chlorine.

I added a wireless remote to a client's tank, all he does is hit a button and the tank drains 50% or whatever level he desires. Hits the other button, the tank fills with treated tao or RO water or a blend thereof at the right temp.

You are an engineer aren't you?:read:
I like simplifying things and making them easier!
That's the fun part of the hobby.

Now I have no work even with the higher light CO2 enriched tanks.
A little work/$ for a day reduces my work load from then on.

If what he argues for is truly less work with the min amount of effort, then a non CO2 method and perhaps a dosing once a week would be best based on that goal: it could be the PPS pro or 1/10th EI, or ADA AS, or soil+sand, or higher fish loads or a different plant choice etc. Whatever you wanted to use as a routine, nutrient source.

I use soil + sand at the lab for growing aquatic weeds.
No ferts at all to the water column.......no CO2 either........

I can add slower growing plants and reduce the work load as well, or add more hardscape, there are many things that can factor in here.

It's not all about nutrients/CO2 etc.
It's about folks, and layout, plant choices etc

Here's Greg's guide also:
http://www.aquatic-gardeners.org/guide.html

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Jrtdevore]

I have a question

Hey there. I am about to start using PPS-Pro in my 50 gallon freshwater goldfish aquarium. I have three 3-4in goldfish in the aquarium and it has been successfully planted for over a month now. When I read on the http://sites.google.com/site/aquaticplantfertilizer/home/pps-pro website, it had me order a trace mineral compound, potassium sulfate, potassium nitrate, monopotassium phosphate, magnesium sulfate AND CALCIUM SULFATE. Now the recipe for mixing the chemicals shows making a mixture in one bottle with the trace minerals and then the first four of the macro compounds in a second bottle. It gives NO INFORMATION at all on what to do with the Calcium Sulfate. Why was I instructed to order this, and what do I do with it now that I have it???
Thanks.
Joshua.

 

[plantbrain]

Here's a tank runnign at 55ppm and loaded with Rainbows and ton of shrimps, it is my tank and I have not added studio lighting or massive flashes or stopped the high current.
When you do those things, then you take the pic, you have far more pearling. Light is about 50 micromoles over the bottom surface.

pH/Kh test always overestimate the actual CO2, never underestimate.
Unless you have a reference to measure CO2[aq], you cannot verify or trust your results, the same is true for NO3 test and PO4 etc test kits, or even an under calibrate pH meter, you have 2 points.
No way around this basic step.

Joshua, CaSO4 is mixed into the macro ferts generally.
If you use hot tap water or heated DI/RO, this will help dissolve it better, some folks add some Excel to the make up water to prevent mold.

 

[plantbrain]

Simply put: you cannot argue with higher nutrients = algae or poorer management.
It's easier then one can focus on more important things, like gardening and growing nice plants, which is why 95% of us got into the hobby to begin with, not to fiddle and micromanage.
If you want to slow things down, go non CO2 methods.

Diana Walstad argues a good point for that and I followed up with a water column type version for it.