PPS pro

[parotet]

So if you are using PPS Pro, EI, ADA, Tropica the only thing that matters is does it work for you, question the reasons why it works for you, question if you could go lower or not and thats about it.

I really hate the fact that people pay more for some methods just for faith and because theyve seen more great tanks done with this method

Absolutely... fertilizing a planted tank is something far from being rigid. I don't care what the "book of rules" of EI or PPS says, what is said in the directions of a comercial fert bottle or what miraculous ingredient comes in a cool and extremely expensive fert bottle... I just try to understand what I'm doing and adapt the method to my tank needs. Not easy at the beginning but your eyes can tell you a lot more than anything you can read.

PPS Pro is not flexible as suggested above. It is a rigid regime (or at least was when I first read about it on APC) where you start off with set amounts and then test for residual at intervals and adjust you next solution to take residual into account and on it goes. It also had a 15ppm CO2 enrichment. Therefore if that isn't what you are doing then it isn't PPS Pro. It is your own hybrid version of it.

You're probably right about my own hybrid version. But I am not sure why EI can be so flexible and other methods not... this same problem is quite frequent in forums with people using bottled stuff and sticking strictly to the directions. Once again, fert methods are just a rule of thumb, at least this is my approach to all of them, whatever their name is.
Just a beatiful example in this forum from someone using PPS-Pro fine-tuned to his needs: http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/from-tranquility-island-to-a-dutch-touch-200l.30256/ using the standard dose (see first pages where it is mentioned, no extra PO4 added), not testing (see also comments about this in these first pages), weekly WC, with high light and no GSA problems.

By the way if anyone is interested they can read opinions on pps pro and see that most users have to modify the recipe and end up dosing more phosphates so as not to get so much green spot algae

Don't want to be unpolite Jose (I don't want to be misunderstood again please...), but this sentence has been repeated thousands of times in forums: "Method X don't work and you will end up with algae"... It is a very generalistic statement that really hides a huge complexity and you mentioned yourself that

I really hate the fact that people pay more for some methods just for faith and because theyve seen more great tanks done with this method

Me to, and honestly we are not sponsoring or defending any of the methods. ADA, EI, PPS-PRO, Tropica fert methods can be succesful or fail (see in this forum plenty of examples for all of them) and we all are aware that other aspects of tank management are much more important than your fert method as long as you satisfy plants demands.
I am not defending EI or PPS-Pro (or any other method), I just try to understand them. For whatever reason a variation of PPS-Pro is working much better than EI in my tank (as it happen with the tank linked or with other thousands of tanks) but I would never dare to say that EI will cause you algae problems.

The bottom line is If a method works its because its supplying enough nutrients for a given ammount of light

IMO this is the conclusion of this interesting discussion... this is really the point. Poor Martin opened this thread asking a simple question about PPS-Pro and my answer was saying something like "in my case PPS-Pro (or whatever variation of it) delivers enough nutrients (including PO4) for the light I have".

Cheers,
Jordi

 

[Martin in Holland]

Poor Martin opened this thread asking a simple question

Don't worry...it's starting to get more and more interesting. I just have a goal in mind for my new setup which requires less strong current as I want my Lelies to reach the surface...

 

[Jose]

Hi Parotet and everyone,
The tank you posted has probably got a fertile substrate. This is where loads of nutrients come from, probably more than than a full ei regime. This sort of tanks is where the myths start because people dont see the whole picture. People think you can keep this type of tank with gravel and pps pro (well you cant). But a lovely looking tank anyway.
Yes pps pro works if you have a fertile substrate because this is where nutrients come from. Also pps pro works without a fertile substrate if you have lower light. You see thats the good thing about EI, it rules out everything else.
Basically if youve got a fertile substrate you can dose very lean if you want but the concentration of nutrients in the water column will probably be quite high. But for example I could keep the same tank with gravel or sand and not have to do so many water changes in the beginning.

 

[Jose]

For a newbie you can recommend pps pro if they have a fertile substrate but nobody asks if this is the case before recommending it do they? They just say, it works for me. So the newbie goes and tries it with inert sand and he runs into problems. This is why if someone asks if pps pro works I am very straightforward and say it doesnt. It might work for them but I just like things that work all the time which dont make this hobby look like a religion where you have to say a prayer to your tank to see plants grow nicely. Of course it can work, but it doesnt work well most of the times so.....

For me (bare this in mind): PPS Pro = Fail (unless bla bla bla)

Now, Im willing to change my mind: If someone can show me a few tanks that use pps pro without a fertile substrate and that use high light and high CO2.

 

[parotet]

The tank you posted has probably got a fertile substrate

It is JBL Manado... see post #60, not really a rich nutrient substrate. But anyway, as you said it is quite dangerous to get obssessed with one tank you like and try to follow blindly its approach as a religion. It may sound weird but different ferts methods work as long as they work for you 😕

Jordi

 

[Jose]

If you look carefully he seems to have added a layer of another substarte Parotet for the HC carpet. Wonder why? You can see the different colours, This guy has probably done a bit of trial and error. Plus his light doesnt look that strong (although Im guessing here). It all adds up.

 

[parotet]

Ok, I surrender... EI came to save our tanks
(I'm joking mate, don't misunderstand me please)

Jordi

 

[Jose]

Ok, I surrender... EI came to save our tanks
(I'm joking mate, don't misunderstand me please)
Jordi

Hahaha! Hey dont worry Im not an ogre (not always anyway)

Listen I just used a calculator to find out how much he is dosing and it turns out he is dosing 1.4 ppm of phosphates a week. Thats quite near EI which is around 2 ppm, and double what pps pro recommends which is 0.1 ppm a day. Please dont surrender it was getting fun now.

p.s; I dont use EI method per se in my tanks. For example if I have low light I dose 1/5 EI and change water maybe once a month. But I do monitor ammonia only. And also I use only black inert sand.

 

[parotet]

Jose... back again... 😉

and double what pps pro recommends

Yep, this is actually this "something between EI and PPS-Pro" I was mentioning at the beginning of this thread. In fact I began with 4xPPS-Pro (which was very similiar to my EI previous dosing), then reduced progressively to 3 and 2xPPS-Pro (similar to 1/3EI?) and now I am around 1,5xPPS-Pro... mollecules are mollecules, we can give them the names we want. Flexibility and good understanding for adaptation to our tank, that's all we need. But it is really difficult to communicate this to beginners. Just imagine if a newbie reads all this 😱 he/she would probably forget about planted tanks for ever and ever!

Cheers,
Jordi

 

[Jose]

But it is really difficult to communicate this to beginners. Just imagine if a newbie reads all this he/she would probably forget about planted tanks for ever and ever!

Lol, yes this is true. And its why I dont recommend pps pro, because beginners do use methods rigidly.

 

[Marcel G]

If either of these 2 (light or CO2) are high without sufficient nutrients it won't slow growth it will cause massive problems.

That may be true for some extreme values and conditions, but you need to take into account that in an average planted tank we use quite low light of 200-400 µmol PAR at water surface (in comparison to full sunlight which gives around 2000 µmol PAR at the water surface). So our light intensity is ALWAYS limiting for our plants, so at these "low" light values the nutrient uptake is quite low. Besides this, the growth rate difference under 200 µmol vs. 400 µmol PAR is not so big (maybe 10-20%). So would you realize any difference on your plants, if they grow 10 inches vs. 12 inches per week? THIS exactly is the difference between 200 vs. 400 µmol PAR. The same applies for nutrients. The EI recommended "non-limiting" values are (according to my opinion) just way off the reality. Even the most invasive aquatic plants under full sunlight don't consume such a high amounts of nutrients (nor CO2). For example, for Ceratophyllum demersum (= really invasive aquatic plant species) the CO2 saturating point is 22 ppm (500 µM). If you would lower CO2 concentration to 18 ppm, the Ceratophyllum will grow at 98%. At 13 ppm CO2 the plant will grow at 95% of it's maximum; at 9 ppm CO2 => 81%. So do you really see any big difference between 10 ppm CO2 and 20 ppm CO2? The difference in biomass yield is only 20% between 9 ppm vs. 22 ppm CO2, and only 5% between 13 ppm vs. 22 ppm. Do you think you would even notice such a low difference in plant biomass in your tank? And now take into account that we speak of Ceratophyllum demersum, which could be hardly compared to any other average aquatic plant we grow! So this difference in biomass gain will be even lower with other plant species. With the nutrients uptake (NO3 & PO4) the differences might be bigger between plant species, but again the difference between 3 ppm NO3 and 0.15 ppm PO4 vs. 20 ppm NO3 and 3 ppm PO4 might be no more then 50%. And for most aquatic plants the concentration of 5-10 ppm NO3 and 0.2-0.5 ppm PO4 should be more then enough for a good growth. If you really need for your plants to grow at 100% growth rates, then you can add 30-50 ppm NO3 (or even more) and 1-5 ppm PO4. But if you can make do with 70-90% then it should be sufficient to add 5-10 ppm NO3 and 0.2-0.5 ppm PO4 for most aquatic plants. I don't see any substantial difference between 100% and 80%, but I see a big difference between 50 ppm NO3 vs. 10 ppm NO3.

BTW, I have two tanks right now. One with ADA Aqua Soil Amazonia, and the other with nothing (no substrate, no filter media => just plants in a little plastic caps with small amount of quartz). In both tanks I use 100-120 µmol PAR at the substrate. In none of the tanks I have any algae problems. Although in the substrate-less tank there are some algae visible, but nothing serious. In both tank there are good levels of oxygen (more then 100% saturation during photoperiod), and good levels of CO2 (20-35 ppm). When I add high amounts of nutrients into my substrate-less tank, the shoots (growing tips) of Althernanthera mini, Pogostemon erectus, and Limnophila sessiliflora get deformed. When I keep nutrients level low, all plants grow just fine and look very healthy. So you can doubt it, but in reality I can have a healthy planted tank with high light and low nutrients without any problems. I don't even have any algae-eaters (or other critters) in this substrate-less tank. Right now I wait for Rotala wallichii to bush out, and then I do some laboratory test => I would like to measure the nutrient concentration on the 1st day, and then on the 7th day ... to find out how much nutrients my plants really used up in this tank. I did some tests already with plants biomass, so I would like to verify if the results were correct.

 

[GreenNeedle]

exactly. The reason I say EI can be flexible because even Tom will say that it is a starting point whereas with PPS and PPS Pro Edward used to dictate it was a regime etc and this is what you do and should continue to do. EI by its very name (Estimative) means you are estimating.

I have used both. PPS Pro worked OK for a short time until the plants grew in and then I had to up everything substantially. CO2 @ 15ppm has never worked for me. I have used EI with great success years ago but these days I just want to be lazy. I can't be arsed with heavy water changes, indeed sometimes I can't be bothered with any. Sometimes can be 3 weeks (sometimes longer) before I can be bothered to do a 20% change.

So these days I tend to use an all in one dosed daily and try to stick to 10% water change a week. Works for me.

 

[Jose]

Hi ardjuna,
You are right on your reflections about plants not growing much faster at higher nutrient levels. This is because the growth pattern is not linear after a certain nutrient ppm. Once again its not about the ammount of ferts in the tank its about the supply of ferts. Ammount supplied has to be = or above the ammount consumed by plants. In your substrateless tank you say you dose little but you should specify how much. Also having some algae shouldnt be seen as something normal. I dont get any algae ever although I use low light.

Also you dont say in you substrateless tank how old it is. Also you might have some ferts in your tap water that are supplying your plants with enough nutrients.

 

[Jose]

So these days I tend to use an all in one dosed daily and try to stick to 10% water change a week. Works for me.

If you are lazy about water changes like me then the best thing is to lower your light. This way plants metabolism slows down and they produce very little waste products, so water stays clean.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all, I'd have to say first of all that I agree with most of Arjuna's post, but you have to be a little bit careful with

For example, for Ceratophyllum demersum (= really invasive aquatic plant species) the CO2 saturating point is 22 ppm (500 µM). If you would lower CO2 concentration to 18 ppm, the Ceratophyllum will grow at 98%. At 13 ppm CO2 the plant will grow at 95% of it's maximum; at 9 ppm CO2 => 81%. So do you really see any big difference between 10 ppm CO2 and 20 ppm CO2?

Purely because Ceratophyllum demersum is an obligate aquatic plant and usually grows entirely submerged.

If you looked at the majority of the plants sold as aquarium plants they aren't obligate aquatic plants, quite the opposite, they are terrestrial plants that will survive submerged. I think this will make a real difference, because atmospheric CO2 levels are about 400ppm.

cheers Darrel

 

[GreenNeedle]

Ardjuna. I get what you are saying but thst is a little simplistic in my eyes. It assumes that what we add stays available and is consumed. From what we add in terms of nutrient and CO2 for all we know the plants might only be able to access 5% of it for any number of reason and the other 95% laid to waste. This is certainly the case for CO2 and is the reason we try to add high ppm to the water because we know the vast majority will disappear into our lounge air. Its like trying to grab hold of leaves in the air on a very windy day (or being in the Crystal maze trying to grab the gold tickets.)

 

[Jose]

I would like to measure the nutrient concentration on the 1st day, and then on the 7th day ... to find out how much nutrients my plants really used up in this tank. I did some tests already with plants biomass, so I would like to verify if the results were correct.

When you do this test this isnt the maximum ammount of nutrients consumed by the plants because you might be limitting a nutrient, so plants will grow at the limitted speed.

 

[Marcel G]

In your substrateless tank you say you dose little but you should specify how much. Also having some algae shouldnt be seen as something normal. I dont get any algae ever although I use low light. Also you dont say in you substrateless tank how old it is. Also you might have some ferts in your tap water that are supplying your plants with enough nutrients.

I dose around 10 ppm NO3 (as KNO3), 0.4-0.7 ppm PO4, and 1-3 mL of Easy-Life ProFito per 60L tank. I use RO water remineralized with Ca, Mg and NaHCO3 to reach 8 GH, and 5 KH. The tank is 1,5 month old. All the plants are in a submersed form. The algae are visible only on some leaves of Alternanthera, and I account it for the excess nutrients which deformed it's leaves. I hope in a couple of weeks it could develop new healthy leaves. Also I don't have any algae-eaters in this tank. Try to remove all algae-eaters from your tank, and then tell me if you still don't see any algae.

 

[Jose]

Also I don't have any algae-eaters in this tank. Try to remove all algae-eaters from your tank, and then tell me if you still don't see any algae

Ive only got two very small shrimp which might be starving due to 0 algae. How often do you dose these ammounts ardjuna? By the way ardjuna many people dose loads of nutrients and dont get algae.

 

[Marcel G]

When you do this test this isnt the maximum ammount of nutrients consumed by the plants because you might be limitting a nutrient, so plants will grow at the limitted speed.

When the time comes for me to do this test, I plan to add a huge amounts of nutrients (at least full EI) to see if the plants are able to use it up. So don't be afraid of any nutrient limitation.