Martin in Holland
Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2013
- Messages
- 2,311
Does anyone here use or did use PPS pro fertilizing? Did it satisfy you? Is it indeed as easy as it claims to be?
-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
PPS pro
- Thread starter Martin in Holland
- Start date
I used it and I cant say nothing good about it. I believe its designed for a certain ammount of light and CO2.You can have lower light but not higher or youll get algae. You can have good results with it if you get lucky or are sure about the ammount of light that you have.
GreenNeedle
Member
I wouldn't call the PPS Pro method easy to be honest. If I remember correctly it start s reasonably simple but then there's testing and altering the recipe over time? I think Peter Kirwan (Zig) has used it.
parotet
Member
Hi all
I am using PPS-Pro, TBH something between EI and PPS-Pro, which is at the end a kind of unlimited fert dosing but not that massive as EI. BUT I keep on with my 50% 2x WC per week and moderate light (I'd never suggest get rid of WCs as originally PPs suggested).
PPs-Pro used like that is nothing new but another way of delivering unlimited nutrient to your tank. Why have I changed from EI to PPS-Pro then? Because I want to keep my PO4 dosing much lower to have steady but slower growth than with EI. Keeping my CO2 as it was with EI, PPS-Pro is working much better. My guess is that less PO4 gives me slow growth and better/easier control on CO2 (maybe due to slow growth rate, other nutrients demand?).
Most people will say that EI has no standard doses and that you can reduce it to fit your needs... Well, I guess I can be that.
Jordi
I am using PPS-Pro, TBH something between EI and PPS-Pro, which is at the end a kind of unlimited fert dosing but not that massive as EI. BUT I keep on with my 50% 2x WC per week and moderate light (I'd never suggest get rid of WCs as originally PPs suggested).
PPs-Pro used like that is nothing new but another way of delivering unlimited nutrient to your tank. Why have I changed from EI to PPS-Pro then? Because I want to keep my PO4 dosing much lower to have steady but slower growth than with EI. Keeping my CO2 as it was with EI, PPS-Pro is working much better. My guess is that less PO4 gives me slow growth and better/easier control on CO2 (maybe due to slow growth rate, other nutrients demand?).
Most people will say that EI has no standard doses and that you can reduce it to fit your needs... Well, I guess I can be that.
Jordi
Martin in Holland
Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2013
- Messages
- 2,311
PPS as far as I know should give just enough ferts for a steady growth, but how much is enough?.....my tank may have more plants than another one's tank....
I am actually asking about PPS pro, because I want to get a more slow, steady growth with less light and a little bit less CO2, also to keep my TDS lower as this often went over 500 and the floating plants were getting salt on their leaves and after trying a lower dose (in my smaller tank) with a fert from the shelves, they do better. My aim is to change my 300 liter tank and use plants that are better in lower lights (ferns, anubius, crypts, moss......) but I don't want to go totally low tech.
I am actually asking about PPS pro, because I want to get a more slow, steady growth with less light and a little bit less CO2, also to keep my TDS lower as this often went over 500 and the floating plants were getting salt on their leaves and after trying a lower dose (in my smaller tank) with a fert from the shelves, they do better. My aim is to change my 300 liter tank and use plants that are better in lower lights (ferns, anubius, crypts, moss......) but I don't want to go totally low tech.
parotet
Member
Martin, as mentioned before the only different to me between EI and PPS-Pro (at least the way I am using PPS-Pro, that is keeping on with WC, no tests, etc.) is that the weekly dose of PO4 has gone from 3-5 ppm to 1.5 ppm. My light is around 50 micromol at the substrate, thus moderate light. The tank is crowded of stem plants. What I found is that my 2 bps through inline atomizer and spraybar all along the tank back is fitting much better with the nutrient/light. I cannot be sure why... My initial idea was that once PO4 is not limited and that high (EI) CO2 is again the limiting factor, thus pushing PO4 would be a way of pushing more and more the CO2 demand. But this assumption is probably wrong as there may be a limit in which plants cannot uptake more PO4 or CO2. The other option is as simple as assuming that PO4 limits growth very significantly thus makes easy CO2 management (easier to keep good flow, proper CO2 levels when plant biomass grow, less PO4 available for algae)
But again, it may not be true.
Probably my PPS-Pro approach is not the standard one, that is why I was saying it is something between PPS-Pro and EI, a reduced EI, etc. anyway, call it what you want but it works better for me.
Disadvantages when changing from EI to PPs-Pro? Light melting of some Cryptocoryne that are immediately growing back and some BGA on the front bottom glass due to less NO3 (also seems to disappear). However I adapted the fert dose along two weeks.
Jordi
But again, it may not be true.
Probably my PPS-Pro approach is not the standard one, that is why I was saying it is something between PPS-Pro and EI, a reduced EI, etc. anyway, call it what you want but it works better for me.
Disadvantages when changing from EI to PPs-Pro? Light melting of some Cryptocoryne that are immediately growing back and some BGA on the front bottom glass due to less NO3 (also seems to disappear). However I adapted the fert dose along two weeks.
Jordi
Martin in Holland
Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2013
- Messages
- 2,311
Thanks Jordi,
I am aware that some plants will melt or get a bit of a shock when going from EI to a mild form of EI (PPS pro), I guess they need to get use to lower light but most of all lower CO2.
I am aware that some plants will melt or get a bit of a shock when going from EI to a mild form of EI (PPS pro), I guess they need to get use to lower light but most of all lower CO2.
parotet
Member
I don't think you have necessarily to reduce light (unless you have super photon bombing light which of course will boost plants' uptake and probably will create some other side-effects problems. But that's not a problem of EI, PPS-Pro, PPS, PMDD... it's just a matter of common sense when managing planted tanks). I don't think you have to adjust/reduce CO2 either.
IMO, no matter what's the name of the system used, you want:
- unlimited ferts. In that case the only thing really being discussed here is the "amount of unlimited ferts": massively unlimited (classic/recommended EI recipe) or slightly unlimited (PPS-Pro). As I don't want to play with fire (and my tank has now loads of plants), I use something a bit higher than PPS-Pro to make sure I won't starve plants. If I prune I would stick to PPS-Pro levels
- as good levels of CO2 you can achieve. I cannot find it anymore but there was a very good paper on Tropica website about optimum growing conditions. The conclusion was: work with the better CO2 you can achieve and moderate light.
- enough light for good growing (that obviously will be the main driver for the above mentioned items)
- WCs and tank husbandry (that's the other difference for me with PPS-Pro which claimed to be a system in which you could avoid WC... I think avoiding WCs is really a mistake)
If you already have god Co2 and moderate lighting, there is no need to change them. Do two 50% WCs in a week, begin to dose with your new stock solution but use 2x or 3x PPS-Pro doses and then reduce to the levels in which your plants do well.
The main advantage for me has been a lower impact of BBA and staghorn on old, bottom and shaded leaves (new growth has never been a problem in my case).
Think about Tropica/Seachem/Vimi or whatever commercial fert dosing schemes (more information here http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/index.php?id=en_compareFert. You will notice that PPS-Pro is just a kind of DIY version of these... as flexible as these are (add more when plants ask for it).
Jordi
Last edited:
limiting phosphates with medium to high light will generate all kinds of problems, mainly algae and ssuffering plants. If you guys want slower growth or lower dosing then the best aproach is to lower the light which is what drives everything else. Then as you have less light you can dose proportionally less and you can also do less water changes.
I once tried pps pro and I never stopped having algae. If you use it you wont know why you are having so many problems. With pps pro plants will suffer releasing ammonia, which they wont be able to take back in because they dont have other nutrients. If you have very low light then pps pro will work of course.
I once tried pps pro and I never stopped having algae. If you use it you wont know why you are having so many problems. With pps pro plants will suffer releasing ammonia, which they wont be able to take back in because they dont have other nutrients. If you have very low light then pps pro will work of course.
parotet
Member
Yep, this is something in which we all agree... but I guess this is not what is being discussed here (or at least what I meant in my post)
The point is that unlimited amount of PO4 can be 10, 5, 3 or 1 ppm... it depends on your setup. With EI we are making sure that it is really/highly unlimited (standard/recommended EI dosing, see the Barr Report Forum or UKAPS tutorials, delivers between 2 to 5 ppm of PO4 weekly) BUT it doesn't mean that lower amounts can be also unlimited. There is strong empiric evidence that managing successfully a planted tank adding less PO4 than in EI is possible (see Tropica website and read high light tank specs... actually see thousands of successful moderate/high lighted planted tanks in the world which are managed with much less nutrients than EI recommends).
What does this really mean? First of all, that other fertilization approaches work (which is by the way something obvious). Also, that we do not really know what is an "unlimited amount of PO4 or whatever other nutrient" in a planted tank, as it is different in every tank, there are different plants and the average uptake can even change while the tank grows (this is another good reason to always dose unlimited). And finally, it is easy to imagine that EI is not the only fertilization scheme that ensures unlimited nutrients.
EI defenders will argue: don't fear excess of nutrients, drecrease nutrient levels until you notice bad effects if you are worried, EI was not meant to be rigid but a flexible scheme, the advantage is that there is not need to test, etc.
"Other methods" defenders will say: what's the need of dosing so much if it is not needed, other methods are also flexible as EI claims to be thus can be increased or decreased, in most of them there is not really a need to test, etc.
In other words, we are all saying exactly the same:
1. make sure you understand that you DO need to add ferts (including NO3, PO4 or whatever) in a moderate/high light planted tank,
2. make sure you do know what you are adding in each dose....
3. ... and finally do what you want with the amounts of nutrients added, but avoid being under the red line (starving plants) if you want a healthy tank
Jordi
I dont get your point Jordi. Ill have a better read when I have more time, But I believe what is being discussed is pps pro. It was designed to limit plant growth with phosphates. Its most probably going to be the limitting factor since you are only adding 0.1 ppm of PO4 a day. So why are you saying Im missing the point. I dont think its too complicated. You are either dosing enough ferts or too little ferts. With pps pro you are most probably going to be underdosing, thats all Im saying and whether you are succesfull or not will depend on the ammount of light that you are shooting at your plants.
parotet
Member
Sorry Jose, didn't want to offend you... probably my English was not good enough and I was saying something in the way I shouldn't
What I have tried to explain is that PPS-Pro can deliver enough nutrients to avoid plant starvation, depending on each one's setup. Also that PPS-Pro can be as fexible as other method regarding dosing, WCs, etc.
I am not trying to defend one or another method... I just try to explain that all of them are more or less the same and based on the same principles (enough nutrients + well adapted to light levels).
Jordi
M
Marcel G
Guest
I have to disagree. I have a densely planted tank with high light (100 µmol PAR at the substrate, and 400 µmol PAR at the water surface), and 20-30 ppm CO2 with low ferts dosing (especially phosphates), and have no algae problems. All my plants are doing great. No BGA, GSA, nor GDA. So having a great planted tank with high light and low ferts without algae is perfectly possible. I see no point in using EI when my plants are not able to utilize such amount of nutrients.
Also I don't agree with a statement that "Plants either have enough ferts (more than needed) or not enough". Sorry to say that, but that's a nonsense. Plants don't need to have an non-limiting amount of nutrients to grow well. And if they have non-limiting amount of nutrients, it doesn't mean that they are starving. If plants have a non-limiting amount of nutrients they just grow more slowly. If some plants have light saturation point at 600 µmol PAR, and you give them only 100 µmol PAR, then they'll grow maybe on 70%. As long as they have more light then is their "light compensation point", they'll grow just fine. The same applies for nutrients (incl. CO2). If some plants have CO2 saturation point at 35 ppm, and you give them only 10 ppm, they'll grow maybe on 70% of their maximum possible photosynthetic rate. And if some plants have NO3 saturation point at 10 ppm, and you give them only 5 ppm, they won't grow on 100%, but still they'll grow and do just fine. The deficiencies will occur only if some nutrients drop under the minimum level needed for positive growth (i.e. compensation point). So if the light and nutrients level is higher then their compensation points, then you don't need to worry about your plants. And believe me that these compensation points are quite low. For most aquatic plants 5-10 ppm NO3, 0.5 ppm PO4, and 15 ppm CO2 is more then enough for good and healthy growth (under strong light of 100-150 µmol PAR at the substrate).
GreenNeedle
Member
Not sure I agree with that. That statement seems (forgive me if I'm not understanding properly) that plants have individual and independent 'compensation points' for each nutrient/light.
I pretty much agree with the statement earlier. All this talk of slowing plants down by limiting nutrient just causes me mass confusion. In my opinion as well as understanding light is the key to speed of growth coupled with CO2. If either of these 2 are high without sufficient nutrients it won't slow growth it will cause massive problems. Reducing light and CO2 reduces need for nutrient so all of these compensation points are relative and not independent.
i.e. if you have very high light and good CO2 enrichment then there will be a higher 'minimum' of each nutrient required than if you have a lower light non CO2 enriched setup.
I think all the talk of phosphate misses the mark really. Not so much phosphate is needed as many of the other elements and in reality I think most EI users could get rid of phosphate from their mix completely and rely on what is in the tap water + fish wastes etc. Some wouldn't but phosphate is not really one of the problems in my eyes.
The reason for EI is pretty much ease of use. 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.
EI is flexible. All the recipe is is a starting point, a suggestion and it 'estimates' that you are adding more than you need. If you adjust it you are still estimating. 30ppm is the suggestion and most go with it. 50% water change is the suggestion and most go with it.
Personally I use a mix similar to TPN+ which has a little more Phosphate and a little more Iron in it and add 5ml a day to my main tank which is about 2.5x the dosage Tropica used to advise on their label. That is the key though. Experience and trial and error tells us what is right.
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. For me personally I don't use PPS Pro because I like to keep my CO2 higher and there is no way in the world I am going to test my tank periodically. I haven't tested tank water for anything in years.
No worries parotet no offense taken, Im just interested in debating and getting to the bottom of things.
Hi ardjuna,
First of all I would like to know if you have a fertile substrate in your densely planted tank?
Nutrients in a planted tank cannot be compared to light or CO2 in the way that you did in the last post because of a simple reason: you have a constant external supply of light and CO2 whilst not the same for nutrients. It doesnt matter how much nutrients you have in your water as long as they dont bottom out. You can have 0.1 ppm of phosphates in your water without a problem as long as plants dont run out of it. To achieve this you might need to dose a few times a day or you ought to have a fertile substrate or a lot of organic matter decomposing and releasing phosphates. So in order to not have to do so much work people just dose once every two days or so a bigger ammount.
Light is what drives photosynthesis so if you limit growth with one of the nutrients say phosphates then you normally end up with GSA or other problems. This has been proven hundreds of times and I really doubt that you are the first who can keep a very high tech tank (100 PARand good CO2) without dosing enough nutrients. I can bet my ass that you are either dosing more than you think or you have a fertile substrate which is by the way the reason why ADA tanks work so well with its line of fertilizers being so diluted.
Hi ardjuna,
First of all I would like to know if you have a fertile substrate in your densely planted tank?
Nutrients in a planted tank cannot be compared to light or CO2 in the way that you did in the last post because of a simple reason: you have a constant external supply of light and CO2 whilst not the same for nutrients. It doesnt matter how much nutrients you have in your water as long as they dont bottom out. You can have 0.1 ppm of phosphates in your water without a problem as long as plants dont run out of it. To achieve this you might need to dose a few times a day or you ought to have a fertile substrate or a lot of organic matter decomposing and releasing phosphates. So in order to not have to do so much work people just dose once every two days or so a bigger ammount.
Light is what drives photosynthesis so if you limit growth with one of the nutrients say phosphates then you normally end up with GSA or other problems. This has been proven hundreds of times and I really doubt that you are the first who can keep a very high tech tank (100 PARand good CO2) without dosing enough nutrients. I can bet my ass that you are either dosing more than you think or you have a fertile substrate which is by the way the reason why ADA tanks work so well with its line of fertilizers being so diluted.
Last edited:
Hi Supercoley, I agree with most things you said but not with the above statement. Phosphate is taken as an example because it has the least effects on the plant if you limit it. Most times its chosen to limit growth because its sideffects are the mildest (GSA) and that is why its one of the most talked about..
The bottom line is If a method works its because its supplying enough nutrients for a given ammount of light although the way it achieves this might be different (substrate/water column). 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, its all down to the simple fact stated before.
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
Last edited:
This is in fact nonesense. The nutrients ppm level is not really that important (although it does effect growth), whats important is that your water does not bottom out of nutrients at any time. Its all about the relationship; uptake of nutrients from the plant and the addition of nutrients by the aquascaper, the substrate or whichever the source of nutrients is. They have to be the same in the long run. Its very hard to make those two factors exactly the same and thats why we dose in excess.
Last edited:
