Every fertilization method is viable, but I don't think that pmdd is suitable for a beginner that need to chase the single missing fert every now and then, especially for an high tech tank
-
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
Nightmare Algae/Incubo alghe!
- Thread starter max73
- Start date
_Maq_
Member
In the first place, I don't like calling PMDD a 'method'. It's just a set of chemicals-fertilizers, quite the same as E.I., if I'm not mistaken. Fertilizers are ok, "methods" are just fool's gold as long as the input water contains individual minerals in individual amounts.
Every farmer has to adjust his fertilization pattern to his piece of land. If he relies on "universal methods", his results will be invariably poor.
You're right, if we talk in this way, There is no "method" of fertilization just a set of fertilizers (or chemicals) and people who dose x amount x day/week because it "works".
But the things that makes EI, pmdd, ppspro "methods" are the ways that you manage your tank and how you deal with algae.
For example, those who use PMDD, if they get algae, the first thing they do is reduce PO4 (or increase if they read 0 after testing).
EI: check CO2 and do large water changes every other day.
Every "methods" has its limited agent. For pmdd are phosphates, for EI is the CO2.
If I'm not wrong, in the pmdd po4 weekly is around 0.2 - 0.5ppm (or a bit higher?), in the EI po4 minimum is 3ppm.
Some EI user front load macros, pmdd dose a tiny amount, of a specific chemical only when needed.
EI users do weekly 50-80% WC, pmdd users do only top ups and monthly (or bimonthly) WC.
Are these methods? For me yes because it's a way to achieve the same result, but using a different approach and a different way of thinking (but using the same chemicals)
I agree with much of what you say, but for people who are not very expert , like me, following a "method" can be useful as a starting point
Andy Pierce
Member
Also, every farmer has to adjust to specific crops. I don't think there is a "universal method" that will be successful for all plants and part of the "secret of happiness" is growing plants that are reasonably happy under whatever type of water/substrate/fertilisation/water-change scheme you've decided to go with.
Hi all,
Although they are <"very different in their methodologies"> both <"Estimative"> & <"Duckweed"> Indices were "designed" to do away with the requirement for water testing.
I use <"lean dosing">, but if you look at @RickyV, @Cédric or @Parablennius <"Frogbit"> it shows that the <"Duckweed Index"> still works at <"higher nutrient levels">.
cheers Darrel
You can combine any <"dosing regime"> with the <"Duckweed Index">.
Although they are <"very different in their methodologies"> both <"Estimative"> & <"Duckweed"> Indices were "designed" to do away with the requirement for water testing.
I use <"lean dosing">, but if you look at @RickyV, @Cédric or @Parablennius <"Frogbit"> it shows that the <"Duckweed Index"> still works at <"higher nutrient levels">.
cheers Darrel
Last edited:
Definitely seems to be a improvement going by the last images!
_Maq_
Member
Well, I don't quite agree with what you say.
First, let's discard farmers (yes, it was me who mentioned them first). Farmers keep selected cultivars with requirements which usually make them uncompetitive in nature. When the time comes, they remove it all and prepare the land for another extremely demanding crop. That's not our situation.
Natural flora is determined by a set of factors, among which mineral content is just one. Water and temperature are perhaps decisive.
In our tanks, scarcity of water is out of question. Temperatures remain within a range suitable for species from moderate to tropical zone without winter (some do require winter period, many others cannot survive frost). So, the only "big" variable remains mineral content.
I'm not sure if "wrong" mineral content is the bottleneck in our efforts. Usually it's something else which kills our plants, something we can avoid. In my practice, Echinodoruses and Cryptocorynes grow poorly (they remain small), but I have good reasons to believe that it has more to do with the substrate than with mineral content. In other words, yes, I believe I can design water which suits all of them.
Andy Pierce
Member
From the colour of your drop checker, I'd estimate you are in the 15-20 ppm CO2 range (https://niade.com/drop-checker/). "needs to be lighter" is complicated... some people seem to think that 30 ppm is 'optimal' for some reason but I've never really seen convincing evidence behind that value. Aquarium Gardens for example is (based on their drop checker colours) more aggressive about CO2 injection being in around the 35-40 ppm range near as I can tell (see picture). I've gone back and forth on this but now am more on the less aggressive side maybe closer to where you are.
Attachments
You won the battle of healthy-looking plants though!
If you are on Reset mode..... go easy with the lighting duration and intensity.
I'm not familiar with this light ask this question in the Lighting Forum.....give some details of your aquarium size, etc!
Lighting
Questions about light types, levels and the best ways to light a planted tank
www.ukaps.org
