Difference between EI and PPS ?

[dc88]

From a newbie's view point, seems liked PPS and EI are similar although EI is much simple to follow.
I belive the fundamental theory could be difference.
Comments pls ?

Thanks
DC

[GaspingGurami]

My impression of the two is PPS involves effort in testing to maintain the upper limit of ferts a tank can hold so that water changing is not needed while EI involves effort in providing overabundant ferts so plants are not in want, but waterchanges are needed to prevent toxicity.

Water changes are still needed in PPS in the early stages when one is testing to find out the rate of the plant's uptake for each tank.

Both methods hinge on the common principle of providing plants with an "eat all you can" buffet of CO2 and ferts to stimulate healthy growth.

I was interested to find out how practical PPS would fit in to my schedules but I've been unable to find a freshwater Calcium testkit so no chance to know which method affords me more free time for other pursuits while maintaining the same level of growth.

[dc88]

If you are intrested, Dupla has a Ca test kit for both Sea and Fresh water (2 different concentration of regent included). The fresh water test resolution is 5 ppm Ca.
Can get from Aquatechnic.

Thanks for the insight. I guess EI may be more for my routine and budget then.

Rgds
DC

[GaspingGurami]

EI is the routine I use too. though I push my powers of observation (luck) to help me extend water changes to fortnightly intervals.

[|squee|]

I couldn't understand PPS, and the need for testing all those chemicals put me off totally

The main difference is the need for test kits... PPS needs them initially if I'm not wrong, EI doesn't need them at all.

[Plantbrain]

If you enjoy micromanagement PPS is likely more interesting to you. As far as who does what, most every top aquascaper in the entire world does large frequent weekly water changes, Amano, many German folks, virtually all SEA/Chinese etc, most all folks in the USA, Jeff Senske etc.
The folks that have done the most observation of the best plant growth and have any and everything at their disposal still do it.

It's simpler and over time, easier to care for the tank and more consistent.
Both work, I suppose I do PPS without test kits(so then it is EI so......) since sometimes I push things 2-3 weeks also, but the tank/plants always will do better with more frequent water changes.

Regards,
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com

[dc88]

Hi Tom

I wonder if the PPS approach is similiar to the "BCSR" concept in the land plant arena, which later research had found that such micomanagement may not be necessary.
As in the following article by Keith A. Kelling and John B. Peters :

http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/...g%20ratio'

quot the summary on page 3 :
“..for maximum crop yield, emphasis should be placed on providing sufficient but not excessive levels of
each basic cation rather than attempting to attain a favorable basic cation saturation ratio which
evidently does not exist...”

[solonavi]

Basically, I used a modified PPS. This helps to reduced my WC to fornightly and <25% each time.

JC

[Plantbrain]

dc88, well yea, but the difference there?

1,000 hectares of land you have to fertilize, that cost big $$$$!!!

So it's worth it to test and the labor to do so.
In your little tank where KNO3 cost 2$ or less a lb?

No way.

The cost of the test kit reagents cost more than the fertilizer.

Not to mention all the test kit cost. Even at 10$ each, that's at least 100$ in test kits folks need to buy, enter the data into a table, then try and intpert the data and see how each nutrient pushed and pulls the other(I know because I did this years ago and do still every now and then), this is overwhelming for most folks and certainly for a newbie.

Most get into the hobby to grow plants successfully and garden, they do not get into this hobby to test water.

Nor to explore algae killers.

So a simple method that avoids both helps a lot.

If you want balance and you are sincere, go non CO2 methods, they require no water changes, either at the start or 6 months later, just add water for evaporation. No test either. This is far superior if you seek work avoidance. But the plants grow slower, there is a trade off.

Non CO2/lower light reduce uptake and reduces algae.

So you have more wiggle room.

I have gone 2-4 weeks withotu water changes using EI, I do not suggest it, but it can be done.

You can also reduce the levels of dosing down (not the frequency) slowly over time(2-3 week steps each time you make a change) and keep a good eye on the plants and target the amount the tank uses at the lower end.

This is done with the plants, which are the things you are trying tog row here.

No need for a test kit there either.
The other thing is calibration of test kits and making standard solutions.

Most do not bother.
They just buiy a test kit someone says is accurate and do not bother actually calibrating them, very bad idea, and many that have used PPS have done that.

If you follow the advice, you should have decent success, but PPS seldom stresses CO2 enough, and most of the tanks using PPS had CO2 related issues and the lack of understanding on those that support PPS really showed clear as a result. Some bad mouthed the method and I suggested they add more CO2 and many of the issues went away.

Makes you wonder how might know that?
We used test kits and did not do water changes in the past also(oh my! really Tom?)

Everyone did till EI came along.
See an old article I wrote, must have been 1996 or so, on a list of levels and parameters, I suggested testing and using both water changes and the test kits(good ones).

Many folks still do a combo of testing and water changes.
I do not think it matters at the end of the day.........what matters is the plants.

They make a great test kit , they are after all, what your focus and hobby is really all about is it not?

EI can be tweaked to satisfy that goal, as can PPS.
You can do PPS and water changes, and not need any test kits, but then it's EI.

The only real difference is the use of test kits to avoid water changes between the methods.

Some simple observations and decreasing the ferts till you see a plant response can avoid the test kits and the water changes.

Does not matter which method you use.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[dc88]

Thank you Tom.
I agree.
There are many paths to enlightment.

[Plantbrain]

Well, while everyone is different, I think if you have tried each method wholeheartedly, you can speak openly about it. I know what is involved to run the tank without water changes for 6 months and high light/CO2.

I knew this 10 years before anyone suggested the term PPS. So have several folks. That's nothing new. That's a very old concept. What bugged me was that the person involved with the name PPS assumed it was new and would not acknowledge and still does not from all accounts, that it's the same thing.
They also made some poor assumptions about EI and suggested it was a bad a method=> blind guessing, overdosing to toxic levels yada yada.....

That's also the same type of concept non CO2 methods are based on and dutch tanks did in the 1940's-1960's.

When folks have not been around for the history and development, nor know that I have done different things in the past, they think something repackaged is "new" and must be better/the wave of the future. History does repeat itself.

Does not matter how you slice it, PPS will never eclipse even remotely the ease, simplicity and human factor of EI. It's simple and easy and anyone can do it, it's also cheaper.

Most folks don't like to test. That's a fact.

So rather than forcing someone to use test kits as the main part of the method and you know they don't like it(well a few folks may enjoy testing water), suggesting something aquarist are doing anyway is a simple, easy routine.

I don;t know, perhaps Amano, myself, Senske's(they have a new book out BTW) Oliver etc don't know what's up and are clueless. We all do and suggest large frequent water changes.

Takes a lot of the guess work and such out, most folks like to do the water changes/cleaning anyway, then working on a tank that's 1/4 - 1/2 full is also much easier, easier to clean/prune etc/removes all the detritus/mulm etc.

So maintenace wise, it's easier for myself and most others.
Most folks just wanna know how much ferts to add and then sit back and watch their tank, they really don't want to get into all the testing unless they have to. Added work and cost.

Automatic water changers are simple, a float switch(electronic, these run about 20-50$ and are small, thick 1/4" plastic fill and drain lines are all you need along with a solenoid.

The water input is carbon filtered, then goes in at the other side of the tank, the solenoid starts the siphon drain for 1-2 whatever hours you might want, this can also Tee off your cansiter filter return line so there is enough pressure to push the water up some.

The float switch fills the tank as the solenoid side drains it.
Once in place and for about 30-100$, you can have a totally automated water changer.

Too lazy to dose 3x a week?
Autodosing pump. These will run about 100-200$ for two pumps(one for the traces, one for the macros).

Then all you do is prune scrub etc.

How much and what you are trying to avoid is really and matetr of using youer brains if you hope to do less work, clearly, an automatic water changer is a simple relatively cheap device if that is a big issue for you.

But spending 100$+ and having to do the test and trying to interpt them is another matter.

I use my brain to avoid work, not make more for myself.

I do use test kits and lab equipment a lot.
while many see me not suggesting it here, I have to so I can answer questions for research and for the hobby, but as routine?

I hate testing, what I like is answering a cool question.
I already know what I need to do for aquariums, but if I have a question, I can test for something easily.

I just think the test kits folks have in general are not going to answer anything as a rule that is not already known. And they often send people on wild goose chases as they are assumed to be accurate and often are not, many folks assumed they had 10ppm NO3 when it was 0.

So they did their dosing that way.
It's much easier to help other folks with the EI method, that much i can tell you, you can tweak and alter it to suit your needs and adjust things and ratios etc to answer your questions etc, yiou just will not have absolute ppm etc.

Using the plants as your test kit seems to be the best method. While you can calibrate the test kits etc, they do not always tell you what the status of the plant's health is. Test kits can lie, algae and plants do not.

I keep marine tanks as well, I've not done water changes on those for over a year. Miracle? PPS?
I guess , but Edward sure does not get credit for all the reef folks that use test kits and balance things. They have done this for decades. But unlike FW, MARINE FOLKS have to mix salt and spend $$ and time effort etc, so the trade off when dealing with a large 250 gal reef is worth while, but it's also ideal to limit the tank very low on PO4 and NO3(use PO4 if you pick one).
Resins, skimmers etc can do that easily or macro algae. They also spend big $$ on things and test equipment. I've seen some that rival a small water lab. Detailed note books with all sorts of observational data, ppm ranges each week etc. Standard solutions all over in volumetric flask etc. Folks in the USA are crazy for Reefs, like many folks are crazy for planted tanks in Asia and Europe.

But is all that worth it for a small 10 gallon nano reef? No, a water change each week is much easier. Ei is not a new idea really either, it just took somethign folks already did and increased it some, estimated the max uptake so you'd never run out at any light level and at optimal ppms and the water changes prevented build up(also nothing new). Saying you don't need test kits bother some folks Actually most at the time, but over the last decade, folks have come to accept it openly and it's become a standard method these days. Given I've solved single handily perhaps 90% of folk's algae issues and now we have very good causal roles for each species appearance in our tanks and know the species names etc, folks are much better off and it's hard to argue with that. I've helped so many folks over the years I've really lost any idea of how many.
EI makles helping someone much easier as well, All I need to know is the tank's volume, light watts, general things. If they have an issue, all I need to kniow is a description of the issue, the type of algae etc.
The plants and algae tell me what is going on, that's far more powerful and easier to address what is wrong than ppm's from 8 different parameters.

It's much more about the trade off each method imparts, some trails to the the top of a mountain are worse than others, but the view at the top is still the same.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[dc88]

Yap, EI is more simple, elegant and best of all - very effective !
For me as a late starter, I am very impressed with just 2 weeks of following the scheme. Prior to this the tank was hovering but not great, with very much stunted growth. Only 2 of the plants (Red tiger lotus and Sagittaria subulata) able to cope with very slow growth, E. Tenellus basically frozen, and moss gradually reduce to "skeleton" by the yamato. Not to mention the crypto constanly melting.
Considering my light level (2.8wpg) and DIY CO2, I did not venture right into the full 3x per week dosage. First I make sure the CO2 is pumping out at least >1.5 to 2 bps which give about 28-30ppm CO2 (KH=6dH and PH around 6.. (With a two DIY bottles setup and rotating one each week with maximum sugar-yeast mix) Then I prepared the fertilizers pre-mix into solution and average the dosage to about the lower limit of the EI guidance (5ppm NO3 and 1ppm PO4) with a 1x per week dosage. (There is still room to go I guess)
The tank was initially stunted for closed to 2 months ever since it was rescaped, and with just 2 weeks of following the EI method it was totally transformed. The results :
- E. Tenellus are now twice the height and runners everywhere
- Moss begin to overgrow and need its first trimming !
- Sagittaria subulata start flowering !
- Crypto's melting has slowed down and starting to form new leaf.
- No major sign of algae ! (Well, some old GSA still remain on the old fern leaf but thats about it.)
With this result, I see no motivation to try PPS.

A big thankyou to Mr. Barr for his generous guidance and sharing of the knowledge and wishdom !

Rgds
dc88

[grey_fox]

Just when I wanted to post a question on the difference of PPS & EI, I found it and after reading this much, I'll stick to EI

[Plantbrain]

Well, I think dc88 would feel very positive about PPS as well, if you'd started that after your past experience.

You'd be spending more time etc learning about test kits, solutions etc and data and then trying to interpt it, but after you do, you would find it's not that bad and most slack off the testing to once a week perhaps.

Water chnages are effective and most folks will do those versus a testing routine. I'd rather see folks paying attention to their plants/algae etc than testing a bunch.

You'll learn more and what you need to learn also.
The best scapers tend to be that type of folks, not testers.

I started off not testing, then tested a lot, now I do not much unless I have specific question/test.

I'm not really saying you should not test, just be honest about your own personal habits and goals. You still need to focus a lot on CO2 with either method.



Regards,
Tom Barr