# PPS Pro vs EI Dosing



## Gatekeeper

Its fruit and vegetables. One has nothing to do with the other and their is no comparison.

Estimative Index is meant to provide nutrients to the system and attempt to eliminate potential deficiencies by providing a target level well above what is needed. PPS pro attempts to target closer uptake levels (without measuring for uptake levels) and limiting excess nutrients in the water column.

There is no right or wrong way and both have their pros and cons. Don't try and relate "growth speed" with dosing regimes either. This is a false statement and when it comes down to it, stability and proper nutrients for your plants will give you optimal growth. PPS pro is not meant to stunt growth, just limit the excess.

So... I use a modified "EI" so to speak. I dose certain levels that I know I need in the tank and let the system do its thing. I do my water changes weekly and do it all over again. Stable, routine and on point with my system. I see something go astray, I make an adjustment. Whatever it is that you are doing, be consistent and make changes slowly. Drastic jumps cause issues from my experience, by YMMV.

Does that help at all? There is just really no comparison from one regime to the other other than the end game, growing plants.


----------



## Gatekeeper

To go one step further, there is anther regime out there called Method of Controlled Imbalances (MCI). I believe there is some discussion here on it, but there is a massive thread over on APC about it. Something to look at and the guy really did his homework on it. Some here would dispute its claims since the "perfect science" is not really a perfect science. But you throw that in the mix of comparison with EI and PPS Pro and your head will spin.

Try them all I say. Find what you find gives you the most positive gains with the most rewards. One is not always meant for another.


----------



## Optix

+1 with waht was already mentioned...two completely different systems that use a different method to achieve the same results

I personally use a hybrid method using "autodosing" air pumps because its not an exact science...dump so much solution into the tank daily and a water change at the end of the week (25%) just in case...water and ferts are cheap ($30 is like a 2-3 year supply)


----------



## 150EH

I tried the PPS Pro while my tank was in the rebuild stage and I didn't have the lighting for anything else and it may be a good or ok system but I wasn't impressed mainly be cause I wanted more growth and that's not what PPS is designed to do. I'm am using substrate ferts and will start a modified EI method soon but I was just surprised at some rather large differences between the 2 systems, example PPS pro uses almost no KH2P04 compaired to EI, just courious. 

Most of what I do with my tank revolves around a total lack of funds for this hobby or my motorcycle, camera, lens, etc so I am definately good on saving a buck with Osmocote, dry ferts, etc and always trying to do the best I can with what I have and trying to fully understand everything at the same time. If I could I would trash my 8 year old Flourite and get $400 worth of ADA AS and try something more like Tom's tank in style and view, but every time I look at that post I am first envious because I love what I see, but then I start to count in my head and it's quickly over.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## 150EH

I guess my problem is the line of work I come from (landscaping) and if I wan't fuller, thicker, greener grass I would a some 30-3-7 96% organic slow release fertilizer, if I want it greener without a lot of growth, chelated iron, if I got dandylions, spurge, etc. get some Super Trimec broadleaf weed herbicide. But I just don't fully understand the under water world, it's more delicate, and the ferts are broken in segments, and I guess I want to know how to string them together and get the exact result I'm looking for in the tank.

Some of my customers and contractor friend just couldn't understand the concept of a turf program and it used to really bug me "what are they stupid or something" now it's me and it's painful, I'm not totally in the dark, but I want to be at the other end of the tunnel.


----------



## wkndracer

150EH said:


> now it's me and it's painful, I'm not totally in the dark, but I want to be at the other end of the tunnel.


LMAO so don't we all LOL

Apples and oranges is PPS and EI. I've followed both along with Walstad's method of NPT and done an MTS tank too. The liquid ferts I now dose you'd never recognize as Edwards formulas being tweaked over and over. It's now 'my trace soup' and using a macro with little NO3 along with enriched substrate. Still not settled though as things change all the time.

Things are easiest if you remember there is no wrong way to do this as long as everything doesn't die in the process. :smile:

I don't think there is a 'perfect method' for everyone. If there was EI comes the closest for known results. Just too many tanks here working with RO for it to be what I do.


----------



## Hoppy

If there is a problem with worrying about which fertilizing method to use, it is that it leads you to work on the easy problem and ignore the harder problems - CO2 and light. Getting a "good" level of CO2 in the tank is difficult, almost impossible to measure, and isn't a fixed number, but one that can vary widely as conditions change in the tank. Getting a rational amount of light in the tank is still difficult because far too many people think more is better, where light is concerned. And, deciding what light fixture to use on any given tank is difficult.

If someone can simplify and make easy the techniques for arriving at good CO2 in the water and good lighting, that will do far more good than anything done to fine tune fertilizing methods.


----------



## VeeSe

150EH said:


> I was courious to see the differences between the PPS Pro and EI fertilization programs, I realize one is weekly with slow growth expected and the other 3 times per week with high growth rates expected but I'm thinking about the ratio of different elements.


What do you mean one is weekly? You dose PPS Pro daily; they are both meant for good speed of growth; just different ways to get there.


----------



## 150EH

Maybe that's why I wasn't impressed with the system, I thought it was weekly but I went back to the site and it doesn't say either way, maybe that was suggested here due to my lighting at the time. I did start out weekly and ended up daily with no results until I started using Osmocote in the substrate. \

I'm not trying to compare systems but figure out exactly what the elements involved get you, that's why I wanted to know why they are so different.


----------



## wkndracer

PPS and PPS Pro both have a built in imbalance of nutrients in the formulas as I was told. 
First by Edward himself in the printed works regarding PPS which required testing to index the daily dosing levels. Then I was evolved in an exchange with Tom Barr here back when I was using it and the information posted at the time, which is now lost with the hosting site going down was flawed. Flawed in that the dry analysis of plant tissues was completely off on the percentages posted. That dry weight percentage was stated to be the basis of the PPS systems. Later getting Diana Walstad's book the information there is much more inline with what T. Barr discussed than anything Edward had published in the works on PPS and PPS Pro. The data is skewed off for some reason in that system. 

HTH explain the ratio difference in the dosing amounts.


----------



## Hoppy

The EI system makes no attempt at "balance", so an imbalance is irrelevant in that system. EI just makes the attempt to prevent any nutrient from limiting the plants growth rate, by always having at least as much of all of them in the water as the plants need. And, since it is based on estimates of what the plants will need, and is based on a high light, well planted tank, it has a lot of rounding off of dosages to the high side. Other systems try to provide just what the plants need, no more but possibly less.


----------



## sewingalot

Coming from someone that has tried them both, they each have pros and cons. Overall, I liked PPS Pro until I tried other methods. One major thing I always noticed with PPS pro was Green Spot algae and hair algae was an issue. With EI, I didn't like the enormous jump in growth. So like many on here, I do a hybrid. However, if I were debating about which one to do and I wanted more growth, hands down, I'd do EI again.


----------



## wkndracer

dry weight percentage analysis is stated to be the basis of the *PPS systems*


----------



## plantbrain

Gatekeeper said:


> To go one step further, there is anther regime out there called Method of Controlled Imbalances (MCI). I believe there is some discussion here on it, but there is a massive thread over on APC about it. Something to look at and the guy really did his homework on it. Some here would dispute its claims since the "perfect science" is not really a perfect science. But you throw that in the mix of comparison with EI and PPS Pro and your head will spin.
> 
> Try them all I say. Find what you find gives you the most positive gains with the most rewards. One is not always meant for another.


I'm sorry, that guy did not do his homework.
Nor did Edward with PPS, do not like it, show that I am incorrect about this.

Case 1, MCI.......This is about algae control with ferts. You run around every algae type and and simply end up doing nothing but PMDD, limiting PO4 at the end of the day, actually several months. This is no different than doing PMDD, then adding PO4 after all you have algae wise is GSA.
It's not about growing plants. 

Why not resolve the issue right from the start?
There is no basic understanding of plants or algae here, it's just PMDD and then adding PO4 back later.

Why did you have algae to start with in these cases?
Where is the control?

Nowhere.

PPS pro, please..............please, for the live of anything Green and leafty..........detail how this is different from PMDD?

Paul Sears explicitedly pointed out the goal was limited PO4, about 0.2ppm he suggested. So adding KH2PO4 to PMDD was suggested. The dosign is the same, the concentration and the amounts are the same and target goals are the same.

The people have CHANGED, taking another's method and claiming it as their own is simply put: wrong. Paul and Kevin have never been given credit where is has LONG been due. I give them lots of credit for EI. Even the math to estimate the dosing ppm's is contained in there, I just argued for plants, not worrying about algae and added more.

In fact, all 3 of these all add the same things.

NO3
PO4
Traces
GH
K+

The only differences is in the amounts.
EI simply suggested that excess ferts do not cause harm and that providing a non limiting amount provides a reference for ferts that is independent, and I've followed this up for over a decade on CRS, Dicus, Rare catfish, 300+ species of plants. I've shown these brood to folks in local clubs, in national clubs and on many forums. Same with scapes, algae and plants. 

I think I have done my homework.

Modified Hoagland's solution is used in agricultural, plant, environmental, Ecological studies to provided non limiting reference control so that other interactions are not dependent on nutrients.
No method in aquarium dosing has ever suggested this except.........EI.

If some one adds more PMDD, they end up with EI.
If someone 2x the water changes as PMDD, they end up with EI
If someone doubles the CO2, they have EI.

If someone cuts and slowly adjust the EI down by 1/3rd, they end up with PMDD.

I wanna know why PPS does not give credit to PMDD and a helping heaping to Paul and Kevin. I've been picking on this bone for about 8 years now, never did get an answer. I got no issues given plenty of credit where it is due. Also got no issue ripping those that not and claim stuff as their own.
They rightly deserve it.

These methods all add the same things.


----------



## plantbrain

150EH said:


> example PPS pro uses almost no KH2P04 compaired to EI, just courious.


My question is even more deeper and accusatory and rightly so, how is it any different from PMDD? Ehere is the credit where it is due?





> Most of what I do with my tank revolves around a total lack of funds for this hobby or my motorcycle, camera, lens, etc so I am definately good on saving a buck with Osmocote, dry ferts, etc and always trying to do the best I can with what I have and trying to fully understand everything at the same time. If I could I would trash my 8 year old Flourite and get $400 worth of ADA AS and try something more like Tom's tank in style and view, but every time I look at that post I am first envious because I love what I see, but then I start to count in my head and it's quickly over.
> 
> Thanks for your help.


Look, scaping and money do not correlate, you can be a very good scaper without a lot of $$, or be an ADA fan boy etc.

Nor does one "Need" ADA AS.

You can do worm castings for example.
Or soil, or clay loams(ADA is pretty much this in a nice rolled form).

Dosing does not make the scaper really, a good focus on the plants and observational skill is much more useful honestly.

Many of the best scapers really do not muddle with ferts much, I do not, they might have at some point, but most adjust light and then tweak CO2 well.

So CO2 and light are the big players, and dosing is much easier and you just do it, add a bit more and watch, add a bit less and watch, both will end up in the general range. If you start higher with dosing, then the plants are not stressed or limited in any way.

so when you slowly reduce the ppm's down, you can see the 1st sign of limitations.

This is useful information and observational knowledge. This is not about the algae or waste etc, it's just about the plants. If you start with a limited plant, the plant is already weak and the timing for recovery till it gets to high enough levels to be non limiting can take far far longer. 

This is a fundamental difference and why research studies use a non limiting nutrient reference:icon_idea
See Ole and Troel's study on CO2 and light with Riccia:

http://www.tropica.com/advising/technical-articles/biology-of-aquatic-plants/co2-and-light.aspx

Troels, Oel and myself do not argue of silly nutrients. Hobbyist think there's more to them for some reason due to historical myth, not facts or studies.

Sediments make a good option since the plants have a back up, but this too also adds non limiting ferts to the root zones. Why not limit this as well?
Makes little sense then.

Still, as long as the total nutrients are high enough and not strongly limiting, you can have very nice tanks. I find little reason to strongly and closely manage ferts. I think it waste the time of the hobbyist, they did not do the hobby for this reason, it's a distraction. Most want to spend their time gardening and scaping, then enjoying their work.

At least I do.

So I try to offer various ways, not just EI..........to meet that goal for myself and them.


----------



## plantbrain

150EH said:


> I guess my problem is the line of work I come from (landscaping) and if I wan't fuller, thicker, greener grass I would a some 30-3-7 96% organic slow release fertilizer, if I want it greener without a lot of growth, chelated iron, if I got dandylions, spurge, etc. get some Super Trimec broadleaf weed herbicide. But I just don't fully understand the under water world, it's more delicate, and the ferts are broken in segments, and I guess I want to know how to string them together and get the exact result I'm looking for in the tank.
> 
> Some of my customers and contractor friend just couldn't understand the concept of a turf program and it used to really bug me "what are they stupid or something" now it's me and it's painful, I'm not totally in the dark, but I want to be at the other end of the tunnel.


Well, herbicides are not used in aquariums much, copper perhaps, algaicides etc. There is some selectivity there. Weed management is a big issue, but.........the issue there is weeds.........which are plants, here, the gap is much wider, so all you do is focus on good plant growth.

Algae are rarely an issue.

You work hard scaping the land right?
Or does it just scape itself eh?
hehe

Not likely.

Adding ferts can help, but........unlike aquariums, there's a lot of light and ample CO2, these 2 things are independent(well, light is relative to aquariums).

Aquariums, we control everything.....except watering.
NH4 is much more harmful in aquatic systems with fish and shrimp.

So NO3 is used.

Many are, but I'm no fan of lawns, I much prefer natives.
I had far more fun growing up running through the woods and plants, than any lawn. Lawns where money, massive water wasting and time pits. 

Keeps you employ though:icon_idea:hihi:

Still, you can see some differences and some similar aspects.
It's mostly just scale and trying to trim and grow the plants.
No one is a good landscaper from the start, it took time.

Same here and with any skill set.


----------



## snausage

plantbrain said:


> I'm sorry, that guy did not do his homework.
> Nor did Edward with PPS, do not like it, show that I am incorrect about this.


For once, I'm in agreement with senor Barr. In one of Edward's articles he states that aquarium plants don't take up _any_ nutrients through their roots!!!

I still appreciate the PPS Classic method though. It's a good learning experience and you really get a feel for nutrient absorption by double checking the ppm with a TDS meter (and I'd recommend frequent pH testing as well with a digital meter). I'm surprised more people on this forum don't do the same thing since TDS meters are only $20 and simpler to use than any liquid test kit.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

SO to revive an ancient thread:

WOULD PPS Pro be sufficient with O+ root tabs?
Could I cut the dosing to say 2x a week?
Still achieve good growth?
I do NOT want to be doing 50% changes a week with 3x55 and a 20 on top.
Wife would murder me.
So being due to prices of Seachem various products slaughtering me with this many tanks I want to switch to dry ferts mix your own.


----------



## happi

one will become toxic at some point and one will provide Non-toxic levels


----------



## Lonestarbandit

happi said:


> one will become toxic at some point and one will provide Non-toxic levels


Is the PPS pro the non toxic? Apologies new to this concept of dry ferts.


----------



## dukydaf

Lonestarbandit said:


> SO to revive an ancient thread:
> 
> WOULD PPS Pro be sufficient with O+ root tabs?
> Could I cut the dosing to say 2x a week?
> Still achieve good growth?
> I do NOT want to be doing 50% changes a week


First, I suggest rereading the whole thread. I find it a lot more interesting than most current threads, which makes me wonder what happened ???


If water changes are difficult, this issue has been addressed here: 
Hate water changes? EI can get you there with a small modification - Aquarium Plants - Barr Report

2x a week is not as important as the actual ppms dosed. Sure you can do 1ppm PO4 3x per week or 1,5ppm 2x. Iron is going to be a problem as it is rather quickly taken out of solution and might require frequent smaller doses.

PMDD, sorry PMDD-rebrand, PPS, is supposed to be adjusted for your aquarium. More precisely, you increase/decrease N P K and micros in your dosing as you see nutrient accumulation or deficiency. I presume one does this by growing deficient sick plants or by buying unreliable test kits, neither sound fun. You can read more on Edward's page where he suggests what happens when nutrient are too high/low ... PO4 too high :surprise: Speaking of Edward... really want to hear his side.

Finally, let me say that just as there are different methods of farming in the world so there are many ways of growing aquatic plants. We need to understand the biology behind it, understand the systems. Some are more organic, some traditional, some science-based and some just gatherers. Your wishes and your plant selection will push you one way or the other.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Lot to take in. So, what I gathered from the water change thread is pps, EI whatever just lower your concentrations once you find a balance and presto 1x a month water changes in reach?
That I can live with.
Clearly Tom feels this rigid schedule and amounts to be wrong and therefore I like the guy lol. Flexability.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------



## Smooch

The forum wonkiness though. Being timed out, database errors...fun!



Lonestarbandit said:


> Lot to take in. So, what I gathered from the water change thread is pps, EI whatever just lower your concentrations once you find a balance and presto 1x a month water changes in reach?
> That I can live with.
> Clearly Tom feels this rigid schedule and amounts to be wrong and therefore I like the guy lol. Flexability.
> 
> Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


I'm just plunking this here as a idea. 



> Lastly, if you do like to avoid water changes, then sediment based rich ferts will work well in your favor, eg: soil or ADA aqua soil works very well and provides a back up if you run too lean. In the initial stages, these products will be rich in NH4, but after 6-12 months, this source will be exhausted. So make sure to increase the KNO3 dosing a bit as time progresses if you want to keep the same rates of growth and plant health. I use them and suggest other hobbyists use them also as a good back up never hurts.
> New tanks= plan on doing 2-3x a week water changes(50-90) for the 1st 1-2 months.
> Then trim the dosing/water changes down and observe.


Since you have crazy hard water to begin with, it may be to your benefit to feed plants from the roots up.

PPS and EI are only rigid is people make it so. Both should be customized to a tank's needs.


----------



## Lonestarbandit

Smooch said:


> The forum wonkiness though. Being timed out, database errors...fun!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just plunking this here as a idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Since you have crazy hard water to begin with, it may be to your benefit to feed plants from the roots up.


I already do. Osmocote plus DIY tabs.
This is more supplementary.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk


----------

