# PMDD / EI System Evaluation



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

OK then, I've finally decided to quit jerking around and get serious about implementing the EI system of dosing. I think this is the perfect time because I tear down all my tanks in one week and move them to the new house. I've been dinking around with Flourish products, but I haven't been dosing an macros, just Flourish Flourish Trace and Flourish Iron. Those are now relegated to the pond when I get it up and running. Don't get me wrong, I love Flourish, I've had good sucess with them, but I'm looking for a whole new approach here.

I just got done ordering the gammut of products from Greg Watson, I ordered CSM +B plus Plus Extra Iron - $8.59 a pound, KH2PO4 - $3.42 a pound, K2SO4 - $2.17 a pound, KNO3 - $2.17 a pound, and MGSO4 - $0.85 a pound.

First off, I have to say that Watsons prices are absolutely the lowest I've seen for "PMDD" products anywhere. The complete system of components works out to $1.07 per ounce, dirt cheap, especially considering the next lowest price I've seen comes to over $3.00 an ounce. Come on people, these are chemicals, there's no voodo, no ones KN03 is any better than anyone elses KN03.

Secondly, I have to mention Greg Watson himself. He spent a great deal of time with me on the phone helping me with my decisions and even pointed out that I could use my existing supply of Flourish instead of the CSM +B, but quite frankly, I want to start fresh as I want to be able to give the PMDD system a complete workout, plus his service is outstanding, and he's very active in the aquatic gardening hobby and provides his products as a means to support it first and foremost. That speaks volumes in this hobby when so many companies seem more interested in taking your money first and foremost.

So anyway, the ferts are ordered, I have a subscription to the Barr Report, and I will be using his EI system using Watsons products from day one with the new tank setups, and I hope to be able to give an informative evaluation of the system and products and get some discussiion going on the specifics of dosing a planted tank according to Tom Barr's EI system.

Please note as we're talking about dosing using a blend of generic chemicals so most of the information will be more evaluative of the EI system and how it compares to former dosing regimen, as stated above KNO3 is KNO3, so anyones products of similar composition would be able to be used to recreate what is learned and discussed here.

I'll be maintaing a log of procedures from the time I open the box, with photos and tank journals which I will reference here but most likely maintain elsewhere so as not to waste space.


----------



## freeflyer (Feb 3, 2005)

I agree as to the pricing and especially to the A++++ quality customer service, Ive never had someone deliver that kind of service over a $20-30 transaction. Greg is someone who goes far above and beyond. I was blown away. Even if I could get it a couple bucks cheaper I will stick with him cause anyone who does business the way he does has to be a great guy.


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

OK, so the first tank, a 30, is set up, substrate is approx. 60% Flourite, 30% generic fracted clay and 10% generic gravel to a depth of 3", lighting is 130 watts of CF, 6400 K and CO2 is at 30PPM.

I set everything up last night (Sunday) 04/03 with fresh cuttings and/or rooted plantlets from existing stock.

This what it looked like an hour after setup:










Monday (today) is the beginning of my dosing schedule which will be as follows:

Monday, Wednesday, Friday:

Potassium Nitrate (KNO3) 1/4 tsp.
Mono Potassium Phosphate (KH2PO4) 1/8 tsp.
Potassium Sulphate (K2SO4) 1/8 tsp.

Tuesday, Thursday:

Plantex CSM + B plus Iron 10ml (solution is 2 tbsp / 500ML tap water)

Saturday:

50% water change

At this time, I have no plans on testing, mainly because I'm looking to verify the EI system as a no frills, easy to use system that I can promote to the customers of the chain I started working for recently. If I have problems, I'll do extensive testing and discuss the results here to tweak the sytem.


----------



## jrneuzil (Mar 4, 2005)

*Stuff*

Glass-Garden,
I am new to the EI and into it for around 3 weeks. I see Greg has you dosing K2S04 and MGS04. I am not dosing those and was wondering what they are for and what the recommended doses are.
Thanks\

JR


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

Dosing the magnesium and potassium sulfate are really just an after thought, not something that was specifically recommended. It's cheap, can't really hurt anything so I'm doing it for now. At the end of the four week cycle, I may eliminate the extra K and see what happens.


----------



## shalu (Jan 16, 2003)

I just figured out I had magnesium deficiency recently and started dosing epsom salt. Plant growth/color has marked improvement.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

Hey Shula,
Is epson salt just MGS04? What are the dangers of overdosing this, if it is possible to do that. How much do you add? Thank you.
jB


----------



## BSS (Sep 24, 2004)

The Mg will raise your GH levels. As I have a GH=10 out of the tap, I've never added MgSO4/Epson's salts to my tank.

Shalu - is your GH lower? Or are you just adding it as a matter of course?


----------



## Gill Man (Feb 5, 2005)

If you have algae, it will take weeks to months to really reduce the algae. Pruning it away really helps. I'm on my 4th week of adding Flourish Excel, gradually going up to 5x the suggested dose with no problems whatsoever even with the addition of a calculated 50ppm CO2. Plants are awesome and the green dot algae is taking a hit! Been doing EI and PMDD dosing for about 2-3 months now and it's made all the difference in the world; the most success I've ever had in growing plants and not having to worry about algae. Finally have mature specimens to aquascape. I'm so stoked!! You will do fine with all your attention to detail. Water testing really tells you whats going on in the tank and helps in fine-tuning the EI method to suit your tank's needs.


----------



## shalu (Jan 16, 2003)

My tap gh=8, somtimes higher. But it is almost all Ca, little Mg, I believe. I thought some symptoms were Ca deficiency and dosed extra Ca++, but now convinced that it is really Mg deficiency. I just dose epsom salt(MgSO4). Experimenting with different amounts by observing plant response. I am at 1 tsp every other day in my 100gallon right now, might try more. Epsom salt is commonly used to cure discus constipation, will not harm fish even at pretty high concentrations(we won't see that level in planted tank dosage).


----------



## snake (Jan 11, 2005)

Shalu,
Did you have the water tested? My GH is 8 but central TX and all these rocks, Hmm? I wonder if I'm mg low.


----------



## shalu (Jan 16, 2003)

My Lamotte kits should be coming soon. So far I just went through the process of elimination, and dosing Mg seems to improve things a lot.


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

Magnesium is one of those things I add because it can't hurt at the level I dose, it's cheap and the base is covered if needed, if not, oh well I just wasted what? $0.78 every 6 months?

The whole idea of EI (in my opinion) is to offer a method that relies more on consistency rather than accuracy. Obviously Tom Barr has gotten the tweakers in a fix, because despite it's apparent inattention to minute detail, it works.

Face it, the simpler we can make this hobby, the more people will get involved in it. If you can develop a system whereby a simple dosing regimen labeled a b c results in a good planted tank experience it's a good thing.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

glass-gardens.com said:


> Magnesium is one of those things I add because it can't hurt at the level I dose, it's cheap and the base is covered if needed, if not, oh well I just wasted what? $0.78 every 6 months?
> 
> The whole idea of EI (in my opinion) is to offer a method that relies more on consistency rather than accuracy. Obviously Tom Barr has gotten the tweakers in a fix, because despite it's apparent inattention to minute detail, it works.


That would be a fair assement.
A routine habit is done a number of ways, some folks will pay much more attention and keep their tank maintained much better when tweaking and watching/testing. This a reasonable assumption.

We pay more attention when we know there is a problem and are trying to achieve some goal. 

When they neglect and do not pay attention to it, they blame the method rather than their habits. *Habits play a huge role in folk's approaches*. Some I think *need to test * to keep themselves interested and consistent. 

Likewise, some need to dose daily vs 2-3x a week since it's an easier everyday routine for them vs "Did I dose yesterday or was it two days ago?" 
Adding a tad more Mg will not hurt the plants or help algae and would account for any deficencies which is the main problem, rather than *excess*.

You can still tweak though if you have that urge, will you gain anything more?
Not in terms of growth rates, one person said their plant's where "prettier" doing PPS, I asked what are the units for that subjective observation.
No comment

How can I argue with prettier?
I see a nutrient starved plant, they see a "prettier" plant.
As scientist, if something has a higher growth rate and uptake rate, it'll be assumed reasonbly that the plant prefers that condition over another. 

I think some need to justify all their work vs actually gaining something significant. The significant thing you gain from testing: growth *rates*!!!!
Even the tweakers using PPS have conceded that.
They claim knowing the individual growth rates for each tank is better.

But is it?
These change over time, with plant biomass etc. So they need to assume the max rates for their tanks as well.
Some say that EI does not account for fish bioloads, this is true to some degree.


But if you have high bioloads, the fear is not running out, but rather an excess level, something that EI assumes does not cause algae or poor plant growth.

Observations with high bioloads shows this to be true also.
If you add too much fish load and have a NH4 back up, does not matter which methiod you use, there will still be the same issue: algae. 

So not addressing the bioload does not make EI less useful.
High bioloading and large water changes also go together rather well don't you think? 

If you have a high bioload, you can add less KNO3, but that's all that will save you. Same with lower light methods. 

Uptake Rates:
This is something I made light of as important years ago. 
I had not seen anyone suggest a NO3 or PO4 *uptake rate * by planted tanks till I suggested them. No one realized the plants would remove that much until, someone did a basic test that included removing the limiting elements like PO4, Fe, CO2, light etc. I added high light/Fe, CO2 etc, then mainpulated each variable to see what is the best range. 
Calibrating the test kits and testing for the nutrient of interest were also topics I've raised a long time ago on the APD and other broads. 

From here, you can scale down whatever approach you use to accommodate your routine in terms of the plant's needs. 

There is nothing saying you must do weekly 50% water changes, it's merely a suggesting that assumes you cannot muck things up too much in a week.
If you are experienced, you can likely go weeks without one, I can. 
But I'd rather brush my teeth than wait for a cavity...........so doing a easy to remember weekly routine is easier and keeps up on things.

If they are so good about testing and managing, why did they not figure out this stuff before????? Maybe I'm just very lucky? I don't think so. This is not just hobbyists, but companies making things for the hobby claiming they do research. I always wondered what kind of research they do, they never said much interestingly. 

Funny thing is, now folks are testing a lot, before they tested a lot before thinking about calibration, before considering uptake rates, before considering that excess PO4 does not cause algae among other issues. 
We have come a long way since then.
But the things I looked into were initailly done with Paul Sears and PMDD. He looked at dosing KNO3 and considered PO4, but the issue of looking at macro's was begun and a focus on the plant's needs. 

I assumed that at max light, high CO2 that this would also be the max uptake. Adding more than you need does not hurt(at least over a wide range for most every nutrient except CO2/NH4) nor causes algae. 

But testing and tweaking and filling in Excel spreadsheets and micro managing things is a tough sell. It's hard to explain, it requires the aquarist to know much more. It is interesting but something I've done for a long time, I moved beyond that and testing for nutrients. That leap was critical in accepting EI would work as well as knowing.

If I can just look and add something or do a simple routine, then it will work for a larger group than the tweakers.

BTW, I am tweaker but I am open minded enough to realize most folks in this hobby really would rather avoid testing if it's still give them good results.

The ironic thing is that I am sometimes called closed minded or not open to ideas other than "my own" which to many seems to be exclusively EI. I play both sides of the field and do many methods, not just EI. 

They can always do that later if they chose, nothing wrong with that.
PPS makes some weak assumptions on Ca/Mg/SO4 and also Traces, one which will not be overcome with testing regarding traces. 



> Face it, the simpler we can make this hobby, the more people will get involved in it. If you can develop a system whereby a simple dosing regimen labeled a b c results in a good planted tank experience it's a good thing.


It's an issue of assumptions and making them reasonable.
I test for water parameters way too much in work related issues. We put out a thick water monitoring report every year for our aquatic weed control program. Good lord, I'm sick of it.

The last thing I want to do is come home and test more.
Most did not get into this hobby to test water.

I'd personally rather spend my time pruning and making the tank look prettier.
EI allows you to grow any plant you want well and together.
If I have a question, I'll test and be rigorous.
But I don't test just to maintain a tank, that's too much work for something I can do without that much work. 

Why test if you do not need to and also do not want too?
Add that to more cost, more time, more compicated methods, it's really a hard sell. Both work, but one is a harder sell and takes more time to learn and explain.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

Hi Tom,

Thank you for that wonderful contribution.

In my case, I prefer not to test, because I become obsessed with proper levels and tweaking, which in my personal experience leads to destabilzation, and from my experience in the hobby, stable conditions, albeit less than ideal yield better results than constantly adjusting to acheive ideal conditions. 

My hope is to be able to show my customers that keeping a planted tank is as easy as one two three, and train employees in keeping their display tank looking good after we get them set up so ease is priority.

Even after just a few days, I can see the results of the EI system, the new plantings are taking off already whereas before it would be at least a week before I could see any changes and the only way to describe the color is vibrant. Just to see where I'm at, I'm going to do some tests prior to the first water change, but unless I see something that bothers me in the condition of the plants, I probably won't adjust my dosing, if it ain't broke ....


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

glass-gardens.com said:


> My hope is to be able to show my customers that keeping a planted tank is as easy as one two three, and train employees in keeping their display tank looking good after we get them set up so ease is priority.


Well that's why I suggest it over the web.
If folks want less growth, reduce the light.

Folks need something simple to approach planted tanks that's also relatively cheap.

EI provides that ease.
CO2 still needs to be addressed, but that's pretty much it except for KH/Gh every so often, neither of which are hard.

Even though EI does not account for the fish unless you change the KNO3 dosing, this also does no harm either unless you have too many fish to begin with no matter what method you use.

The issues there is NH4 backup, not NO3 levels.

I'd rather see folks talking about aquascapes and the plants than algae and nutrients, test kits and calibration. 

I think tweakers tend to believe that they can balance the tank through testing and adding a lot of ferts somehow is not balancing  the tank. Some compare it to a more natural approach than the farmed EI method or dumping things in in some "haphazard" wasteful manner.

But does excess cause algae or does not produce nice plant growth?
No.......so what is the reason for it?
Is it really that wasteful? 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## shalu (Jan 16, 2003)

plantbrain said:


> Is it really that wasteful?


Is that really a question? hehe. Not if we buy dry ferts. I don't even care how much ferts I throw away even if I do DAILY 50% water changes on my 100 gallon tank if I feel like it. I did 60% every other day for a while, EI still works, plants and fish loved it but lots of work for me. The fert cost is negligible compared to what I spend on frozen fish food.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Shalu,
I've caught some grief lately for suggesting high levels and some claiming that less is better or just enough looks better, they suggest things like well, "my fish bred" when I lowered the nutrients, and other anecdotal subjective things such as the plants look "prettier", or I do not want to do weekly water changes(something I've merely suggested, never said anyone had to do it, 2 week water changes work, 2x a week water changes work etc)
or "my plants grow too fast".

I've made the case for each of these issues but only get weak responses back. If I reduce the NO3, something anyone can do with EI by swapping K2SO4 for KNO3 or a ratio thereof, I can make many plants redder and thus prettier is some folk's mind's.

Reduction of any salt/TDS will induce breeding in many fish species.
That's not because they "like it", or it's "better", they think it's the rainy season, time to bred. This has little to do with plants is the point here. This is about fish breeding and if you remove the plants from this and use other salts other than ferts, this same effect is true.

If you have fast growers, swap them with Crypts and slower growers, reduce your light to 2 w/gal. Then you don't have such rapid growth.

Why waste the lighting that you pay for and that generates heat and cost for bulb replacements?

That's the real waste.

Water changes can be reduced as the tank gets growing well and folks can go longer times, but many have issues and need to keep up on things more.
As someone who has bred Discus and as someone else that has bred them, I have a hard time accepting that EI discourages breeding at these so called polluted levels (Jeff's term for it).
I asked him why he felt PPS was any different or better. Plants look "prettier" was all I got, that can be done simply by adjusting the EI for KNO3/K2SO4.
That's all the PPS does. 

We did that a lot back on the APD when we figured out that NO3 was the red coloration inducer. I do not think it's different than EI, all you do is test and keep things at a more specific ppm range. I asked about the water changes. But that is not needed to grow plants well........but I've never said you cannot do the testing either.....

If folks want to adjust their tanks more precisely, they are welcomed too, but I still say it's nothing new, certainly is nothing I have not done for many years already in one form or another. 

PPS keeps the nutrients levels in a narrower range than EI through testing and more precise dosing. That is the only benefit as explained to me by those using it. What is required to do this? Lots of testing, Excel box entering, complicated method, calibration of your test kits, substantial experience and chemistry. What do you gain?
Nothing as far as plant/fish health, perhaps you enjoy the testing and processes and watching nutrient ebb and flow.

That is what I used to do but had trouble helping folks in the past............so why do that when you can assume that the plants don't care about the larger excesses and make things 10X simpler without the micro mangement?
I want to garden/scape, not _have_ to test. 

One could argue that redder plants = more N stress, thus a more *deficient* plant rather than a healthier plant without this stress/limitation. That rides the razor's edge more, deficient plants are not caused by nutrient rich water. 

GG-

You need like 2-3x that many plants when you start up a tank!!
More plants => better.
Stuff the tank, this will help!
Do not wait for things to grow in.
Remove cheapy plants later and replace with the new plants you want as they grow in.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## shalu (Jan 16, 2003)

plantbrain said:


> One could argue that redder plants = more N stress, thus a more *deficient* plant rather than a healthier plant without this stress/limitation. That rides the razor's edge more, deficient plants are not caused by nutrient rich water.


And I don't like deficient looking plants even IF it is redder. I found many plants DON'T really need low NO3 to be red. People have said only low NO3 can bring out the red in rotala macrandra, well, it is deep blood red in my tank currently at 50ppm NO3(from fish food alone, I slacked off to weekly water change while continuing to feed heavily).


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

Is it the actual levels of NO3 that cause the red(stress) in plants, or the ratio of NO3 to P04? My ludwigia repens is super red and my no3 is in the 20ppms. My po4 is around 7ppms which is a pretty far cry from the traditionally excepted ration of no3 to po4.
jB


----------



## PeteyPob (Apr 26, 2004)

good question!


----------



## bharada (Mar 5, 2004)

Jason Baliban said:


> Is it the actual levels of NO3 that cause the red(stress) in plants, or the ratio of NO3 to P04? My ludwigia repens is super red and my no3 is in the 20ppms. My po4 is around 7ppms which is a pretty far cry from the traditionally excepted ration of no3 to po4.
> jB


My experience with 'Sunset' Hygro would lead me to believe the latter. Going from a 10:1 NO3O4 ratio to a 10:1.5-2 ratio significantly increases the magenta in the veining.


----------



## shalu (Jan 16, 2003)

I don't know if it is the ratio, or maybe just higher ppm of PO4. I tend to believe the latter.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Now 50ppm NO3 and 7ppm PO4 are a tad high fellers

Quit making your Discus fat and overweight
It's bad enough to have fat overweight plants.

The red coloration is plant species specific certainly, higher PO4 seems to redden up many species and get's rid of green spot algae.
I've had many species turn very red at high nutrients levels as well.
Tonia branches, Rotalas grow nicely.

But certainly there is no advanatage to getting too far the other way either........20-30ppm seems fine and 2-3 ppm is perfectly excessive enough and should not be tough to hit these within these ranges dosing dry ferts.
But you can allow to to drop as well, you just need to be careful and watch.
Your routine and being consistent with that, is more important. You can add smaller units of ferts and still get the desired results.

My point is that your own habits and routine dictate the type of dosing you chose to do. Plant accordingly.

The lower end works also if you keep an eye on it.
But a nice middle ground that is easy to hit the target is a good method for most folks.

40+ppm of NO3 is getting up there. 
Shalu, try Bob and Alan's autowater changer. That will save you much work and provide a better Discus environment(recall both of them have a lot of discus also).

and BTW folks, PMDD is not quite as different as EI as folks think.
They have different assumptions but PMDD adds KNO3, K2SO4, Traces, and fish food with pretty low light(1.5-2w/gal in large deeper tanks). So the PO4 demands were likely just barely getting met or limited.
But most of the other things were there besides dosing PO4 and then more CO2/Traces/KNO3 etc + more light.

High light allows good measurement of nutrient declined due to plants so you can see the relationships better.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## shalu (Jan 16, 2003)

plantbrain said:


> Now 50ppm NO3 and 7ppm PO4 are a tad high fellers
> 
> Quit making your Discus fat and overweight
> It's bad enough to have fat overweight plants.


I know, I know :icon_bigg Just trying temporarily to see how fish responds, because I know I would have some very sick discus right now IF in bare bottom tank. NO3 is NOT really the main thing in terms of water quality although often used as a convenient indicator, that's for sure. There is something to be said about improved water quality in a fully planted tank other than plants sucking up NO3. I will be doing more WC at first sign of trouble. Those darn discus continue to spawn on the front glass in 50ppm NO3, there is no stopping them. The wild discus attacks my hand fiercely when I put my hand in the tank while two OTHER discus were guarding the eggs, go figure.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Any fish bit me they'd be sauteed in butter. Discus pancakes. They taste good, like petrale sole.

See if you can add a large spawnning rock in the shape of a cone to keep them off the front of the glass. I hate that.

The higher PO4 is the likely component for the redder colors as well as the richer traces/GH etc.

I think some traces are better than others, I'm not so keen on the CMS+B. I like TMG and Flourish, they also don't get fungi(you can keep the CMS from this also by adding a liltle H2SO4 or HCL, but I do not like to keep any of that around personally).

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Laith (Jul 7, 2004)

Why not keen on CSM+B? % ingredients aren't optimum?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

No, mainly an issue with the stuff getting fungi in my dosing system jugs.
Also, I think the sheen and coloration are better with flourish and TMG, but each of these produces a slightly different effect on the plants.

I also think that they grow the plants faster than CMS+B. But is this worth the cost differences? For me it's worth the cost.

I mixed the CMS on alternate days with the F and TMG. That did okay.
I'm back to TMG and F. 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

OK, so I just did the 50% water change, but before I did, I ran some tests.

Maybe I should have done that prior to starting anything, but there are no problems so....

Let's start with the tank:

Nitrate is roughly 40-50PPM

pH is 6.4

KH is 80PPM

GH is 300 plus PPM

I haven't got my phosphate kit yet so no figures there.

Then I tested my tap water,

Nitrate is around 40PPM (the water report I got from the city doesn't even reference nitrate, gee wonder why)

pH is over 9

GH is over 300PPM

KH is around 80PPM

Basically with my dosing regimen, if I figure this right, I'm adding just about enough nitrate through the CSM+B and kNO3 to keep up with intake since the nitrate level is pretty much steady at the tap water level, I am seeing a bit of green dot on the glass though, any thoughts?


----------



## BSS (Sep 24, 2004)

I've been battling green spot in my tank by keeping my PO4 up closer to 2.0 ppm. I formerly was sitting closer to 1.0. Of course, without the PO4 kit, you might need to do some estimating :wink: !


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

plantbrain said:


> But testing and tweaking and filling in Excel spreadsheets and micro managing things is a tough sell.


Testing once a week or a month for NO3 and PO4 seems to be excessive?
Aren’t you keeping notes too?



> It's hard to explain, it requires the aquarist to know much more.


Planted aquarium hobbyists are smart people.



> PPS makes some weak assumptions on Ca/Mg/SO4


 EI doesn’t even incorporate Ca & Mg management, unlike PPMD did Mg so many years ago.



> and also Traces, one which will not be overcome with testing regarding traces.


 No one is suggesting testing for traces. 



> I test for water parameters way too much in work related issues. Good lord, I'm sick of it.


 We are hobbyists, we don’t mind.



> Most did not get into this hobby to test water.


 Most did not get into this hobby to do water changes.



> Why test if you do not need to and also do not want too?


 Why do unnecessary water changes if you do not need to and also do not want to?



> … it's really a hard sell. Both work, …


 This is a hobby, not a business.



> I asked him why he felt PPS was any different or better. Plants look "prettier" was all I got, that can be done simply by adjusting the EI for KNO3/K2SO4.
> That's all the PPS does.


 There is more to it then just dumping teaspoons of chemicals in a tank.



> We did that a lot back on the APD when we figured out that NO3 was the red coloration inducer. I do not think it's different than EI, all you do is test and keep things at a more specific ppm range.


 Did you say *test* at EI?



> PPS keeps the nutrients levels in a narrower range than EI through testing and more precise dosing. That is the only benefit as explained to me by those using it. What is required to do this? Lots of testing


 Testing once a week to once a month for NO3 and PO4.



> Excel box entering, complicated method


 Isn’t Excel the standard for keeping notes? Use paper if you wish …



> calibration of your test kits


 You are so wrong. The _calibration_ is here to teach people how to use test kit color charts. Please read the PPS articles again.



> substantial experience and chemistry.


 dissolve 20 grams of KNO3 in 500ml of water.



> and BTW folks, PMDD is not quite as different as EI as folks think.


 Yes it is very different. PMDD addressed the need for more K and Mg. The EI ignores the need for the essential plant nutrient Mg.










*The PPS articles*

Thank you 
Edward


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

Edward, the goal of this thread is to develop a dosing regimen that eliminates the need for testing.

PMDD in this case is just a substitute for commercially avaible ferts, and EI is the basis for the dosing regimen. It all falls back on the KISS principle.

While you may feel this can't be done, I think it can and what I've learned so far tells me I'm on the right track. The system can be easily adjusted to suit local water needs as well to allow for what it provides or doesn't provide.

I would prefer this thread work towards that goal as opposed to becoming the same TIRED debate over who knows more and what works best. There are plenty of them to join, your own forum over in APC is a good place.

As for the intelligence of the average hobbyist, most of my customers that I'm trying to encourage getting their feet wet are not scientifically minded, that doesn't make them smart or stupid, they have a goal and they want the simplest means to achieve that goal. That makes them smart in my opinion.

Most of them would look at your chart and choose the EI method because it's the simplest and from what I've read and observed personally, works very well.

Sometimes good enough is good enough.


----------



## discus (Jul 22, 2004)

glass-gardens.com said:


> I would prefer this thread work towards that goal as opposed to becoming the same TIRED debate over who knows more and what works best. There are plenty of them to join, your own forum over in APC is a good place.
> 
> .


Then perhaps you should advise those promoting their method to promote theirs on its own merit and not to attempt to increase the supposed viability of their method at the trashing of others. Especially when you prefer that the others not make any comments to defend or explain what has been said. If you are worried about this becoming yet another TIRED debate perhaps you should ask the person who originally began and opened the door for a debate to shut the door and promote his method on its own merit if it exists.

I believe everyone should have the opportunity to respond to unfounded accusations and quotes but then thats just my humble opinion.


----------



## Georgiadawgger (Apr 23, 2004)

My 2 cents...it all depends on the system I believe...of course the key is co2...then lights, etc. But also to an extent what type of plants you have (phosphate sponges, nitrate hogs etc). I started off with the PPS a long while back and that did fine. Switched more or less to PMDD while I was in grad school at Auburn...then when I moved back to Atlanta something about the water chemistry differences caused a nightmare...then tried EI...I've still had to tweak it a bit since my initial regimen was leading to obnoxiously high nitrate and phosphate readings...yeah, I still tested...on saturdays before my water change on sunday. The interesting thing was I noticed my phosphates don't really drop too much for a while until I had my co2 really pumping...basically it seems like my reactor can't keep up with how much co2 I'm pumping in there...but algae is minimal and that's taken care of with weekly pruning...and its not an eye sore anymore. 

Personally, its one of the easiest fert regimens I recommend to people entering this hobby and I try to give all thanks to Tom and Craig (he's really mastered it too). People write back that it's working for them. So if they're new to the hobby, like the results, why not encourage it? 

By the ways, Edward and Discus, welcome to the forum and post often...can you update your avatar to let us know where you are? Cheers!


----------



## sawallace (Jan 24, 2005)

glass-gardens.com said:


> they (customers) have a goal and they want the simplest means to achieve that goal.


Low-light, low-tech tanks are the answer. But who wants that? 

I hate to beat a dead horse...

For moderate/high light, CO2 injected tanks, Experience is the only way you are going to get away from testing. I've tried all three methods under these conditions and they ALL require testing to some extent. However, with experience, you develop a "feel" for what's going on in your tank. This is true for ALL methods. There is no "quick fix," experience is the answer.


----------



## TINNGG (Mar 9, 2005)

Oh I don't know - I have one of those - a 10 with crypts and anubias. I use it for a q/t. Standard strip light, generally no fertilizing, epoxy coated frosted apricot quartz gravel, lego ship.... Anubias seem really happy, and the crypts haven't died  SAEs in q/t have lots of hidey holes (one more week and I'll move them to their ultimate destinies.)


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

HAHAHAHAHAHA I am afraid there are snots everywhere. Mostly it seems they just talk to themselves. HAHA I belong to 3 forums.....they all are great for different reasons. I only support aquabotanics forum because the people there are by for the least snotty IMO. 
jB


----------



## GTApuffgal (Feb 7, 2005)

*PMDD/EI System Evaluation*

I'm relatively new here and still learning the dynamic of the forum so I probably have zero business dipping my toe in this water. However - from my perspective as a newbie to this stuff... I'm just trying to learn all I can. Period. And that means I have been reading everything I can get my hands on. Tom, Edward, Chuck, Rex, Buck, Mike, you name it - I am a sponge. And I haven't settled on anything - yet. I'm still trying to absorb all the information. From where I sit, it appears that when fully understood and used correctly - it's all good! The relative simplicity of EI appeals to me alot, but (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I get the sense that - as someone else pointed out - you really need to have some experience and a "feel" for the water AND the plants to make this work. On the other hand - I seem to have the need to be up to my soggy elbows in it on a daily basis so the "discipline" of PPS has it's appeal too. That being said, as soon as I planted my tank I dove in and started monkeying with things and ended up with algae all over the place. I have managed to get rid of it for the most part (don't ask me exactly how...) and as all seems to be under control right now, I am using this reprieve to build my knowledge and understanding and take it from there. I'm open to anything and everything right now and feel that the more I know, the more power I have. And I will know where to turn when there is trouble.

Don't really know what the point of all that really is, I just would like to see this thread stay constructive rather than deteriorating into a pissing match. IMHO anybody who is successfully growing healthy aquatic plants whilst keeping healthy, happy fish has something good to bring to the table and we can all learn from one another. Can't we all just get along? :tongue: 

Kathy (aka Pollyanna...)


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

GTApuffgal said:


> The relative simplicity of EI appeals to me alot, but (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I get the sense that - as someone else pointed out - you really need to have some experience and a "feel" for the water AND the plants to make this work


But that's the point, I'm adapting this system to something that can be used by someone with no experience, let alone any interest in the science. Most of my customers I'm dealing with and will be dealing with look at planted tanks as a decorating accessory.

They don't want to bother with testing, they don't want to invest in expensive test kits (the other equipment is expensive enough). I liken them to the same type who grow house plants without ever getting into the science of it, they just enjoy having them.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

glass garden,
I believe that EI is the easiest of the methods. I started this method with relative ease. Once you get the parms to the correct level(which takes some patience), the tank pretty much takes care of itself. However, I still think you need some type of baseline. It takes desire and know how to achieve this baseline. Tom and other folks can determine this baseline just by looking at the tank. I determine this baseline by looking at the plants and guessing then testing just to be sure. The issue here is that no high tech tank is for a person not interested in at least testing once in awhile. Yes Tom has done a great job with simplifying the approach, but there has to be some amount of resposibility when you approach these things. Toms method is great to get one past the frustration of just growing plants, but the successful aquarist will be able to understand what they are effecting with this method and be able to tweak the system for their particular tank. Perhaps I am a little snobby by the whole thing, but if one doesnt have the desire to understand what is happening, and get thier hands wet (pun intended, hahahah) then they have no right to house aquatic critters. "If it wasnt hard then it wouldnt be so damned cool" - jesse james
jB


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

I have to disagree Jason, although I do understand your point. 

I think a system can be developed that will do just what I'm looking for and the result will be many more people coming into the hobby. people have dogs and cats with no understanding of their biology other than they need food and water, people have house plants with little real knowledge of their biology beyond basic lighting needs and water and a dash of pre-bottled fertilizer.

In my experience with the system so far, I'm more convinced than ever that it can work.

Human nature is to resist the idea that a thing can be simple, we over analyze, we over complicate, we overlook and negate the obvious. Simplicity doesn't fit in with human arrogance.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

I hear what you are saying and perhaps i dont understand the full ability of the customers you are talking about. I agree that the method may be refined, but to what extent are we talking about. Who will prune the plants? Do you do all the upkeep and they just dose? I feel that it is not responsible to throw ferts in a tank and never challenge what the outcome is. Whether it be testing or having experience to fall back on.....the outcome is always challenged. That is what makes us aquatic gardeners. Now perhaps we hope that EI has simplified things enough that it will open doors to people who dont have the patience to get past the learning curve. I can see good and bad in this. Take guitar tablature. I dont know if you are familiar with it.....it is a method in which a person can learn the guitar without ever knowing how to read music. While this make guitar more excessible and opens the door for many people, it also closed many other doors. Many people became so dependent on tablature that they never made the jump to reading music. Now they can play guitar well, but they cant communicate with any other musicians (because they cant read and write music....there is no tabliture for french horn). So what I am saying is there is a fine line. There is a line of responsibity. This line must be carefully walked. There is a certain amount of understanding an aquarist should have. There will always be some type of learning curve. Something always goes wrong. I think if they are taught these small things in combination with an easy (not fool proof) method such as EI, I think you will create an educated customer that will understand why things are working. Then when something does get fowled up, they wont be as frustrated because they already had great success and understand to some degree why they did.
jB


----------



## Stu (Feb 16, 2004)

GTApuffgal said:


> The relative simplicity of EI appeals to me alot, but (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I get the sense that - as someone else pointed out - you really need to have some experience and a "feel" for the water AND the plants to make this work.


EI *can* be a complete no-brainer..... just dose so that you always have an excess, and do 50% water changes each week.... that's it!









The only issues with watching plants comes if you want to start tinkering with the levels; reducing them slightly to try and conserve fertiliser. It's also a great way to get to know and understand aquatic plants, but if you only want to see happy plants without wondering why, EI can do this for you.


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

I think perhaps we're guilty of expecting others to look at things in the same manner as ourselves.

I personally think that EI can be made "fool proof" simply because it allows the "fool" to hit the reset button before things get out of hand.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

glass-gardens.com said:


> I think perhaps we're guilty of expecting others to look at things in the same manner as ourselves.


HAHAHA I totally agree!!! I just cant except EI is fool proof for everyone. How bout the fool who cleans all the glass with windex and gets drops of it in the tank....or it goes through the glass causing an algae outbreak. You still need to have a baseline knowledge of how things work in the aquatic world. Not having at least that baseline is not responsible. Even Tom, who is the most outspoken about throwing away his test kits, still appreciates their worth. Oh this is good fun!!! I love these ethical debates!!! I believe you can have success if you educate these customers and show them the method. Education and a willing to learn are the only way to succeed with anything.
jB


----------



## TINNGG (Mar 9, 2005)

Jason Baliban said:


> HAHAHA I totally agree!!! I just cant except EI is fool proof for everyone. How bout the fool who cleans all the glass with windex and gets drops of it in the tank....or it goes through the glass causing an algae outbreak. You still need to have a baseline knowledge of how things work in the aquatic world. Not having at least that baseline is not responsible. Even Tom, who is the most outspoken about throwing away his test kits, still appreciates their worth. Oh this is good fun!!! I love these ethical debates!!! I believe you can have success if you educate these customers and show them the method. Education and a willing to learn are the only way to succeed with anything.
> jB


LOL! Tom informed me (after the fact of course) that I couldn't do a fishless cycle with ammonia in my planted tank. The interesting thing is of course, all my algae growth happened *after* I added fish and switched to real fertilizer. The plants well, they grew like crazy on pure ammonia. Whee! On ferts? Eh, not so good.

There's a lesson there I think. The reason most houseplant ferts use ammonia as a nitrate source is because plants can utilize it easier; they have to break down nitrates first. And that's probably why swords and other root feeders tend to do so well with root tabs. These water based ferts are a lot like miracle grow - a plant's version of gatorade. I occasionally use something like that on my roses, but if I want the rose to really do well, long term, I haul out the manure and other things.

One thing I do like about aquatic plants - no insect pests<g> No Japanese beetles, aphids, earwigs, etc. And no fungus.

BTW, being able to grow a handful of aquatic plants algae free will be small consolation when the fish die due to nitrates soaring off the chart that you didn't test for anyway because you were told not to worry about it. Just my point of view here. The plants *are* an accessory. A very satisfying accessory to be sure, particularly when they're growing well, but my fish come first. I may not test for anything else, but I will test nitrates because letting that get too high can have disasterous consequences and it's a living creature that'll pay.


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

In a planted tank, usually fish are the accessory.


----------



## shalu (Jan 16, 2003)

Jason Baliban said:


> How bout the fool who cleans all the glass with windex and gets drops of it in the tank....jB


haha, it actually did happen, and the whole bottle of bleach was dropped in the tank, all the discus died. You can read it over simplydiscus.com, but it happened to a non-planted tank person though.


----------



## GTApuffgal (Feb 7, 2005)

*PMDD/EI System Evaluation*



shalu said:


> haha, it actually did happen, and the whole bottle of bleach was dropped in the tank, all the discus died. You can read it over simplydiscus.com, *but it happened to a non-planted tank person though*.


Oh well see, there ya go! :wink: 

Kathy


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

shalu said:


> haha, it actually did happen, and the whole bottle of bleach was dropped in the tank, all the discus died. You can read it over simplydiscus.com, but it happened to a non-planted tank person though.


This could happen on a much lower scale.....so small the person may not even realize it happened. All they know is that the tank has algae and they have been following this "fool proof" method. Then they get frustrated because they were told this was fool proof. I am not trying to flame this idea at all. I owe a great deal of my success to Tom. I just really feel that without a baseline of knowlege any method isnt going to even going to get past square one. If an aquarist doesnt care to learn how to test and learn the fundimentals, then they should be paying people to care.  
jB


----------



## sawallace (Jan 24, 2005)

Stu said:


> EI *can* be a complete no-brainer..... just dose so that you always have an excess, and do 50% water changes each week.... that's it!


If it were only that easy... Things like bioload, feeding, types of plants, uptake, etc. etc. all add to the puzzle. With experience you will know what effects these have on your tank.

I'm not saying EI is a better/worse method, they all work, but experience makes them ALL work more efficiently.


----------



## Momotaro (Feb 21, 2003)

This is an interesting discussion that I don't want to see get out of hand.

Lets keep the sarcasm out of this. Keep it on topic, and keep it intelligent. roud: A similar discussion got a bit rough over at APC, so please, lets try to avoid that here. 

*Disagreement is not an affront to anyone's intelligence or experiences. It is just that, disagreement. Please keep that in mind and please be respectful of each other.*

I have a ton of respect for everyone who has posted in this tread. I hate having to edit or delete the posts of members I have that much respect for, so please, be civil with each other.

**Edward and discus**

How about a thread about your dosing techniques?

Mike


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

I think you're missing the point, you're basically throwing more than is needed at the tank and resetting it back to zero each week before problems occur from any imbalance.

I'm beginning to think the resistance is based more on a refusal to believe that it can work as opposed to any real evidence that it can't or doesn't.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

glass-gardens.com said:


> I think you're missing the point, you're basically throwing more than is needed at the tank and resetting it back to zero each week before problems occur from any imbalance.
> 
> I'm beginning to think the resistance is based more on a refusal to believe that it can work as opposed to any real evidence that it can't or doesn't.


I am not second guessing the method, I am just second guessing selling this thing as a fool proof solution. I am not posting to shoot anything down or to refuse ideas. I am simply offering a point of view from someone who is fairly new to high tech tanks. For months I have been reading about EI....there it was in front of my face. I had people telling me what to do etc.....but until I understood what had to happen and what to look for, this method was just smoke and mirrors. So take it for what it is worth, from a guy who has a lot more knowlege then a green newb, who still had to edure a learning curve to be successful. I am trying to offer a different side of the coin to help you create an approach to create success in your customers. I believe they will need this baseline knowlege to be successful. Once this knowlege transfer occurs, the customers will be able to take the method and be successful......this success is almost guaranteed with EI, however the knowlege willl help them work through the problems when they eventually occur. I hope this helps you construct your approach. I had no intention to prove anyone wrong, just to brainstorm on your idea. roud: 
jB


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

Jason Baliban said:


> I am not second guessing the method, I am just second guessing selling this thing as a fool proof solution


I'm not selling it as fool proof yet, I'm trying to develop it further AS a fool proof method. Of all the methods I've seen, this has the most potential to be just that.



Jason Baliban said:


> I am trying to offer a different side of the coin to help you create an approach to create success in your customers. I believe they will need this baseline knowlege to be successful


Which is why I started my experiment tank with 0 testing of the tap water and a hodge podge of common plants. The only thing I've changed so far is to add more plants per Tom's advice only, not to address any issues I was having. I just started the 2nd week, same regimen, water is crystal clear, plants are experiencing what I would consider to be outstanding growth, a bit of green dot on the glass, nothing on the plants.



Jason Baliban said:


> I hope this helps you construct your approach. I had no intention to prove anyone wrong, just to brainstorm on your idea. roud:
> jB


I have no problems with your posts, they're constructive as anything anyone else has posted, I certainly don't consider you to be resistant to the concept as I do others, my last post wasn't directed at you.

Also, keep in mind this is only a part of the system I'm going to market. The whole package is involved, lighting, CO2 and plants. I'm not going to sell this specific aspect alone, it will be offered as part of the entire system.

I also think it needs to be added that Tom would not probably subscribe to the idea of fool proof per se either, this is my own tangent, if anything I'm stealing his EI system and trying to squeeze it into what I want it to be or at least hope it can be.

But to be certain, history is full of accomplishments that were considered impossible.

At one time it was considered almost impossible to keep anything alive in a tank of water.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

Cool, just trying to give you a different perspective for your project.
jB


----------



## GTApuffgal (Feb 7, 2005)

*PMDD/EI System Evaluation*

FWIW - Discus is ANYTHING but a plant snot. I stumbled on APC recently and she has been nothing but welcoming, friendly and helpful. I love it here. This was the first plant place I found and y'all are entirely responsible for that lovely tank upstairs and I am eternally grateful. I don't want to "get into trouble" here, but I just have to go on the record about Discus. I don't know if she likes Amano or not (I know I do), but she is by no means a plant snot. And I'm sure she doesn't need me to "defend" her, but well, there ya go...

Kathy


----------



## freeflyer (Feb 3, 2005)

glass-gardens.com said:


> I think you're missing the point, you're basically throwing more than is needed at the tank and resetting it back to zero each week before problems occur from any imbalance.


 Reseting to zero? I dont think so, and thats exactly what my problem with EI is. If your nitrates are at 15 and you do a 50% "reset" water change your still at 7.5 nitrates NOT 0 and then your immediatly adding more nitrate. My impression of EI is to pretty much overdose on all nutrients to avoid anything being short. Nitrate is not a good thing for animals and thats one nutrient in particular that I see EI people pushing above 15 ppm which I think is way more than necessary. I always keep nitrate under 10 and in my discus tank usually under 5ppm and the plants do great.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

freeflyer said:


> Reseting to zero? I dont think so, and thats exactly what my problem with EI is. If your nitrates are at 15 and you do a 50% "reset" water change your still at 7.5 nitrates NOT 0 and then your immediatly adding more nitrate. My impression of EI is to pretty much overdose on all nutrients to avoid anything being short. Nitrate is not a good thing for animals and thats one nutrient in particular that I see EI people pushing above 15 ppm which I think is way more than necessary. I always keep nitrate under 10 and in my discus tank usually under 5ppm and the plants do great.


I see what you are saying with high macros, but you can tailor your system to work in those ranges. The macros never add up like you would think they do. Scribble out a few water changes on a piece of paper.....after a few cycles you will see that the macros never get more then double what you are dosing, even with 0 uptake (this assumes you do 50% WC).
jB


----------



## freeflyer (Feb 3, 2005)

glass-gardens.com said:


> In a planted tank, usually fish are the accessory.


 Did you really read what he wrote before you decided to reply? 
Thats just wrong and makes me SICK :angryfire


----------



## shalu (Jan 16, 2003)

freeflyer said:


> Did you really read what he wrote before you decided to reply?
> Thats just wrong and makes me SICK :angryfire


What would be your response if someone said "fish are just fertilizer in a planted tank?" :icon_bigg Calm down, don't read too much into it. After all, aren't all tanks just accessories in the house? :wink:


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

freeflyer said:


> Did you really read what he wrote before you decided to reply?
> Thats just wrong and makes me SICK :angryfire




Obviously most planted tank hobbyists put more emphasis on the plant aspect, otherwise we'd be discussing how to rid our tanks of the nutrients our plants need in order to provide the cleanest water for the fish.


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

freeflyer said:


> Reseting to zero? I dont think so, and thats exactly what my problem with EI is. If your nitrates are at 15 and you do a 50% "reset" water change your still at 7.5 nitrates NOT 0 and then your immediatly adding more nitrate. My impression of EI is to pretty much overdose on all nutrients to avoid anything being short. Nitrate is not a good thing for animals and thats one nutrient in particular that I see EI people pushing above 15 ppm which I think is way more than necessary. I always keep nitrate under 10 and in my discus tank usually under 5ppm and the plants do great.


Resetting to zero simply means lowering the nutrient levels to below what the uptake rate is to prevent excess causing problems.

I realize you have this incessant need to slam EI and start fights, so pardon me while I walk away shaking my head in amusement.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

glass-gardens.com said:


> Resetting to zero simply means lowering the nutrient levels to below what the uptake rate is to prevent excess causing problems.
> 
> I realize you have this incessant need to slam EI and start fights, so pardon me while I walk away shaking my head in amusement.


Deep breaths bro!! Everyone slams everyone.....it is just the nature of the thing. I use a combo of EI and PPS.....which after splitting straws are about the same. I use EI to start the tank. After things establish I move to more of a PPS approach. Basically EI is an easy way to get things going. I am lazy with test kits. But then I get lazy with water changes..hahahaha. By the time I am lazy with WC i have a good idea of the uptake of my tank, so i start to kill some of the excess ferts in my EI. I am sure that Tom does this too.....he is a master. He knows his tanks. I bet he is almost following PPS by the time he gets his tanks established(sorry tom for the assumtion). By that time we can slack on WC a bit. IMO PPS is a PITA to start. It is great for established tanks and lower light tanks, but our nuclear tanks are hard to keep up with in the beginning. You end up testing the crap out of your tank just to keep up. Just use EI to start....get things rolling.....test at the end of each week. Slowly back off the ferts till you see the weekly figures you are looking for....if you are looking. Tom explains this......but in my opinion he is just explaining the integration of PPS in EI. HAHA

Cant we all just get along.....Who cares how you get your plants growing. Using any of the methods....once you get it, you get it. The question is....can you sculpt plants? Can you create? THat is what sets us all apart. I love Amano and Knott. These guys can grow plants.....just like all of us. But can you make tanks look like those guys.....probly not.
jB


----------



## freeflyer (Feb 3, 2005)

I am not trying to start a fight Only offer another insight.


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

As stated before, my test at the end of the first week indicates little to no net gain in NO3, so I'm assuming my current dosing regimen is fairly close to the actual uptake rate of the plants. I'm trying to determine the ideal dosing rate to recommend to my customers without them having to test. When this goes on the shelf, I hope to have a dosing rate based on tank volume. I'll be starting a 45 and 75 shortly to get comparitive data from to test the idea that rates can be recommended on a per gallon basis.

Obviously there are variables involved, but again, this will be marketed as part of a total system package including a specific plant package so the variables will be known ahead of time to a large extent. The total system will include tank, lights and automated CO2 injection, I'm considering the addition of automated dosing as well, but that will come later.


----------



## TINNGG (Mar 9, 2005)

Ya know...I hate to break this to you, but the average person who drifts into a pet store either already has a good idea what they're doing (in which case, they aren't going to ask) or has the ubiquous overcrowded 10 containing at least one goldfish, couple of guppies, a tiger barb or three, and an 8" pleco. Maybe a chinese algae eater to round out the pack. Oh yeah, and a box filter powered by a tiny air pump. Not sure an anubias would survive in that, even with stellar care.

The (very) few times I've spoken with pet shop people regarding plants, I've gotten mostly wrong answers and misinformation. I've learned to be sceptical. It's good that someone who knows what they're doing is actually going to try it, but I have a feeling you aren't going to be nearly as satisfied as you may imagine - those overcrowded 10s there.

Which brings up something else - fish as an accessory? Interesting. Sounds Dutch. Which is why I don't do Dutch tanks. I admire lushly planted tanks to be sure, but I, like a whole lot of other people who have these glass or acrylic objects taking up time and space, got into it because I like the fish. Now granted, a portion have decided plants are more fun (why, I don't know. There are house plants that are just as challenging without the trememdous use of water and electricity), but if you want to interest newcomers, you're gonna have to accept the idea that live plants are just a step above plastic in their minds - oscar the overgrown (and grossly overcrowded) goldfish (who'll probably devour the plants anyway) is the reason they have the tank.


----------



## TINNGG (Mar 9, 2005)

glass-gardens.com said:


> Obviously there are variables involved, but again, this will be marketed as part of a total system package including a specific plant package so the variables will be known ahead of time to a large extent. The total system will include tank, lights and automated CO2 injection, I'm considering the addition of automated dosing as well, but that will come later.



You gotta be kidding me... This pet store really think it's gonna sell *that* many aquatic terreriums? Suddenly a vision of yet another visitor peering into my 75 (which was then occupied by a single African catfish who wouldn't tolerate anything else), asking the (very) familiar question, "have you got any fish in there?" and looking at me incredulously when told that yep, there was a large catfish hiding in there. I never had anyone stare at that tank trying to find the catfish because he wasn't interesting enough. Can't say as I've ever had anyone staring at my plants either (and they had ample opportunity before I added my angels as it was planted 2 months prior to that).


----------



## Momotaro (Feb 21, 2003)

*BIG time out!*

Whoa! Take a deep breath!

Guys! I asked everyone to keep it civil earlier today. I went out and came home to a major flame war! It took me an hour to edit this thread. 

This thread is going to remain locked until I unlock it sometime tomorrow just to give everyone an opportunity to relax, cool off, and come back with a "fresh head". Come back with the same attitude, and this thread is going to vanish!

My apologies to those who conducted themselves in civil manner on this thread!


----------



## Momotaro (Feb 21, 2003)

OK. 24 hours later. 

Can we reopen this topic for polite and thoughtful discussion?

First sign of flames and the thread will be locked permanently.

Be nice everyone and make me proud! roud: 

Mike


----------



## sawallace (Jan 24, 2005)

How will you adjust for tap water parameters/bioload if you don't test?


----------



## Stu (Feb 16, 2004)

sawallace said:


> How will you adjust for tap water parameters/bioload if you don't test?


You can get a detailed tap water report from your local supplier and you can slowly reduce KNO3 dosing to adjust to the bioload.

I myself would test occasionally to check and just for my own curiosity, *but* you can do it without.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

I think the hardest thing might be to get the C02 in order. As we all know bubble counters are just a ballpark. Going to be a challenge to dial it in without doing a couple tests. What where your ideas for this?
jB


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

freeflyer said:


> Reseting to zero? I dont think so, and thats exactly what my problem with EI is. If your nitrates are at 15 and you do a 50% "reset" water change your still at 7.5 nitrates NOT 0 and then your immediatly adding more nitrate. My impression of EI is to pretty much overdose on all nutrients to avoid anything being short. Nitrate is not a good thing for animals and thats one nutrient in particular that I see EI people pushing above 15 ppm which I think is way more than necessary. I always keep nitrate under 10 and in my discus tank usually under 5ppm and the plants do great.


Nothing wrong with that either but my Discus bred and seemed to be piggies when I dose 20-30ppm of inorganic NO3, that's different than over feeding and producing NH4 first, then NO3 afterwards.

NH4 is far more toxic and NH4=> NO3, consumes far more O2 than inorganic dosing of NO3 from KNO3.

While waste from fish food is good for the plants and they will use the NH4 to some degree, dosing inorganic NO3 is much less of the health issue you might be considering here.

Fish centric thinking tends to get folks in trouble, Discus owners are often some of the worst, this is not directed at you, it's directed at the public Discus owners in general.

Healthy plants = healthy fish.
I've never lost a fish to disease or poor health in 15 years of fully going plants/weeds.

I'd not get so into the microm anagement aspect, if you want, you can still do that and dose accordingly, there is no rule that says you cannot do EI and dose less KNO3.

If you have a high bioload and feeding routine for Discus, dosing 1/2 the rec's on KNO3 is fine at 2-3w/gal of light.

You can test and dose accordingly as well but only test for one paramater of interest, perhaps NO3 if you want to narrow that down and do EI for the rest.

We did that for a long time. It made no difference to my fish or anyone else's, but you can do that if you so chose.

EI max's out at about 20-30ppm if you dose heavy and there is no plant uptake with a weekly 50% water change.

You can do more or less, that's entirely up to you.
I just give rec's, if you want to achieve a different level, no problem.

Simply cut the range down to what you want. 5-10ppm is fine.
I certainly have never said it's not. What I have said is that some test kits are junk and folks rely on them way too much.

If you want a range of 5-10, reduce the KNO3 dosing.

Not sure why folks assume the EI means you have to add so much, as long as there is enough, and 5-10ppm is and even more so with a large fish load, you are fine.

Also, you do not have to dose every other day 2-3x a week is enough in most cases. Water changes once every two weeks also does fine etc.

If you have a problem.........then you will want to focus more on the weekly water changes, more dosing(since poor plant growth tends to = defiecent nutrient levels). But if things are fine, no need to mess with them unless you want to clean the tank up for an open house or something.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## shalu (Jan 16, 2003)

Jason Baliban said:


> I think the hardest thing might be to get the C02 in order. As we all know bubble counters are just a ballpark. Going to be a challenge to dial it in without doing a couple tests. What where your ideas for this?
> jB


If you have thriving BBA, you are not adding enough CO2. KH tests are always a good idea even with EI.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

HAHAHAHA.....I guess that is one way shula :wink: . But I dont think that the type of people that all-glass is tailoring this method to will except that as a measurement. Ah the the flowing fields of BBA.....HAHAHA
jB


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Jason Baliban said:


> Tom explains this......but in my opinion he is just explaining the integration of PPS in EI. HAHA
> jB


Actually it's much more like PPS has tried to intergrate itself and orgins from EI and PMDD. EI is merely a modified form of PMDD as is PPS which is essentially PMDD, Paul, tested N and P as well and dosed accordingly.

I said it did not matter within a range. You can do more work to achieve that range through testing, few folks are consistent and enjoy testing really over the long term.

I tested and watched and did the same old stuff PPS did. It's certainly far from new, it's been given a name as a method, but it's what folks did before EI also..............so if it came after, how did anyone manage prior?

Heck, I and several others where the nags about dosing, calibrating test kits, and testing. 

I still nag about CO2. 
But most folks get algae due to a lack, not an excess.

To date, no one has shown excess NO3, PO4 eytc causes algae or produces worst plant growth.

So why micromanage?

You can use the plants and the health to dose or determining when a water change is needed. It takes time but can and is being done out here and elsewhere. 

No test kits or filling in excel spread sheets, that's a lot of work for maintenace alone.

If you plan on doing less, make a plan to do it, not add another form of work on top of things.

If you want to work the tank good and whip into to great shape and see what max growth rates are like and health, EI allows this in a much more simple effective manner.

It is not, I repeat, is not my only method, I have done more testing than I care to admit, but I keep marine tanks, non CO2 tanks and low and high light CO2 enriched tanks.

Which method is mine?
How do you think I know what types of plant uptake *rates*.......are in reasonable ranges? The dosing is based on those, those are specific studies but rather comparative studies that deal with many species and many tanks, not just one or two.

You can tweak your tank further if you desire, you can pass up water changes and extend things out longer, you can use test kits etc.

I'm not saying these are bad, I'm saying that excess nutrients do not cause algae and that plants grow well over a wide range, as you limit the nutrients down further, plant-plant competition becomes stronger.

That varies tank to tank, so adding excess in a good range will prevent that so folks can focus on scaping instead of micro manegement of their tanks.

Do you think O. Knott, ADA and myself spend lots of time testing tanks all day to dose?

Nope.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## darren_in_the_marsh (Apr 14, 2005)

tom,

i think you are on to something with the ammonia. a local plankton ecologist at sfsu, dr. richard dugdale has shown that ammonia is often the limiting nitrogen molecule for primary productivity in the sf bay (what we call algae!), which we know is quite loaded with ferts, just no light penetration b/c of turbity. i saw a poster he presented in new mexico: 

The relative importance of nitrate, ammonium and urea in detrmining estimates of eutrophic and oligotrophic new production. ASLO Ocean Sciences, Santa Fe, February Invited 

his group also was involved with fertlizing parts of the coastal ocean with iron, the limiting ion!

looking forward to starting up your EI method, perhaps even a subscription!

fyi, darren





plantbrain said:


> Even though EI does not account for the fish unless you change the KNO3 dosing, this also does no harm either unless you have too many fish to begin with no matter what method you use.
> 
> The issues there is NH4 backup, not NO3 levels.
> 
> I'd rather see folks talking about aquascapes and the plants than algae and nutrients, test kits and calibration.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

plantbrain said:


> Actually it's much more like PPS has tried to intergrate itself and orgins from EI and PMDD. EI is merely a modified form of PMDD as is PPS which is essentially PMDD, Paul, tested N and P as well and dosed accordingly.


… and there was the Black Hole and the Big Bang Theory before PMDD.

Certainly not…
We know about planted tanks long time before PMDD. People used a variety of fertilizers long time before. Then at one time, some got an idea to redesign the Hydroponics Fertilizers used widely in greenhouses all over the world. The main ingredients were (and still are in use)

1.	CaNO3
2.	K2SO4
3.	KNO3
4.	KH2PO4
5.	MgSO4
6.	TE

The PMDD and also the PPS were developed from the Hydroponics Industry. It took many years and lots of testing to get where we are today.

Thank you
Edward


----------



## briandmiles (Feb 23, 2005)

Edward said:


> It took many years and lots of testing to get where we are today.


The problem is it still takes lots of testing and that's why people choose to use the EI (and almost everyone of us has modified it to our needs).

Brian


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

But can EI (or any other approach) be refined to such a degree that you never have to own a test kit and have extremely limited knowlege of aquatic upkeep, and still be successful? I think that is the true question in this thread. :wink: 
jB


----------



## Wö£fëñxXx (Dec 2, 2003)

Jason Baliban said:


> But can EI be refined to such a degree that you never have to own a test kit and have extremely limited knowlege of aquatic upkeep, and still be successful? I think that is the true question in this thread. :wink:
> jB


Yes!
Once you know you're source water param's, and learn how to read plant's :tongue: 
I have 6 tank's, I never test anything any more, and use RO water on a couple of tank's.


----------



## khoile (Jan 27, 2005)

Hi,

I have been curious as to how EI decide on how much is excess? excess for a 75G tank is probaly too much to be use on a 10G tank. 

Thanks.
Khoi


----------



## Stu (Feb 16, 2004)

khoile said:


> excess for a 75G tank is probaly too much to be use on a 10G tank.


Unless you are refering to a measurement of mass, say of fertiliser (i.e 4.5g KNO3), a ppm value is relative to the body of water.

ppm = *P*arts *P*er *M*illion, which is the same as mg/l (*m*illi*g*rams per *l*itre)

Hypothetically speaking, take a tank that had a volume of 1 million litres, and a tank of 1 thousand litres.
1ppm (mg/l) NO3 in the 1,000,000 Litre tank = 1000mg of NO3.
1ppm (mg/l) NO3 in the 1,000 Litre tank = 1mg of NO3


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

briandmiles said:


> The problem is it still takes lots of testing and that's why people choose to use the EI (and almost everyone of us has modified it to our needs).
> 
> Brian


EI/PMDD was based on more testing than any other method that came along specifically on aquatic plants, not hydroponics. Emergent growth changes many things physiologically. It also did a lot of comparative testing with a variety of tap waters, plant species(200+), human factors, fish loads etc.
SBAAPS had many folks with different backgrounds and tap waters.

How can I say it did more testing? PO4 for one, lack of independent and dependant variable control. It also assumed the test kits were not accurate.
Something learned the hard way and through science(we always calibrate test when we test things like nutrients). 

If someone did testing with respect to PO4 and maintain the other variables, how come no one dosed PO4 and thought excess caused algae?
Simple, they did not test it in a controlled manner.
If they did they would have never assumed excess PO4=> algae.


EI also incorporated PO4 into ther dosing as well as freeing up algae assumptions, no other method EVER did that prior. Now folks dose PO4 without fear. No need to test it and maintain that or Fe at close tolerances.

You do not see that with hydroponics. Algae is not an issue in that case.
So off to test we go (and went). 

I balanced N and P with test kits, namely Lamott, about 8-10 years ago and maintained a 20-30K+ ppm level. So did Paul but he left out the PO4 dosing issue. I suggested back then for folks to calibrate their test kits and get Lamott. Steve Dixon did it for about 6 years. Most of the folks that are in sfbaaps over the last few years did this in one form or another. 

Folks did not seem to buy into that too readily

An experienced grower can, with relative ease, dose what a tank needs based on the plant's health, algae presence etc.
New folks need test kits. 

Or you can make the tank the calibration solution and dose based on max uptake so nothing runs out till the next water change.That's an easier sell and works the same if not better. 

What I have not tested but tried to see and explore is what level of say PO4, NO3 etc causes a negative response in plants using the inorganic fertilizers.

They have to be quite high, ubnless you mistake KH2PO4 or Fe for NO3 or CO2 or something, most folks will have few issues.

CO2 can be done without a test kit quite well, folks in Asia use bubble counts as does Amano.

I think if it works for them, it's certainly possible. 
CO2 meassurements are tricky also.
I arrived at 30ppm before I read research or heard from others doing higher CO2 levels. I kept adding more till adding further gave no more positive response.

I basically ignored the test kit and kept adding and watched the fish since high CO2 has no bad effect on plants.

So yes, no test kits at all.
Non CO2 planted tanks? No test kits either and you take what we learned here with CO2 uptake rates and apply them to a non CO2 tank and the issues with algae as well.

But there is nothing wrong with test kits that are used properly and with a grain of salt. Don't assume they are correct.

You can learn and design test to investigate your own routines as PPS skillfully details out. 

Edward put together a very well presented routine for this (much better than anyone else before him with respect to Aquatic plants).

It might not be everyone' cups of tea, but then again, neither is EI nor PMDD or non CO2. There are trade offs for each, having done these routines, many folks seem to like the simplicity of EI or non CO2.

Folks glaze over when I say KNO3 and KH2PO4.
I tell them it's nothing more than adding baking soda vs sodium bicarbonate, Chem names and formulas freak folks out.

That scares folks away from the hobby. 
High tech stuff is tough to sell to a new person when they can see on the web and elsewhere that the low tech non CO2 works also.

It needs to be simple to get more folks involved and it needs to be successful in terms of growing plants with out algae.

EI does this pretty good. 
Yea, I can tweak as good as anyone, but I also know the trade offs associated with that. Having done a great deal of it in the past and still for work, I avoid it where possible 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

khoile said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have been curious as to how EI decide on how much is excess? excess for a 75G tank is probaly too much to be use on a 10G tank.
> 
> ...


Well you can add whatever amount of KNO3, KH2PO4, traces GH etc you want and scale it up/down accordingly. Use the fertilator to decide on how much to yield the ppm range you desire. If you know the rate of uptake or assume it to be a certain rate, then you can dose any routine and ratio you want easily. 

It does not need to be particularly complicated.
I really do not know what excess is in terms of a planted tank, fish with NO3 and CO2 is another issue, but as far as plants, and algae go, I honestly do not know the upper ranges on NO3, PO4, K+, Ca++, Mg++, SO4, Fe, Mn, etc.
Cu and NH4 are better known. Mg can cause issues at higher levels along with the trace metals. 

But with such a wide range, this allows for huge user errors, which the folks on ther web are often guilty of 

You know who you are :tongue: 
I thought K2SO4 was KNO3 and vice versa years ago. I thought an Aponogeton bulb was java fern. So don't feel bad. If a bone head like me can learn and do better, so can the rest of the folks.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## TINNGG (Mar 9, 2005)

plantbrain said:


> Folks glaze over when I say KNO3 and KH2PO4.
> I tell them it's nothing more than adding baking soda vs sodium bicarbonate, Chem names and formulas freak folks out.
> 
> That scares folks away from the hobby.
> ...


Believe it or not, most people know what potassium nitrate is even if they don't know the chemical name. Now... It's been a long time since chemistry and I'm not entirely sure where my husband's spiffy college periodic table went to so looking up KH2PO4 is a bit tricky. (That wouldn't be potash would it )

I think the tendency to use the chemistry shorthand confuses a lot of people needlessly (and I have to wonder if it isn't a subconscious effort to impress people with one's knowledge). Hmmm; wonder what the chemical formula for Zoo Doo is.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

TINNGG said:


> Believe it or not, most people know what potassium nitrate is even if they don't know the chemical name. Now... It's been a long time since chemistry and I'm not entirely sure where my husband's spiffy college periodic table went to so looking up KH2PO4 is a bit tricky. (That wouldn't be potash would it )
> 
> I think the tendency to use the chemistry shorthand confuses a lot of people needlessly (and I have to wonder if it isn't a subconscious effort to impress people with one's knowledge). Hmmm; wonder what the chemical formula for Zoo Doo is.


I think most of us use KNO3 and KH2PO4 because they are common ferts we get from gregwatson, plus they are the basis for many of the dosing methods. I dont think many of us are chemists. Hehe :icon_bigg 
jB


----------



## Stu (Feb 16, 2004)

TINNGG said:


> Now... It's been a long time since chemistry and I'm not entirely sure where my husband's spiffy college periodic table went to so looking up KH2PO4 is a bit tricky. (That wouldn't be potash would it )


Chemical Compound Shorthand


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

TINNGG said:


> I think the tendency to use the chemistry shorthand confuses a lot of people needlessly (and I have to wonder if it isn't a subconscious effort to impress people with one's knowledge). Hmmm; wonder what the chemical formula for Zoo Doo is.


Well I did not know what potassium nitrate was, I thought the chem formula was P for potassium. I thought KNO3 was K2SO4, I got all mixed up. There was a day when I made mistakes and had to *learn* and I keep on learning, but let me tell you, I never forget them days, I was not very good at many things, but with the will and some practice, I've come around, slowly. 

Be humble enough to ask basic questions(any). 
No answer or post can be all things to all people. 
I've made so many mistakes I lost count years ago. 
I just try and help others learn not to make the same mistakes.
It's good to learn through experience, as long as it's not your own
I am an "expert" at making mistakes.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

BTW, CO2 is added like all the other nutrients to *excess* and in a higher wide range (like PO4, NO3, Fe etc) so that it is a much easier target to hit and maintain, say trying to maintain a low levels of CO2, say 10ppm vs 25-35ppm.

This is easier from a testing and dosing standpoint and much more practical.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## TINNGG (Mar 9, 2005)

Stu said:


> Chemical Compound Shorthand


Sank you. I saw that earlier today. Should be made a sticky.

See, I'm from a somewhat rural area where people still use a manure spreader to fertilize the gardens (and you can always tell when the dairy farmers to that :wink: ) Lot of farmers around here tend to think in terms of ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate (rarely - the tendency is not to combine any of the NPK), potassium (probably sulfate), and triple phosphate. So when someone whips out a chemical formula, I have to think for a moment what they're talking about. Add to that the fact that I've kept fish long enough to remember when it was an absolute no-no to add anything that wasn't formulated for aquariums, and that phosphate was not something you wanted in said aquarium at all.


----------



## lumpyfunk (Dec 22, 2004)

Are we following the intention of this thread?

As I understand it GlassGardens wants to develope a simple method to teach people how to grow the weeds that we all like so much. 

I think EI is a wonderful way to start, however I am also a tinkerer and like to understand things.

For people like me, when I started this hobby, I would have loved to have someone tell me that this will get you started, it works, if you want to understand more about what is going on in your tank you can test often, or keep this chart on your dosing and bring it in with a water sample once a month and we will test it for you.

IMHO the purpuse that GG is going for is to incerase the success rate of his customers while increasing his sales. . . . I dont rember the last time I walked out of the lfs without buying something!


----------



## TINNGG (Mar 9, 2005)

lumpyfunk said:


> I dont rember the last time I walked out of the lfs without buying something!


I must be doing something wrong - I do all the time. Too many lfs around here have crappy fish, no plants, and overpriced cheap (as in poor quality) supplies.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

lumpyfunk said:


> Are we following the intention of this thread?
> 
> As I understand it GlassGardens wants to develope a simple method to teach people how to grow the weeds that we all like so much.
> 
> ...


That's why I suggest EI to folks often.
Problem is, then folks think that is *ALL* I do.

I had many people come and ask one simple question: how do I get rid of algae.

I have one single thing to tell them: grow the plants.
EI is simply the generalized advice I give.

Yes, I can give very precise advice, but if EI does not work, then we need to find out why.

If you want to change things or measure, nothing wrong there.

But folks use to test in the past and dose as things as they were removed.
That was an issue since folks had problems with test kit accuracy. I found it hard to find folks willing to buy pricy test kits and the ones around did not fair well. Teaching folks how to calibrate was not a good idea either.

I do not have any problems with my test kits, I have a lab. But folks here on the web I help daily don't have such luxuries. 

I've done a lot of "glorified factory work", another term I often use for "research science". While tinkering is something I've always got going, my interest change. Why? Cause I "get er done" and answer the dnag question.
On to the next problem, issue, challenge. 

Thing is, EI is stereotyped as I am, but it's very flexible as method, folks adhere too rigidly to the dosign routine, you can reduce it and back off if you want, most tanks perhaps only need 1/2 the dosing rec's I tend to give.

The main thing is that it's easy for folks, does not require test kits, grows the plants, re sets the tanks and deals with algae well.

The main premise that makes it work is that algae is not limited by the nutrient levels in a planted tank, if the plants have enough or more than enough, then the tank will do quite well if fully planted.

This is true of non CO2 plant tanks also.

Adding PO4 allows people to see and tinker, they realize hey! It does noticause algae after all!

That took close to a decade to become fully accepted on the net.
Cables=> don't need em.
Sub ferts= this one comes and goes every so often
RO water= taste great, sure don't need it for plants
Plants perfer soft water, another myth

There are plenty of things to tinker with, aquascaping is one I'd much rather see folks mess with, you have the tools to grow the plants, now go aquascape!

Wondering about CO2 and testing to see hwo you can better tweak your routine can be done without a test kit also.

*Use the plants as the test kit since that is what you are trying to help correct?*

Ponder that thought long and hard.

All you need to do is use the EI as a base and then simply add less/more of one nutrient at a time. 

Vary one at a time by dosing say 1/4 teaspoon for 3 weeks, and then 1/2 teaspoon during another three week peroid etc.

Give any routine at least 3 full weeks, 8 or more is better and then make change after you feel comfortable with the effect caused by this change in the routine.

Changing your routines all around every few days , daily, weekly and chasing after nutrient levels with test kits, filling in Excel spread sheets, frying your brain with all the combos will not tell you what you need know.

You do that *AFTER* you get the observation you are looking for in the plant.

You test to double check what you estinmate and guess what things are like and then you go back and see if you can repeat the same effect and use the test kits for conformation. This saves you huge amounts of *TIME* from testing/work and lets you know a lot fast!

Now that is smart, and lets you tinker, and is practical when you go back and apply it without a test kit.

I am no slave to the test kits, they are tools and I use them as such. I don't enjoy testing just for fun, I answer specific relevant questions for all the dang work I do.I want something out of my work , not simply make more work by testing all the time. 

Glorified factory work..........don't forget it.

Regards
Tom Barr


----------



## John P. (Apr 10, 2004)

plantbrain said:


> Tom Barr


Right on the money. In the 3 months I've been using Tom's methodology, I've harnessed the algae, saved a bunch of time testing, and have enjoyed happy plants and aquatic animals. Good deal. roud:


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

John P. said:


> Right on the money. In the 3 months I've been using Tom's methodology, I've harnessed the algae, saved a bunch of time testing, and have enjoyed happy plants and aquatic animals. Good deal. roud:


Who is Tom Barr? I have never heard his name or seen him post. He must be a short spoken fellow!!! HAHAHAH :hihi: 
jB


----------



## snake (Jan 11, 2005)

My hats off to TBarr(had a good dog by that name once).I've been doing EI on my tank now for approx. 6 weeks and plants look great and NO algae not even once troublesome BGA.
KUDOS,Plantbrain for your help and knowledge to us hobbyists.

Dean


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

snake said:


> My hats off to TBarr(had a good dog by that name once).
> Dean


Some days I'm the dog, some days I'm the hydrant

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

plantbrain said:


> Some days I'm the dog, some days I'm the hydrant
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Barr


HAHAHAHA Most days I am the curb!!
jB


----------

