The Planted Tank Forum banner

The EI Concept explained

41K views 70 replies 27 participants last post by  Greggz 
#1 ·
In response to many questions about dosing I've decided to explain my views on why we do what we do. I need a reference to send people to rather than repeating the same thing over and over. If anyone notices errors or problems please let me know since I will refer to this frequently.

It seems that most people learn "how" to dose fertilizers without understanding why those steps work. Learning the "how to method" first causes a lot of confusion when we finally ask the question, WHY?

We need to supply all the necessary nutrients to the plants in adequate quantities. Quantities that are high enough so the plant growth is never limited by the amount of any one nutrient. This idea is based on Liebig's law of the minimum .



Look at the barrel in this image. The water height of this barrel is limited to the lowest slat. Imagine each slat as a single nutrient and the barrel as the plant; the water height representing growth rate. Now the maximum growth rate will be defined by the lowest slat, or nutrient. So the growth rate of the plant would follow the nutrient in least supply.

So what would be the best option to get maximum growth rate from our plants? The answer seems obvious. Supply nutrients above the top of the "barrel". This would represent non-limiting nutrients.

Now we know the concept behind non-limiting nutrients. Let’s talk about the steps to obtain that condition. Again I'm going to use science. Hoagland's solution is nutrient rich water for plants to grow in. Sound familiar? Here’s what Wikipedia says about Hoagland’s Solution...
The Hoagland solution is a hydroponic nutrient solution that was developed by Hoagland and Arnon in 1933 and is one of the most popular solution compositions for growing plants (in the scientific world at least). The Hoagland solution provides every nutrient necessary for plant growth and is appropriate for the growth of a large variety of plant species. The solution described by Hoagland in 1933 has been modified several times (mainly to add iron chelates and the like), but the original concentrations for each element are shown below.
• N 210 ppm
• K 235 ppm
• Ca 200 ppm
• P 31 ppm
• S 64 ppm
• Mg 48 ppm
• B 0.5 ppm
• Fe 1 to 5 ppm
• Mn 0.5 ppm
• Zn 0.05 ppm
• Cu 0.02 ppm
• Mo 0.01 ppm
The Hoagland solution has a lot of N and K so it is very well suited for the development of large plants like Tomato and Bell Pepper. However, the solution is very good for the growth of plants with lower nutrient demands such as lettuce and aquatic plants with the further dilution of the preparation to 1/4 or 1/5. Hoagland solution must be made from 7stock.

Wikipedia, Hoagland's solution
Notice the nutrients listed as ppm (parts per million) above. The amounts in that list are far higher than we want in a planted tank. Remember, we have fish, shrimp, bacteria and an entire eco system in our tanks to worry about. In addition, the ratios are different for our purposes. So where do we turn now? We know we want to supply those 12 nutrients at various levels but what levels? Well, a hobbyist named Tom Barr thought the same thing. He’s determined the appropriate range for each nutrient through years of testing. The method of supplying non-limiting nutrients to our plants is known as the EI method or Estimative Index. I prefer the term EI concept because “method” implies a one size fits all mentality. This couldn't be further from the truth.

The ranges for EI are listed below.

CO2 range 25-35ppm
NO3 range 5-30ppm (KNO3)
K+ range 10-30ppm (K2SO4 or GH booster)
PO4 range 1.0-3.0 ppm (KH2PO4)
Fe 0.2-0.5ppm or higher (?) (Plantex CSM +B)
GH range 3 degrees ~ 50ppm or higher (GH Booster)

I know what you may be thinking. Where are all the other nutrients? And what does GH have to do with nutrients?

The "other" nutrients are supplied through one dry fertilizer called the trace mix. It's a combination of all the other nutrients mixed at the proper ratios, the most popular blend being Plantex CSM +B. The GH is listed as a nutrient because GH is a measurement of calcium plus magnesium; more on this below.

So from those 12 nutrients in Hoagland's solution we only have to deal with six. Nitrogen, Phosphorus, potassium, iron, GH and traces (the other nutrients).

We can dose nutrients using any frequency we like, daily, weekly or monthly as long as we stay within range. There are advantages to dosing smaller amounts over time. We get into a daily routine when we do something over and over. This helps us to remember to dose. It also prevents large swings which can impact some inhabitants. Most hobbyist with CO2 injected tanks dose every other day; macros one day micros the next. This can prevent nutrients in the trace mix from binding to macro nutrients, iron and phosphate in particular. However, low tech tanks can easily withstand monthly dosing with many other variations in between. Remember, EI is a concept not a step by step method.

Before we get into how to calculate doses let’s talk about water changes.

Clearly if we dose nutrients “above the barrel” there is a point at which some of them will become toxic. To prevent this we do regular water changes. The frequency of water changes is no different than the dosing schedule we choose. We can do water changes 3 times per week or once per year. It all depends on the system we happen to be running. The common theme being that we keep nutrients in a specific range. Balancing water changes and dosing schedules can easily be visualized using wets calculator.



As you can see, with a little tinkering on a calculator we can tailor any nutrient level we want. This is the easiest way to balance water changes and nutrients. Simply keep nutrients within the given range.

For new systems water changes of 2-3 times per week for the first 1-2 months can prevent many problems such as substrate leeching or absorption, removing nitrogen cycle wastes, and other problems we may face with a new setup. Many of these can lead to algae outbreaks and inhabitant stresses. All of which can be easily alleviated by frequent water changes and healthy plant growth.

To explain how we dose each nutrient let me use nitrogen as an example.

Nitrogen, represented by NO3 (nitrate) above. This is the result of nitrifying bacteria. This means we can have nitrogen without dosing. The amounts we have are based on the amount of organic matter that is processed by the bacteria. We can also get nitrate through our tap water. Many water supplies have nitrate levels from agricultural runoff. Since there are other sources for nitrogen we need to test for that first before we calculate a dose. In the list above the range for NO3 is 5-30ppm. If we will never go below 5ppm even after a 50% water change we may not need to dose nitrogen. If we will go below we should calculate how much is needed to keep nitrogen in that 5-30ppm range.

Let’s assume we have 0 nitrates and we want to calculate for 10ppm. Let’s further assume we want to dose every other day. If we want 10ppm then three doses per week would be…oh let’s just round it up say 4ppm. Notice we don’t have to be exact since the range is 5-30ppm! Always round up. We can taper off dosing later until we see changes in plant health. This nutrient level is called the critical point; the point at which nutrients become limiting. Just like everything else, this point is tank specific.

Now we have to figure out how much of something we need to add to raise NO3 to range. We can use a list of fertilizers to raise nitrogen. The most common one used is KNO3 or potassium nitrate. Below is a list of the common fertilizers used to raise the other nutrients within range.


NO3 (nitrogen) – KNO3 potassium nitrate.
K+ (potassium) – K2SO4 potassium sulfate. Found in many GH boosters as well.
PO4 (phosphorus) – KH2PO4 mono potassium phosphate
Iron (Fe) – Ferrous gluconate, EDTA iron chelate and DTPA iron chelate.
GH – Magnesium MgSO4.7H2O (Epsom salt) OR GH booster
Calcium CaSO4 (calcium sulfate) OR GH booster

Making these calculations couldn't be simpler. We simply use a nutrient calculator . There are many options on the calculator listed. Suffice it to say most people can figure out how to use the calculator rather than explain its use. This is how we decide how much of a fertilizer to add to raise that nutrient within range. The calculator can calculate for dry dosing or solutions, solutions being more appropriate for smaller tanks.

One point I would like to make in regards to the calculator output. Many fertilizers supply more than one nutrient as seen below. We need to keep a "running total" to account for this.



Notice how the KNO3 above also adds 2ppm of potassium?

We make these calculations for each nutrient in the list.

Three glaring issues still remain that we need to talk about; GH, iron and traces.

Gh, often noted as dGH (degrees of general hardness), is a measurement of the concentration of divalent metal ions such as calcium and magnesium per volume of water. Notice, other things can influence this measurement. However, calcium and magnesium are the two most valuable players here. Generally a GH of 3-5 degrees is considered adequate for plant growth. Sometimes the ratio of calcium to magnesium can be skewed to one side leaving the other out of range. So if we have access to a water report we can make an informed decision on whether we should dose additionally Ca or Mg based on total GH. This usually isn’t necessary. If we wanted to be safe we could add enough GH booster to raise the GH 1-2 degrees. This won’t have any impact on plant growth. It can however impact very sensitive fish and invertebrates.

Iron and trace mix are interrelated because most trace mixes contain iron. Many hobbyists have realized that higher iron levels are beneficial to multiple plants. Yet adding more of “everything else” is not needed. So a basic dose of trace mix is usually calculated to obtain an iron concentration of about .2ppm. That leaves iron at the minimum level while supplying sufficient levels of “everything else”. If we want to add additional iron we can use various forms of it.

Iron comes in many forms. The two basic types are non chelated or chelated. Essentially, chelated is a fancy name for time released. We can use iron without chelates which will last a short time, hours. This would be analogous to an injection from your doctor. It won’t last long but it works fast. We can also use iron that has been chelated with various chemicals. The time it lasts and the availability to your plants depends on the chemical used. The two most popular are EDTA and DTPA. EDTA can last up to 24 hours depending on the PH of your water. EDTA is the form of iron used in Plantex. DTPA can last up to 48 hours and is even more dependent on your PH. The higher the PH the more need for a stronger chelate such as DTPA.

So now we know why we need to dose, what we need to dose, how much we need to dose and more importantly, how to do it. Many debates are forged arguing levels, which fertilizer works better, or many other factors. The root issue always remains the same. Supplying non-limiting nutrients is the most efficient method to obtain maximal growth rate.
 
See less See more
3
#4 ·
Just add enough ferts to not run out of anything even at high light/growth tanks and then do a water change to prevent anything from building up.

Hobbyist have done this same thing for many decades with fish, they "dose" fish food, LOTS of it to grow the fish well, then do frequent water changes to prevent waste/build up.

Hardly my idea. I just argue for it since it's simple and easy. I think many get all into the details too much really. Which is fine and all, but the question is you do not want to spend too much worry over ferts as a newbie, rather, light and CO2. EI just makes ferts independent for any planted aquarium, so you can focus on light/CO2. That is the main goal.

One of the biggest problems folks had were based on old myths about the dangers of excess ferts when I suggested this in the 1990's.
I thought those ideas were correct myself, but then noticed they could not be.
 
#5 ·
One of the biggest problems folks had were based on old myths about the dangers of excess ferts when I suggested this in the 1990's.
I thought those ideas were correct myself, but then noticed they could not be.
This is partially true.

Macro ferts have much higher toxicity levels than micro ferts do. Heavy metals are many times more toxic and have fairly low toxicity ranges, some like copper well below 1 ppm (0.15 ppm actually). Long term exposure to heavy metals makes the toxic concentration lower.
 
#15 ·
Can't it be? Let's look and see why that makes sense. This is a good time to explain why water changes and dosing amount and/or frequency are closely related. Changing either will significantly impact the other.

We have 40 gallons of water we want to dose.

Using a nutrient calculator, it recommends 22ml of Seachem Nitrogen for low/light weekly EI dosing. The 22 ml dose raises NO3 (nitrates) to 10 ppm.

The range we want to maintain is 5-30ppm of NO3. So 10 ppm is in that range. Great!

Below are a couple of graphs from wet's calculator. We enter the PPM, the dosing frequency, water change amount, and finally water change frequency.

The first image is 10ppm weekly and a 50% weekly water change.



Notice how that 5-30 ppm range for NO3 are seen for each uptake group? This uptake percentage (ratio) will be driven by many factors but the most important two are light and CO2 (excel included). So the uptake ratio will change based heavily on which type of tank we have, "low" - "high tech".

The image below depicts the same 10ppm weekly dose of NO3. However, we changed the water changes to 50% monthly.



Now we see a huge change. Our range is from 7 ppm - 75 ppm! That range has crumbled away without weekly water changes. Not to worry. If we don't want to do weekly water changes we can adjust our dose. Changing the weekly dose to 3.5 ppm we can stay within the range we want using monthly water changes.

This concept is important to understand. Modeling nutrient ranges in this way can predict very accurately what we can expect to see based on our own maintenance schedules. A "one trick pony" way of dosing for EI or any other method is not necessary. EI is NOT simply daily dosing and weekly water changes. It can be scaled to any application you wish.
 
#11 ·
This should be put with the FAQs.
Thanks for taking the time to write this up. I've been looking for more info I could understand about EI. I just bought some ferts from Nilocg for a tank I'm building while still unsure of what I'm supposed to do other than just follow the dosage instructions. This was very helpful in learning more about it.
 
#17 ·
Zorfox, thanks, it makes sense, to be honest I was just shocked at how quickly I would burn through ferts. Not too different from dosing drugs and pharmacokinetics in humans.

According to the tropica article that Tom Barr linked, seems to indicate that nitrogen and phosphate supplementation are not required for well stocked planted tanks?

Some great info in this thread, will definitely be bookmarking it.
 
#18 ·
Not too different from dosing drugs and pharmacokinetics in humans.
Maybe that's why this makes sense to me. Nearly 30 years of dosing patients. Administration types, therapeutic levels, clearance times etc. all relate to this. All the way down to the acid base balance system used to interpret blood gases.

According to the tropica article that Tom Barr linked, seems to indicate that nitrogen and phosphate supplementation are not required for well stocked planted tanks?
Yup. Remember this from the initial post.

"Nitrogen, represented by NO3 (nitrate) above. This is the result of nitrifying bacteria. This means we can have nitrogen without dosing. The amounts we have are based on the amount of organic matter that is processed by the bacteria. We can also get nitrate through our tap water. Many water supplies have nitrate levels from agricultural runoff."

Phosphates are another thing we can see from a well stocked tank. Accounting for endogenous nutrients is easily done when we understand the basics.
 
#21 ·
Zapins,

Analysis
EI:
0.5 Fe
0.01 Cu

Say you want 0.2ppm of Cu at your threshold:

0.5 Fe x 20X = 10 ppm
0.01 Cu X 20X = 0.2 ppm

Overdoing it 20X is not been done by anyone I've known or seen on line ever.

Say the toxic dose is 0.02 ppm Cu
That's still 2X the more than the upper limit for EI.

Math don't lie.

If you chose 0.02ppm which is a long tern residual, vs a pulse dose which is taken up by plants, that is two very different issues, dense plant beds are very effective at removing metals from water. A small amount like this will not last long in the water column.

Have you tested copper in planted tanks? It does not last long. Try it and see for yourself, do not take my word for it. Plants can handle quite a bit. Shrimp are the best bet for a hyper sensitive species. They are the best bet for a "canary in the coal mine"

I've shown there's no risk at high CMS+B dosing for Shrimp.
I've got video, I've got long term photo journals, I've got dozens of local hobbyists who have seen my tanks in person.
Those are the facts.

You cannot logically conclude that there is risk, when others have show otherwise. People make these claims X is caused by Y, but then do not test their own hypotheses. These are not my hypotheses. They are yours, you argue for them, then you do the work.

I'm not coming to you and saying "here's my conclusion, let's see what facts I can to support it." I've dosed and not found observations support the claimed risk. So I cannot logically conclude that there is a risk even over a wide range.

Even if there might be and you want to use belief, you can still switch to a different brand. Both management issues are easily met.

Chelation makes a massive difference in toxicity, and we all add chelated metals for traces. I am also unaware of any shrimp studies that had planted tanks, CO2 enriched systems, this makes growth, uptake and many other issues very different compared to the research.

Research is a good starting point, but unless it's pretty specific to our systems and there's also observations that are not falsified already, it can be misapplied. We assumed that PO4 above 0.2ppm induced algae based on that same logic and research for support.

Clearly that was not true. The same logic I used there I'm using here. All I have to do is falsify it. If I or others cannot, then I tentatively accept it.
I've already falsified your claim way beyond the typical dosing routines and errors newbies and folks who are prone to make mistakes might do.
CMS might be more toxic to livestock than Flourish, but........I've gone overboard with both enough to know there's little associated risk.

As far as plants, they are very tough till you start getting pretty high with copper.

CO2?

People fish their fish weekly on many forums being careless with that, but we do not see much fear mongering there curiously. Traces? I've yet to see any cases. Could you do it? sure, but you'd have to really try.
I've tried way beyond the highest plant demand, no issues here.
 
#24 ·
Tom, you have not addressed several of my points in your last reply, nor have you provided any links or journals which support your conclusions that micros don't build up to toxic ranges in the aquarium. If you want to talk about proof then you need to back up your claims as well. You mentioned your 15+ years aquarium experience in an earlier post. That is not proof. I also have 15+ years of experience, as well as many years working in research labs, Yale University being one of them.

Zapins,

Analysis
EI:
0.5 Fe
0.01 Cu

Say you want 0.2ppm of Cu at your threshold:

0.5 Fe x 20X = 10 ppm
0.01 Cu X 20X = 0.2 ppm

Overdoing it 20X is not been done by anyone I've known or seen on line ever.

Say the toxic dose is 0.02 ppm Cu
That's still 2X the more than the upper limit for EI.

Math don't lie.
If you are starting with pure RO water with no other sources of micros then you are correct. However, most people do not reconstitute RO water, they use city or well water which have varying quantities of micro nutrients in them. I do not claim that copper is the heavy metal that always causes toxicity problems in our tanks. Most of the micros can cause issues when in toxic ranges. There are many situations that can bring about higher than normal concentrations of one or many micro nutrients. I already stated two in my previous post:

Zapins said:
What about people who have naturally higher levels of certain micro nutrients in their tap water? What happens when we add very high trace nutrients to their tank? Both doses combine and you can fully enter toxic ranges.

What about people who have small tanks and accidentally add a teaspoon of micros 3x a week? A teaspoon doesn't seem like that much to a beginner, but in a small tank it can quickly reach toxicity levels especially since plants don't use up micros as quickly as they do macros.
I have seen these both happen and have documented water values for each micro nutrient that was in the water at the time. In each case micro nutrients had entered the toxic range and unsurprisingly the plants showed micro nutrient toxicity symptoms. In addition, when micros were flushed out of the tank using RO water the problems disappeared as well.
Ex: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/fertilizing/88403-trouble-farm-help-8.html#post660565

Yet another example is when soil is used and heavy handed EI dosing is continued. The combined micros leaching from the soil and from EI can easily reach toxicity ranges.
Ex: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=476929

Have you tested copper in planted tanks? It does not last long. Try it and see for yourself, do not take my word for it. Plants can handle quite a bit. Shrimp are the best bet for a hyper sensitive species. They are the best bet for a "canary in the coal mine"
I have actually. I had my water samples analyzed by lab grade equipment several times and there seems to be a lot of interesting data showing which micros end up staying in the water column. The most consistent part is that plants show signs of toxicity every time the heavy metals exceed certain concentrations. Read the second thread I provided in post #20. In addition to that thread, there are several other threads on various forums that describe similar examples.

See the table of test results when CSM+B was used:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4874569&postcount=3

I've shown there's no risk at high CMS+B dosing for Shrimp.
I've got video, I've got long term photo journals, I've got dozens of local hobbyists who have seen my tanks in person.
Those are the facts.
It is good that you are documenting your tests. However, showing that shrimp do not die when CSM+B is dosed in moderation is not what I am claiming. If your copper levels reach the proven LD50 levels for copper or other heavy metals the shrimp will likely die. It is in the literature, or are you arguing that the literature values do not apply in our tanks?

You cannot logically conclude that there is risk, when others have show otherwise. People make these claims X is caused by Y, but then do not test their own hypotheses. These are not my hypotheses. They are yours, you argue for them, then you do the work.
Tom, you clearly didn't read through the links I provided where I showed the potential risk.

In addition, you have not provided any evidence in this thread to show that there is no risk.

Even if there might be and you want to use belief, you can still switch to a different brand. Both management issues are easily met.
Hobbyists test all kinds of things in their tanks every day arriving at all sorts of conclusions, what makes them wrong and you right? You have not provided any links to your relevant toxicity tests, your means of analyzing results, or even background literature evidence as I have when writing replies. There is no way to fact check your statement that 'we can never realistically reach micro toxicity ranges in our aquariums.' You asked for proof of my ideas, and I provided links to some of my research, now where is your evidence for your claims?

Chelation makes a massive difference in toxicity, and we all add chelated metals for traces. I am also unaware of any shrimp studies that had planted tanks, CO2 enriched systems, this makes growth, uptake and many other issues very different compared to the research.
Chelation does reduce toxicity, sometimes by quite a lot depending on the metal we are talking about. I have been very careful to state this in several of my previous posts and summaries.

Research is a good starting point, but unless it's pretty specific to our systems and there's also observations that are not falsified already, it can be misapplied. We assumed that PO4 above 0.2ppm induced algae based on that same logic and research for support.
Research is the most valid way we have of examining the processes that occur in our tanks. Most of the studies I have looked at on toxicities use the aquatic plant species we often keep, there is no closer analog to our system than that or do you believe that your personal tests are more accurate than peer reviewed lab tests conducted by a team of researchers with funding?

Clearly that was not true. The same logic I used there I'm using here. All I have to do is falsify it. If I or others cannot, then I tentatively accept it.
I've already falsified your claim way beyond the typical dosing routines and errors newbies and folks who are prone to make mistakes might do.
CMS might be more toxic to livestock than Flourish, but........I've gone overboard with both enough to know there's little associated risk.
One calculation hardly constitutes falsifying all my evidence especially when I have made it easy for you to examine my data and my ideas by providing links, research journals and data from research publications. You also have not addressed all of the points I brought up in my previous post.

If you wish to do more research and post your findings then I will look them over and perhaps we can mutually agree on what ranges are realistically toxic for each micro nutrient, otherwise as you have stated yourself in several places you do not know what the toxicity ranges are for the micros.
 
#27 ·
Great read, and thanks for posting.

As a very new person to planted tank, and just starting to get into the dosing, it is very hard to understand a baseline of PPM levels to start from with the EI method.

I think I am going to try the PPS just because it gives me a baseline to start from (this many grams of NO3 for 500ml bottle, for example), and then I can go from there.

I have no clue when trying to use the calculator, how many PPM I want...I do want someone to tell me a general starting point which is neither too little, nor too high, of which I wouldn't really know myself.

Lastly, why does the PPS want a few extra Ferts (when you buy the packages) where as the EI doesn't come with the extra Ferts? Wouldn't they both need the same ones?
 
#28 ·
Love the visual aids in this thread. Awesome job [Zorfox]!

Lastly, why does the PPS want a few extra Ferts (when you buy the packages) where as the EI doesn't come with the extra Ferts? Wouldn't they both need the same ones?
Using EI, you add more than is necessary, and remove the buildup with regular water changes. By adding an excess of potassium nitrate, you can typically be sure that your plants are getting enough of both potassium and nitrate.

Using PPS, you try to keep addition and consumption of major nutrients the same, so that nothing ever builds up or is depleted, and water changes can be minimized. You add potassium nitrate only as much as nitrates are needed. Fish food is another source of nitrates, and so in a well-stocked tank little or no additional potassium nitrate may be needed. But potassium is still needed even if the nitrate is not, as fish food is a poor source of that. So you need a separate source of potassium without nitrate, and that is potassium sulfate - one of the extras in the PPS pack.

The other is magnesium sulfate. EI assumes you get enough from hard tapwater, or if your tapwater is soft you're adding a GH booster that contains magnesium; either way, magnesium is being replenished on a weekly basis. But with PPS you minimize water changes, and magnesium is not being regularly replenished. So it's likely enough that you'll need to dose it separately, to warrant its inclusion in the pack.
 
#33 ·
So, If you are not dosing CO2 (I'm just using Flourish Excel), should I not do either EI or PPS? Or should I use one of the systems, but at a reduced amount of dosing?
You can certainly use a reduced EI dose. I would reduce the dose to 25-33% of EI if you are not using CO2 injection.


Folks have done this many times, the tanks did not have issues. I suppose if you went out long enough. Or you did not do any water changes, but that's not EI. That's just bad care. No method prevents that.
This is my entire point. I’m not suggesting that the EI method causes toxicity. However, I think it’s important to make cautionary statements when explaining something. My suggestion that toxicities can develop is accurate. If you don’t follow the advice this is a consequence. I don’t need to have specific ppm for every nutrient to make this statement. There are toxic levels for various nutrients. You realize this so I don’t need to support an argument that they exist.

I thought you said you had a medical background?
What is the risk there .....compared to someone who did not read the article about what to dose their plants and dumped a pound instead of teaspoon of X Y and Z?

I can make such statements also, they do not support your argument however.
I think you have misunderstood my point. It appears to this reader that you’re suggesting we shouldn’t warn that toxicities can occur if the plan is not followed because thousands of users have had success. People do make mistakes. You can kill your fauna and/or flora with excess nutrients. I doubt the same number of people who have made mistakes post their failures as opposed to success stories. The statement I made that you quoted was intended to mean “don’t stick our heads in the sand” thinking users will follow the plan. A surprising number of people don’t read directions leading to problems every day. We can’t ignore that. Providing cautionary statements was my argument. Nothing more.

Lack of communication, misunderstanding? Probably. The way I see it we actually agree. I’m sure you’ve had to argue many issues over the years and had huge criticisms from other hobbyists. I’m not one of them. EI works. The idea of providing non limiting nutrients is a logical approach. Why would I argue this?
 
#34 · (Edited)
Thank you for opening this thread.Many of my questions were answered here.
I still have a couple ,though:
If I don't use any CO2 or Excel ,and follow the EI/Low light weekly ,dosing as suggested by the calculator (for the water column volume only) ,- can I have easy ,fast growing plants(wisteria ,Najas G. for ex) ,along with low light plants like ferns and anubias?(to help remove any excess?)
Or - are the fast growers a No-No ,if dosing the amounts suggested by the calc?can the result be imbalance and algae on the slow growers?

I want to switch to this method ,give up on most of my stem plants ,and replace them ,in time ,with ferns and Anubias.
I have collected many species of plants ,from Anubias to Hemianthus ,to Liliaeopsis to Ammania ,Cardamine ,Vallisneria ,etc....,which have different needs of course ,and I guess competition between them also contributes to imbalances.

So ,what I mean is ,if I want a large plant biomass ,should I use less/not at all -the easy ,fast growers , along with low light ones?And should I completely remove the stem plants ,and keep only plants which have the same uptake range ,more or less?

Again ,your taking the time to explain EI in this thread ,making it so easy to be understood ,is highly appreciated ,Zorfox.Now you've really opened my eyes into the subject!
This is a picture of my tank.I collected a lot of weeds since starting the hobby ,like your average eager beginner.What would you do ,what plants would you keep if it was yours and wanted a Low light/weekly EI routine?

My plants : Hemianthus ,Hairgrass ,Lobelia ,Rotala ,Bacopa ,Ammania ,Vals ,Najas G. ,Wisteria ,Amazon Sword ,Anubias ,Crypts ,some moss ,Liliaeopsis -and a couple algae species:)
 

Attachments

#35 ·
If I don't use any CO2 or Excel ,and follow the EI/Low light weekly ,dosing as suggested by the calculator (for the water column volume only) ,- can I have easy ,fast growing plants(wisteria ,Najas G. for ex) ,along with low light plants like ferns and anubias?(to help remove any excess?)
Or - are the fast growers a No-No ,if dosing the amounts suggested by the calc?can the result be imbalance and algae on the slow growers?
You can grow many stem plants without CO2 and high light. They just grow much slower. Choose plants based on their light requirement. I would recommend Excel or generic glutaraldehyde. It does make a difference albeit nowhere near as effective as CO2 injection.

Don't confuse yourself or over think nutrient management. I realize it may sound daunting with all the chemical names and jargon but in essence just supply non limiting nutrients and you're done. As long as you have enough nutrients for the most "hungry" plant you're all set. You can house any number of plants together. Plants don't care if their neighbor uses more or less as long as there's food in the fridge for them lol.

EI for low light weekly would be fine. I would prefer to dose more often but that's my own preference. It provides some nutrients that won't be available all week. However, your plants will still survive on once a week dosing just fine. As far as excess nutrients causing algae I have not seen this to be true. I have dosed far above EI levels and never experienced an issue. It's an easy thing to blame when you can't figure out what is going on. It's a myth many people still hold fast to.

Btw. Nice looking tank. You're certainly doing something right ;)
 
#36 ·
Thanks again for the response and this article!

I purchased a Fert. pack for PPS dosing and it is on its way to me. I think I want to try the EI method instead as I like the idea of doing 1 large water change for the fish's sakes too.

I like the PPS because it tells me how much of each fert (in grams) to put into the bottle, along with the other Ferts., then tells me how many ml to dose. Is there a calculator for EI that can do the same?

I have a 29g tank for reference, and here is a link for reference as well if that helps here.
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=587513
 
#37 ·
There is a calculator. Here is the link. The problem many people seem to have is the differences in tanks parameters. Should I choose EI, low/light, PPS because I have XYZ? I am in the process of writing another calculator. I intend to add a wizard to ask these questions and suggest a good starting point to work from. Carlos (Wet) has been a great help with this endeavor thus far. Beyond that the calculator is very helpful and accurate. Where do you start?

You have a moderately planted tank. The plants are rather undemanding. I would start with 1/3 or so of the EI dose to start. Once you see how your plants respond you can slowly reduce that dose until you see a change.

Using that calculator you can choose EI low light weekly. There is another option you can start with. Choose EI daily and dose that amount every other day. It's a little more than you need but won't cause any problems what so ever. I like dosing something every day for several reasons.

The traditional EI method requires weekly water changes. This is important if you choose those doses from the calculator. If you want to modify the water change schedule you can look at the levels that will be expected in this calculator. Our goal here is to maintain a range of nutrients listed in the original post.

So basically, if you're willing to do weekly water changes I would choose the daily dose and use that every other day (more than you need but not harmful). We want to start above that barrel. Then decrease and find that critical point where we see changes. Do we need to reduce doses? Honestly I don't see any reason to. The levels are not toxic to fauna or flora. Is it expensive? Not at all. Do we need this much fertilizer. No, but is there any harm?

The entire point to this method is to supply non limiting nutrients. Then we can work on more important things like CO2 and basic gardening. Nutrients are the easiest part. We can tinker with various levels and argue over other aspects but the fact always remains the same. Just dose enough fertilizers for the plants needs.

Using EI low light weekly or daily dosing using that amount every other day, schedule below, will provide appropriate nutrients for any plants you may have.

Mon Macros
Tues Micros
Wed Macros
Thrus Micros
Fri Macros
Sat Micros
Sun 50% water change (GH booster)

Does this make sense?
 
#38 ·
It is starting to make more sense.

However, where I am getting stuck on now is where I find out how much of each Fertilizer I need to add to make my dosing solution (ideally in grams for a 500ml bottle), while taking into account the information regarding how KNO3 for example also provides some K. I am not even sure where a general baseline of PPM to be looking at?

5-30ppm is a huge range. There has to be some "generalized idea" of where to start, or where in that range has been found sufficient. Also, Do I need to know both my GH and KH? And what is the GH booster?

Am I wrong to be thinking that I will be able to combine all of the Fertilizers (minus the Micros) in one bottle and then pull a few ml's out everyday? Or is there a better alternative that I am not seeing?
 
#42 ·
5-30 ppm is a large range but it's also where we tend to see optimal plant growth. Some tanks might have 3x as much light, thus they will remove 30 ppm over time slower than 5 ppm which be gone in 24-36 hours in another tank, or fish loads might add some of the Nitrogen demand.

The point of EI is simply add more than the demand from plants even at high light and stem plant type growth. Then good sized water changes.

You can fiddle all day long, but this rarely saves anyone any labor or time. Water. dose dry ferts(unless it's a nano tank or something). You need not fret over a few ppm of NO3.

No method should require such precision.
Take what you might think you'd need for say 2 week,s dissolve that in a bottle, one for the micros, one for the traces.

Dose that.

You can complicate it, but it's actually VERY EASY once you do it for a week or two, after which, it's rather BORING/OLD HAT.

The how: add dry ferts based on tank volume, some common sense for plant load/type, do good sized water change soften.

The why: makes ferts independent for plant growth. Keeps tank nice and clean and less algae.

I think folks just worry a lot is all, they want reassurances they are not making a mistake. Chem and math are not many folk's strong suits and some view these are poisons and the great unknown. So they go on and on trying to get details, but lose sight often times of the basics.

I was no different years ago. I'm the same as most newbie folks posting here, we all were at some point.

I believed I did not need it(CO2 particularly) and tried to do it without. But the reasons and rational put forth, well, I got too curious.

So "the how" was easy.
"The why" was a bit more painful for myself.
That was the biggest mental block I had.

I think seeing other folks adding it helped.
You basically only have to dose 3-4 things and teaspoons work fine.
I do not fret over 3/4" th teaspoon of baking soda when making cookies.
Nor should I here.

Just a simple recipe.

I do not need a ppm at all in fact. Farmers rarely think this way with ppm's etc, they look at their plants. They look at pounds per acre.
Aquarist: teaspoons per gallons.

Less light, less plant biomass etc, slower growers, cut EI by 1/2 or down to 1/3 etc.

Observe and see. Should be fairly simple.
Your goal was to grow nice aquarium plants, gardening etc, not learn chemistry. You will pick that up later as you learn more, but.........I think successful and top scapers tend to be less obsessed with the fert routines and more obsessed with good general care(water changes, cleaning, routine care, trim/pruning, hardscapes etc).

I really do not worry much about the ferts.
I rarely discuss them in presentations and talks these days also.
More light and CO2.

You add ferts, you do water changes.
Pretty simple and straight forward.
 
#39 · (Edited)
Thanx for the reply ,Zorfox.
It's only been a couple of weeks since I started dosing using wet's calculator ,so it's too early to draw any major conclusion - except no extra algae growth.
I did dose Excel also ,in the first week(0.5 ml for my 0.6 gal water column) ,but I noticed less activity/deaths from the Red Cherry ,and Amanos also looked somewhat less active.Fish were breeding fine ,though(Peacock Gudgeons).No Vals melting.

My tank is a 10 gallon long - 30 '' x 8'' wide x 10'' high ,and I use a single T8 18 watts tube full spectrum ,to cover the length of the tank.I dare say 1.8wpg ,but tank is really shallow.
The light ramp you see in the picture is actually one of those long plastic flower pots ,turned upside-down ,in which I screwed the T8 end caps.When tightening the screws ,the tube goes higher- now it's at max height ,close to the bottom of the pot.I removed it's clip-on reflector ,trying to lower light intensty as much as I could.

So I gave up using Excel ,and now the shrimp are active again.The plants were gathered from friends or LFS (I want that one ,and that one too - like a kid) ,without considering their different needs.Most of them were planted no matter how ,no matter where ,without any aquascaping goals whatsoever.I;m not sure whether to let the leaves touch the surface or not(Vals for ex.) - since it would mean no more CO2 limiting ,along with intense light - more nutrient uptake for them ,less nutrients left for the other plants.That's what I meant when mentioning imbalances and algae ,not excess nutrients by themselves.I know now that is a myth ,tried it ,and convinced myself.

Most of the plants still have algae on the lower leaves (since before starting dosing properly),I also have some BBA on the Anubias ,and hair algae on Crypts.
What seems weird to me is that there is no algae whatsoever on the Hemianthus - despite being planted in the middle of the tank ,where the T8 is at its most intense.
 
#43 ·
THanks,

The calculator tells me to add "this many milligrams" for my tank size. Do I need to bring out the scale every day to measure, since I can't really convert milligrams into teaspoons since the mass of various substances are different??

How do you easily and somewhat accurately dose then? This was a little bit of why I was liking the making of a liquid because I could just pull up a few ml's, and be done.

What about my question regarding the extra minerals that come along with dosing KNO3 for example? Where do I enter into the equation that dosing KNO3 also gives me extra K, for example?
 
#44 ·
What size tank do you have? It's easier and more accurate to dose smaller tanks with solutions. Dry dosing is easier for larger aquariums.

The calculator has a teaspoon conversion. In the "and I am calculating for" selection choose "The result of my dose". Then you can enter amounts in teaspoons for the selected fertilizer. The result does not need to match the target exactly, just get as close as you can with the teaspoon sizes you own.

Here is an example for a 10 gallon tank using 500ml and 5ml doses. This is EI daily dosing...

Selecting EI daily says I need to add 19.751 g to the container for each dose to raise NO3 3.2 ppm. So if we want to convert this to teaspoons choose "the result of my dose". Entering 3 3/4 says it will raise NO3 3.16ppm, close enough.

The results of your dose are listed on the right side. i.e.

Element ppm/degree
K 2.02
N 0.72
NO3 3.20

Forget the nitrogen. The NO3 is a conversion of the nitrogen listed. Notice KNO3 also adds 2.02 ppm of potassium.

If we also dose KH2PO4...

Element ppm/degree
K 0.25
P 0.20
PO4 0.60

We see this adds 0.25 ppm of potassium.

Add the potassium together. 2.02 + 0.25 = 2.27 ppm. The K in KNO3 is usually enough. If you want extra you can add the difference. 3.2 - 2.27 = 0.93 ppm. So you're lacking 0.93 ppm if you want the full dose of K. The EI daily dose of potassium is 3.2 ppm. I wouldn't bother using extra potassium unless you notice problems.

Basically, just total all the elements. It doesn't matter which fertilizer provides it as long as you're doing them.
 
#45 ·
Thanks for all the great info. This has made my decision about EI dosing easy. I would like to say that many people are not lazy or don't want to put the work in on figuring out a dosing regiment. Like my self I am a hands on learner. Some of us also have demanding jobs, wives, kids and just plain life. We do this hobby to relax and enjoy that one thing we created and can be proud of. I would love more time to do research but my employer says other wise. So does the women who all ready gets put to the side because of work. I'm just greatful that people have come up with these methods to help those that are limited to time for research. Thanks for all the great info.
 
#46 · (Edited)
I have a 29g tank.

These are my Fertilizers:

Potassium Nitrate (KNO3) - 1 lb
Mono Potassium Phosphate (KH2PO4) - 1 / 2 lb
Potassium Sulfate (K2SO4) - 1 lb
Magnesium Sulfate (MgSO4) - 1 lb

So, With the EI dosing, I really wouldnt need the KH2PO4 nor the mgSO4? The calculator has me adding a lot of the MgSO4 (over 200g) when I try entering it, as well the Calc. has an odd entry for mgSo4.

I also have some CSM + B for Micros

Thanks for your time, I didn't even see that part on the calculator, I will look now!
 
#47 · (Edited)
Well, Here is what I mixed into a 500ml bottle to dose 5ml daily, in my 29g. (I will try the every other day since I am not running CO2.

KNO3- 58g
MGSO4- 20g
KH2PO4-10g
K2SO4-30g

Hopefully this is ok. I needed to get some of these into the water to start mixing so I can start dosing some Ferts!

Does this mix look ok?
 
#50 ·
I have 2 newly set up low tech tanks at the moment(3mo), an all crypt tank and an Anubias, Java Fern and Jungle val tank. Both 20 highs with dual 13w cfl's, root tabs and safe-t-sorb substrate. Should I even bother with dosing EI? I was thinking of only using Flourish comprehensive then I started reading about EI and now I'm intrigued.

Thanks in advance.
 
#52 ·
^^ Same here. I started with Excel, because no co2. Then I decided I should really have some sort of ferts to add nutrients to the water column, so I added Flourish. My plants were ok, but not great, and I read about how low tech(ish) tanks are often low on Potassium, so I added SeaChem's Potassium. Then I added some red plants, and wanted them super red, but realized I probably should add iron. I was getting ready to buy SeaChem's Iron supplement when I realized how absurd it was getting: 3 different liquids, all on different schedules (some 3x per week, some 2x, some daily), and none especially cheap.

EI is so much simpler. Macros M-W-F, Micros plus Iron T-Th-Sat (so simply alternate daily) and change water on Sunday. It's actually easier to do EI every day than it was to track which liquid I was supposed to do on which date with the Seachem stuff.

Mix new water+dry fert mixes every few months. ~$45 got me enough dry ferts to last me several years. (small tank, admittedly, but even with somewhat larger tanks the SeaChem liquids get stupid expensive fast)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top