# EI daily methods or PMDD + PO4



## plantbrain

This is just a solution for folks wanting a daily routine that's actually older than EI and was just a slight tweak of PMDD using PO4 as well and bit higher nutrient levels:

EI was developed mainly in response to folks that had no test kits that lived in 3rd world countries and for lazy/cheap folks.

Some folks like dosing daily, when they feed their fish.
Some forget to dose 2-3x a week(uhhh was it on Tuesday or Wendsday I last dosed the traces?? ahhh.......), so a daily routine works better for their habits.

Some have a tiny tank and want more consist ppms in their dosing than 1/64 th of a teaspoon can afford. Whatever your reasons, this is just an example. If you have high O4 in the tap, add less KH2PO4, good GH, skip the GH booster etc.

This is an example of EI for a 12 week supply for a 20 gallon tank for those with teaspoon adversion.

To 1 liter of DI water add:

60 grams KNO3
10 grams of KH2PO4
25 grams of GH booster

Add 5 mls daily.
Add TMG at 2.5 mls daily.

That's it.

That's EI without the teaspoons and more accuracy in dosing.
If you fiddle with daily dosing, you may have a better routine
and habit. Some are okay with 2-3x a week.

You can scale this up or down to suit your tank volume, light level etc, make larger batches etc.

But if you are not and skip dosings etc, then EI may not give the same results using 2-3x a week dosing as daily.

Thus it is not the method that fails, it's our own habits and routines.
Still, this gives a PMDD type routine for folks to do.

Teaspoons are just easier to explain and most folks do not own a scale etc.
Plants are not these sensitive things, nor should your tank be either.
They have a wide range they can adapt and grow well in, thus such accuracy is not critical as some will have you believe.

Anyone with common sense can see and test that themselves.

EI nor any method was ever meant to be rigid. You finess and tweak to suit.
Often we think what we did is really causing an effect. Often it's just we are paying more attention to the tank.

That can help any tank as we all know.

As always, focus more on CO2.
That makes or breaks results more than anything else.


Regards,
Tom Barr


----------



## Themuleous

Interesting Tom, what kind of water changes would you need to do?

Sam


----------



## George Farmer

I've covered this in the next PFK issue....


----------



## Dan Crawford

Nice one Tom, just what i need.


----------



## Spider Pig

any chance of making this a sticky- always have to hunt around a bit when I've lost where I wrote it down


----------



## keymaker

I just made an Excel File that can be easily used to calculate the *all-in-one solution* dosing quantities needed to comply with the EI range of nutrients. The chart can be customized to any regime of water changes and can be used to mix a solution with dry ferts.

I used fert amounts from the DIY TPN+ solution published on James' site and NO3 data from my water company (the others are still missing). The molecular weights calculation is based on James' dosing calculator.

Big thanks to James, and to Mark for giving me the initial calculation method. As Mark rightly pointed out, this calculation does not include the amounts used by plants and assumes there is no other source of nutrients. It should be used as a guide only.

If you see anything that could or should be modified, please let me know, and I'll edit this post accordingly!!!

Download with confidence - No Viruses! (I made it under Mac OSX !) 






http://akvarisztika.budapet.hu/dosing_calculator.xls


----------



## aaronnorth

i have just downloaded it, and i put my tank size as 50l, with a dose of 5ml, so that should give 5.9 NO3, but it only gives 2.36??

am i using it wrong or something?


----------



## keymaker

Thanks Aaron. My stupid late-night mistake from yesterday... I left the 2ml as a default value so it did not take the changes in TPN dose in consideration. Mistake corrected, you can download it again from the link above.

Also, I did a major "rescape" on the chart  to make it more usable for those mixing their own solutions with dry ferts. Please let me know if there's anything that I overlooked or if you see any mistakes in the calculations.

A couple of words about the calculation method:

After filling in all the tank and dry ferts doses the chart calculates the quantities (in grams) for every nutrient on the list. This initial calculation is based on the molecular weights used on James calc. The values are then converted to PPM values based on the concentration and dosage regime. It is displayed under "My Dose". The tricky part comes with the daily calculations. Let's take the NO3 for example (I will use all the values from the image...)

48g KNO3 added, out of which a total of 29,42g NO3 will be dissolved into the 500ml concentrate. 5 ml of this dosed into 50 liters will result in a 5,88 ppm NO3 addition. That is displayed under "My Dose". The first day we fill the tank with 50 liters of water containing 11,8ppm NO3. We then dose according to the first day's "yes" to dosing. the 11,8 is increased by 5,88 to 17,68.

On day 2. we change 50 percent water. The old water contains 17,68 / 2, the new one is 11,8/2. We add them up and increase the whole amount with the daily dosing of 5,88. If you look into the cell P14 the calculation might look a bit complicated - this is due to the conditional water changes and dosages, enabling us to rewrite all the "yes" and "no" cells to fit anyones method.

The color of the cells calculated changes automatically to show nutrient values in reference with the EI range (I still need to know the range for Mg). Also, are there any other nutrients that should be calculated on the right?

Please let me know if I overlooked something or made mistakes.

Thanks, keymaker.


----------



## GreenNeedle

A fair few of us have been using a PMDD+PO4 daily recipe for quite a while albeit a leaner version with lower water changes.

AC


----------



## keymaker

This example has been made to work with my 20 liter nano tank. With these - as George Farmer suggested many times- it is advisable to have frequent water changes.

You can modify the days and amount of water changes on the chart to fit the more common 3 days/week makro dosing and once-a-week 50% water changes too.


----------



## plantbrain

Calculator looks nice.
EI is just an estimation for non limiting levels. Chances are, most will use less. So that can be modified accordingly.
Or if the tap is loaded with NO3, PO4 etc etc..........

It's not a "formulation" or even a "ratio", just a concept, and that's not even my own either, I just applied it to plants, ferts etc. A range was developed long before this came about, around 1995-1997.

From there, applying this concept was rather simple and easy, but many cling to their test kits


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Superman

I'm thinking of doing an all-in-one solution maybe in the future as I mix my salts in water before it goes into the tank anyway.

Although, reading my area's water report 
http://www.stwater.co.uk/upload/pdf/ZGL ... 0South.pdf
there's no mention of PO4, K or Mg although my Nitrates seem rather high.

Is there a possibility of making a more concentrated solution as I think of me to do this, I'll be dosing a lot of the solution each day - about 65mls for my 180ltr!


----------



## keymaker

Tom, it means a lot to me that you like my calc. There's a lot more to do with it, I'm improving it continuously and adding data. I do fully understand what you suggest that the EI is and what it is not.

Please send me more feedback as to what else would you guys see in there on the sheet...

------------------
Superman,

I'm afraid there is a limit to how much you can dissolve of your dry ferts into a fixed amount of water.

Unfortunately I have only found two solubility amounts on the net so far - the Nitrate and Potassium Sulphate values. Those are already in - if you open my excel chart and try to type say 80g to the K2SO4 value (with DI water of 500ml) you will get a red background, meaning you will not be able to dissolve all of it into 500ml.

It would be great if I could get a list with all the solubility data for our purposes. I remember seeing somewhere (maybe even this forum) but I forgot where....  If anybody has that to hand, please post it. Too busy to search now.

Thanks, Keymaker


----------



## JamesC

keymaker said:
			
		

> It would be great if I could get a list with all the solubility data for our purposes. I remember seeing somewhere (maybe even this forum) but I forgot where....  If anybody has that to hand, please post it. Too busy to search now.



http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/calculator.htm - at the bottom of the page.

James


----------



## keymaker

James, that's where I saw it, thanks mate.


----------



## Henrik

This is the thread that will help me - great calculator. I just wrote to my water comapny to find out the tap water details.

Do I need to use distilled water (is that what DI means?) for mixing up solutions, or is this simply recommended to avoid having to take into account the tap water content in NO3, PO4 etc. 

Lastly - trying to make sure I am really getting the concept - do the numbers in the final table assume that none of the added feriliser is actually consumed by the plants? Is it a sort of 'max' number, if you disregard the NO3 and PO4 produced by nitrification of fish excrements, food leftovers etc.

Thanks a lot, Henrik


----------



## keymaker

Henrik said:
			
		

> This is the thread that will help me - great calculator. I just wrote to my water comapny to find out the tap water details.


Thanks, Henrik. All I did was to sum up calculations and data from James' site, ideas from Mark, and of course Tom's method. The excel sheet is far from finished and reviewed so please take that into consideration when using. Also, please check back for updates.



			
				Henrik said:
			
		

> Do I need to use distilled water (is that what DI means?) for mixing up solutions, or is this simply recommended to avoid having to take into account the tap water content in NO3, PO4 etc.


Yes, you do need to use some kind of water that does not contain nutrients affecting the calculation. Besides NO3 and PO4 - among others - the tap water usually contain elements like Ca for example which might cause PO4 to precipitate from the dry ferts dissolved. You can use distilled water which is really expensive, or even better, you can use cheap deionised water you can get from almost any big store (I got mine from Tesco).



			
				Henrik said:
			
		

> Lastly - trying to make sure I am really getting the concept - do the numbers in the final table assume that none of the added feriliser is actually consumed by the plants? Is it a sort of 'max' number, if you disregard the NO3 and PO4 produced by nitrification of fish excrements, food leftovers etc.


Yes, the whole EI concept - as Tom has written many times - is to estimate the "non-limiting levels" of nutrients available to the plants in your tank. If your final data from the right columns of the sheet fall within the EI range (all is color black) you have good chances that you've accomplished that. Plant uptake and amounts added by fish and bacteria will not influence the "non-limiting levels" that are set by Tom using high uptake enviroments.


----------



## Henrik

Thanks!


> You can use distilled water which is really expensive, or even better, you can use cheap deionised water you can get from almost any big store (I got mine from Tesco).



Excuse my ignorance - in what section in Tesco would I search for deionised or destilled water - is it for household appliances?



> Yes, the whole EI concept - as Tom has written many times - is to estimate the "non-limiting levels" of nutrients available to the plants in your tank. If your final data from the right columns of the sheet fall within the EI range (all is color black) you have good chances that you've accomplished that. Plant uptake and amounts added by fish and bacteria will not influence the "non-limiting levels" that are set by Tom using high uptake enviroments.



Sorry again, but I am still not quite there...The numbers in the final table increase week by week, although admittedly they fluctuate less and less, but if I do not estimate plant intake and additional sources somehow, how will I know whether I have actually achieved the right range, I might be much under (high intake) or higher (production by fish and bacteria).


----------



## keymaker

Well, I actually got my DI water in a Tesco in Budapest, Hungary.  It was in the car accessories section... Most gas stations have it too... The nutrient levels will gradually grow in the first couple of weeks as with the first filling of the tank, you have your tap water defaults and you dose to that. After the water change the default is increased with a certain percentage of the previous dosages and you dose to that again. And so on... After 20-30 rows you reach a level, where you have the same ppm pattern that will stay constant. I suggest you read the Estimated Index to get an answer to your other questions.


----------



## plantbrain

You generally reach a maxima when you provide non limiting nutrients. That's the point.
From there, if the plants take up more, this does not matter, they are non limited and thus cannot take up more than you provide. That's the point.

So running out is entirely avoided.

Thus the question now becomes, what about adding too much?
Well, then the water change comes into play. This prevents you from building up too much.

You do not continue to increase the ppm's infinitely with partial water changes. Otherwise fish only tanks would have increasing NO3 levels that never decline or level off, this does not occur in fish only tanks with regular water changes now does this occur in planted tanks where KNO3 is dosed etc.

A bit extra NO3, Ca etc in the tap is not critical, but if you want to keep a lower NO3, say 15 ppm as a general target, and the tap has 20ppm, then you might switch K2SO4 for the KNO3 in the dosing and assume every 50% water change adds another 10ppm of "new NO3" to whatever your tank was at. If you use CO2 and have reasonable plant biomass, the fraction from fish is pretty small, typically not more than 5-10%. Some high load Discus tanks might have perhaps 25-40%, even 50-70% at low light, lower plant biomass. If you go non CO2, then you can hit 100% and not need to dosing any inorganic ferts.

But the trade off is slow growth.

As far as fish/shrimp health, there's little differences between 10ppm and 30ppm for NO3 dosing.
This is large target to hit and non limiting for most planted tanks.

So there's less need for accuracy, testing than many think. Still, some are never quite comfortable with this for whatever irrational reason and perhaps they want to confirm as well. This is where the problems start  
You try to get around one assumption only to jump right into another.

Now you need to make sure the test kit is calibrated.
Check, that's done. Now you need some standard comparison for light, and then accurate CO2 etc.
Folks are lost by then.

This may change later, folks can measure light pretty reasonably now. But CO2 is still a big problem.
Still, folks will do best using the less light approach rather than "more is better" much like the USA auto industry.  
They claim they cannot do it and that the market sells large powerful cars. Yet Mini coopers sell well here, and many Toyota and other makers also do very well somehow.

This applies to the hobby as well.
A good T5 lower light system works very well like a good hybrid or electric or air car.

You can try and impress your pals with the big fast light, but it just means more cost, more labor, less wiggle room with dosing etc etc.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## ceg4048

There is no need to use Deionized, distilled or RO water when making up your nutrient solutions. The concentration levels are estimated and have a minimum required level only. There is little danger of precipitates forming from elements in the tap. Just add the powders to tap water and get on with it. If you're in Tesco spend your money on extra beer or a fine wine in lieu of DI water.

The minimum concentration levels for max lighting levels have already been calculated for you. There is no need to get wrapped around the axle. If you are using less than max lighting then you already will have an excess. There is no need to worry about "right range". Maximum uptake rates have already been calculated, therefore if you dose per the stated amounts these are automatically taken care of. A more detailed explanation can be found in this article: EI DOSING USING DRY SALTS

Cheers,


----------



## Henrik

> If you use CO2 and have reasonable plant biomass, the fraction from fish is pretty small, typically not more than 5-10%


Thanks Tom, that I think was the part I was not getting, I was permanently thinking that even if I provide exactly say 20ppm of NO3, could the fish and bacteria create another 20ppm and thus make me go 'out of a healthy range'.

I just got the quality details from my water company, Nitrate is at an average of 10ppm and Phosphate at 1.5ppm. Could I do without the KH2PO4 altogether given the fact that this is in the non-limiting range already? I actually use a carbon flow through filtration to eliminate chlorine etc., does that also eliminate phosphate or nitrate from the water?

Thanks, Henrik


----------



## keymaker

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> There is little danger of precipitates forming from elements in the tap. (...) A more detailed explanation can be found in this article: EI DOSING USING DRY SALTS


...and there's my lesson for the day. Thank you Clive! And thanks for the beer.


----------



## Henrik

> If you are using less than max lighting then you already will have an excess. There is no need to worry about "right range".


I totally understand that you cannot have too few nutrients using this method. But after James' post on another thread about excess nitrate in tap water I am still not clear how I can make sure that I do not have excess levels of phosphate and nitrate that might be dangerous to my fish - as I cannot estimate the levels produced by fish and bacteria.

Good news on the tap water. I guess I will use my filtered water which should be without some of the 'nasties' we apparently have in our tap water.


----------



## JamesC

How much nitrate comes from fish is hard to say as it depends on what you have in your tank. I remember in my fish only tanks that nitrate used to rise quite quickly if I didn't keep up with water changes. If you keep to standard EI dosing you shouldn't really need to worry about levels getting too high as long as your tap water is low in nitrate and you don't have a tank full of overfed fish. If you do have higher levels then you can cut back on your dosing. Most people find that they can cut back except those with massive lighting.

What I was trying to point out in my other post was that this mindset of telling people to keep adding more and more nitrate is just wrong and dangerous to livestock, especially here in the UK where tap nitrate levels tend to be much higher than in the US. If 120ppm nitrate can kill shrimp then this shows to me that these levels are toxic and should be avoided.

Nitrate production as a result of fish is generally quite small, possibly about 10ppm per week. Nitrate uptake by the plants can vary a lot depending on plant type, light levels, CO2, etc but as a rough guide it is about 1-3ppm daily. You can see from this how people can with lowish light system get plants growing fine with no added nitrate.

Normal EI dosing adds about 24ppm weekly which is well within safe limits and means that you need not worry about reaching toxic levels. But add into this high tap nitrate levels and over dosing EI, means it is easy to reach toxic levels. Good levels of nitrate for plants and fish are 15-30ppm nitrate and not 80-150ppm.

James


----------



## ceg4048

Well, I just don't get all this NO3/PO4 paranoia, primarily because I haven't experienced the nitrate toxiciy syndrome and I've deliberately tried to induce it by hyperdosing. As far as I can gather the toxic effects of nitrate are as follows:

Poor growth, loss of appetite, lethargy, chronic stress, reluctance to breed, increase in gill rate and gasping, general ill health, delayed wound healing, clamped fins. I don't see any of this. My fish breed, have great appetites, don't suffer any more ill health that typical in this hobby and are unstressed as best I can judge by their coloration and general behavior. I lose fish to other reasons such as CO2 overdose jumping, aggression/predation and so forth. I don't keep inverts so I can't address those.

Furthermore I can't see how you can ever get to 120ppm NO3 if the water supply is held at EU regulated levels and assuming you do at least a 50% water change weekly. I've lived on several continents and the nitrate levels in the UK overall aren't any higher than any developed nation that has an intensive farming infrastructure, and despite the NO3/PO4 levels the quality of the water is higher than most places.

1) Lets assume your tap has 40ppm NO3.
2) Assume a 50% water change.
3) Assume a 20ppm NO3 via KNO3 addition weekly.
4) Assume zero NO3 uptake.
5) Assume zero NO3 production via nitrification.

Items 4 and 5 are necessary assumptions purely to illustrate the buildup rate as a result of dosing and water change.

So the tanks is filled with 100% tap water at 40ppm and is dosed with 20ppm NO3 so at the end of the week the the total nitrate level rises to 40pp+20ppm=60ppm at the end of week 1.

A 50% water change is performed which means that half of the 60ppm water is removed and is replaced with 40ppm water. The resultant concentration level is the average of the two: [60ppm+40ppm]/2=50ppm.

For week 2 another 20ppm is dosed to this 50ppm water so by the end of the week the NO3 level rises to 70ppm. After the water change the concentration level is [70ppm+40ppm]/2=55ppm.

For week 3 another 20ppm is dosed to this 55ppm water so by the end of the week the NO3 level rises to 75ppm. After the water change the concentration level is [75ppm+40ppm]/2=58ppm.

For week 4 another 20ppm is dosed to this 58ppm water so by the end of the week the NO3 level rises to 78ppm. After the water change the concentration level is [78ppm+40ppm]/2=59ppm.

For week 5 another 20ppm is dosed to this 59ppm water so by the end of the week the NO3 level rises to 79ppm. After the water change the concentration level is [79ppm+40ppm]/2=60ppm.

For week 6 another 20ppm is dosed to this 60ppm water so by the end of the week the NO3 level rises to 80ppm. After the water change the concentration level is [80ppm+40ppm]/2=60ppm.

Can you see that if you follow this procedure for the rest of your life you will never exceed 60ppm by the end of the water change? The peak concentration value will never exceed 80ppm. If you do more than a 50% water change then these values are reduced even further. Remember that this assumes no nitrate uptake and no nitrate production so this is purely theoretical. If the production rate exceeds the consumption rate then yes you will approach toxic levels. But if the consumption rate is higher then there is little to fear.

Now, if you are certain your tap water is 40ppm NO3 then really there is no need to dose KNO3, or at least you don't need to dose the baseline values. If you are certain your tap is high in PO4 then don't dose KH2PO4. All you really need to do is to dose K (most cheaply done via K2SO4) and traces. You are still doing EI as long as the nutrient levels in the tank are maintained higher than the uptake rate. If you start to see evidence of malnutrition then that means your assumptions were off and you can then make some adjustments. It's really no big deal. Fretting over toxic nutrient levels in my opinion is a complete waste of time and it really sucks the energy and enjoyment out of the hobby. There are a lot more toxic things in your tank to worry about like urine, feces, other organic waste and pathogens. Keep those concentration levels low and you'll be ahead of the game.


Cheers,


----------



## JamesC

As I said standard EI dosing is fine, but then again if your tap water has high nitrate do you really want to have 80ppm levels? It's the attitude on this forum that you can keep on overdosing EI levels of nitrate with no consequences that gets me. Quite often I've seen it said that it's safe to double or triple amounts which is crazy. Even doubling EI will create levels of around 100ppm nitrate plus add in tap nitrate and you can reach 140ppm. At most plants will remove about 20ppm per week so that is still 100ppm.

To me if levels at 120ppm can* kill *shrimp then it means that these high levels are toxic. I like to keep my nitrate levels around the 20-30 ppm mark and would never even think about advising somebody just to keep adding NO3 willy nilly.

James


----------



## keymaker

Just out of curiosity I verified Clive's example in my calc and here's his data on chart (to make it simple, I dosed only on Mondays, this can of course be modified to dose 3 times a week or every day - a total of 20 ppm).






James, as far as I'm concerned it's good to know that you can add 100ppm levels of NO3 without causing algae. That's what I want to hear. For me, that does not mean that Clive is suggesting that I should in fact dose those levels. I go for your (EI) range - 20-30 ppm will do just fine. But if the shrimp will not be harmed it's ok to overdose accidentally or forced by certain facts, like high NO3 in the tap water and using a commercial solution like TPN+ which needs to be dosed heavily to get other nutrients then NO3 in. This will inevitably lead to NO3 overdose in my case, there's nothing I can do about it except switch to dry ferts and flush the TPN+.  I'm not gonna do that, and I'm not gonna dose lightly because that will mean PO4 or other nutrient shortage.

(Btw I'm switching to dry ferts next week, I managed to get the good HEDDTA chelated micro from Sweden.  )


----------



## Henrik

> (Btw I'm switching to dry ferts next week, I managed to get the good HEDDTA chelated micro from Sweden.  )


 Interesting - is there something wrong with the Aqua Essential trace mix (I was about to order it)?

Can someone help me out with some info on magnesium - my water company says that this is only a trace element in my water, yet on keymaker's dosing calculator the default is set to 20...Is my situation unusual in the sense that my magnesium is very low? Or is the magnesium level somehow related to water hardness? What about Calcium - is this of any interest - it features in the calculator but I have not really picked up anything about it?


----------



## JamesC

Nothing wrong with AE traces. They use EDTA as the chelator which is a weak chelator and not one of the best ones to use for aquatic plants. I've started using DTPA which is a bit stronger but have been looking for HEEDTA as the iron chelator. Unfortunately it seems almost impossible to get here in the UK unless someone knows different. HEEDTA is what Tropica use.

Magnesium levels in some parts of the country are pretty low. This can be found out by looking at your water report or testing for it. Adding an extra 10ppm weekly should be alright. Magnesium and Calcium are what make up GH.

James


----------



## GreenNeedle

Why would anyone want to double or triple Nitrate levels anyway?

If 20ppm added weekly is the most plants are going to uptake and then another 20ppm is added (through the 40ppm within the 50% change) then what is the point of doubling tripling unless you were short dosing in the first place?

I'm lost with that one.  I only dose 2ppm daily with 10% water change weekly (if I can be bothered to do water changes) and the only problems I ever have is with poor CO2 occasionally.

It is correct that UK is higher than America.  apparently in the US it strictly has to be less than 10ppm and they are trying to reduce the limit to nominal above 1!!!

Maybe it proves nitrates are also brain food for humans  

AC


----------



## Henrik

> Magnesium and Calcium are what make up GH.


 So does the GH increase if I dose Magnesium Sulphate?


----------



## JamesC

Henrik said:
			
		

> Magnesium and Calcium are what make up GH.
> 
> 
> 
> So does the GH increase if I dose Magnesium Sulphate?
Click to expand...

Yes it does, but adding 10ppm will only raise it a very small amount. Should have mentioned earlier that if your GH is very low you should add both calcium and magnesium rather than magnesium by itself. Something like Seachem Equilibrium or GH booster add both Ca and Mg.

James


----------



## ceg4048

keymaker said:
			
		

> it's good to know that you can add 100ppm levels of NO3 without causing algae. That's what I want to hear. For me, that does not mean that Clive is suggesting that I should in fact dose those levels. I go for your (EI) range - 20-30 ppm will do just fine.


Yep, this is exactly my point. The paranoia about nutrients that exists on Planet Earth is what gets me. Nitrates get blamed for everything that goes wrong in someone's tank, whether it's algae or toxicity. The effect is that it blinds people to real causal factors, stifles imagination and undermines rational troubleshooting. What I observe is a direct relationship between the level fear of nutrients and the level of algae in that persons tank.

Now, just because 120ppm NO3 is toxic to shrimp does that mean that it's necessarily toxic to all fish at that level? I don't think so. It depends on the fish. Some, like salmon are extremely sensitive but others like guppies are not. Generally, larger fish have a lower toxicity threshold than smaller fish. It's very species dependent.

I suppose it's fine to play it safe but what are we learning by doing that? If a percentage who dosed high nitrate levels were experiencing toxicity syndrome I'd be a lot more cautious but we're not seeing it, either in the short term or the long term. As I said, my tanks have been deliberately hypereutrophic for almost a decade, the fish suffer no ill effects, algae has been minimal and the quality of plant health has been phenomenal, so that's the basis of my confidence.



			
				SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> Why would anyone want to double or triple Nitrate levels anyway?


Andy some day, when your tank size approaches 10X what you have now, and when you are using 1/2 kilowatt of lighting over plants more finicky than crypts and ferns, then ask me that question again, OK?  

Cheers,


----------



## GreenNeedle

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> keymaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperColey1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to double or triple Nitrate levels anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> Andy some day, when your tank size approaches 10X what you have now, and when you are using 1/2 kilowatt of lighting over plants more finicky than crypts and ferns, then ask me that question again, OK?
> Cheers,
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why would anyone want that much light?  surely a couple of T5HO with their better efficiency would do the trick 

And why would anyone want plants more finicky than crypts and ferns?  Everything else is rubbish  

What do you mean by finicky anyway?  I think anything would grow in mine as long as my CO2 was right without having to increase dosing.  Not going to try though as I want to concentrate on getting this scape grown.

AC


----------



## ceg4048

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> Why would anyone want that much light?  surely a couple of T5HO with their better efficiency would do the trick


Those are T5s...Like Star Trek Voyager I'm exploring the edges of the known galaxy in the Delta Quadrant where I often encounter Borg activity....


			
				SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> And why would anyone want plants more finicky than crypts and ferns?  Everything else is rubbish  ;lol;


Relax, you will be assimilated and your unique distinctiveness will be added to our own...  


			
				SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> What do you mean by finicky anyway?  I think anything would grow in mine as long as my CO2 was right without having to increase dosing.  Not going to try though as I want to concentrate on getting this scape grown.


Probably so but the the rules of engagement are a little different in big high light, high biomass tanks. CO2 and nutrient delivery are less efficient in big spaces, so often one is forced to use higher dosages to compensate for the inefficiency. The less popular versions of Ludwigia such as ovalis, glandulosa and the verticillated versions struggle even under standard dosing and with less than absolutely perfect flow. Getting perfect flow in large spaces is not easy and so it's easier to dose higher quantities. Carpet plants struggle as well under these conditions. For example, to completely eliminate GSA requires about 10ppm PO4 weekly dosing under this configuration. In most forums you'll find loads of posts where folks panic if they think they are above 2ppm PO4 (Amazingly no one has yet demonstrated mass fish death from PO4- plenty of deaths from overfeeding though) Life is easy in a nano, not so easy with a hippo tank...

Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain

I think one of the tenents folks using this more daily approach are looking for it tighter control, sort of goes without saying.......... 

So.......with that notion in mind........

You start high, non limiting in other words.............then you reduce _slowly_.............like change one thing every 2-3 weeks stepwise by a small amounts(reduce it slowly).
Once you see any slowing, or negative reponse, you back up to the next highest ppm/dose.

This will give you the min non limiting amount without a test kit.
Takes time, but you also have issues like changes, species, CO2 etc that will after you figure all this out.

So how much buffer do you want to have good wiggle room?
Seems you get more of that with lower moderate light.

So..........if you want tighter control with less issues, that has to be part of the balance/plan.
Some seem to want to skirt that part.

You cannot do that and discuss fairly the nutrients.........CO2/light have to be included with the context.
Some might want to skip this part, cry bloody murder about nutrients, claim all sorts of things...........
and often they do.............not ever address the other 2 players here......throw tangents out again and again, never answer the direct questions etc

All while claiming key furry fuzzy words like "balance", "nature" "Ecology", yet have little understanding of what those things mean. This is the same old story, older than the hills. 



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## GreenNeedle

Tom you misundestand us I think  

We are not saying excess nutrients are bad nor cause algae.  more a case of why dose 3 x what is already excess if it can get close to the levels that 'could' be harmful wether that had level was know or not.  If 10-20ppm per week is EI then why dose 30-60ppm?

Surely 10-20ppm should be the MOST that needs to be dosed and the decision to be made would be how much to reduce if necessary rather than to increase by 2x 3x increments.

I guess on a highlight tank then the starting point is higher but then does that mean dose 2, 3x?  Surely the ppm within the tank is still reduced accordingly anyway?

AC


----------



## ceg4048

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> Tom you misundestand us I think
> 
> We are not saying excess nutrients are bad nor cause algae.  more a case of why dose 3 x what is already excess if it can get close to the levels that 'could' be harmful whether that had level was know or not.  If 10-20ppm per week is EI then why dose 30-60ppm?
> 
> Surely 10-20ppm should be the MOST that needs to be dosed and the decision to be made would be how much to reduce if necessary rather than to increase by 2x 3x increments.
> 
> I guess on a highlight tank then the starting point is higher but then does that mean dose 2, 3x?  Surely the ppm within the tank is still reduced accordingly anyway?
> 
> AC


But why are you so sure that 10-20ppm is the most one would ever need, under any possible condition? I've already explained that your tank is operating in a certain regime, i.e, a certain combination of size, flow lighting biomass, species and so forth - not to mention the fact that you have a specific goal in mind - low maintenance and slower growth which gives you the breathing room to concentrate on scaping. But what if those aren't my goals? In my regime, with my objectives, more dosing works better without ever encountering the "...could be harmful.." bit.  Under your regime you are quite happy to accept a certain levels of growth rate and algae, levels which I find unacceptable.

My plants grow faster and look prettier with 30-60ppm + higher CO2 than with 10-20ppm. Why is that considered so psychotic? I still remember when everyone thought that nutrients cause algae and then some psycho decided to add more nutrients which flew in the face of convention. In fact if you look at some of the older websites like Chuck Gadd's his recommended dosage levels are lower than what we commonly accept now as being safe. Keymaker summed it up in that it's while it's unnecessary to advocate 2X or 3X it's also good to push the boundaries of your knowledge if that is in fact your goal. In the same way JamesC experimented  in his thread Dosing with Ammonia and Urea 

In the end James discontinued that scheme because there were clear and present dangers, but there was also a lot learned. I've tried it myself and I saw no advantages but came to the same conclusion that there are plenty of risks. I'm sure that there are those who accept the risk and continue to dose urea. I would never normally advocate it's use except in special cases, and even then I would warn of the dangers. Since I've not experienced any dangers in the 30-60ppm nitrate range, whether that be in hard or RO water, there is no reason for me to conclude that it "...could be harmful..".

Cheers,


----------



## GreenNeedle

The answer is I'm not sure that 10-20ppm is the most one would ever need.  I am taking that from what I have read from others on here and other forums that we all use.  I have no idea.  I add 2ppm nitrate a day and it works for me.  How much is in the tap water?  I don't know.  How much of that ppm do the plants use?  I don't know.  How much is left over after my 10% water change?  I don't know.  What is my current ppm?  I don't know.  The shrimp are still alive so I guess its less than Tom's suggestion of 150ppm.

From the way you write are you saying you have 30-60ppm present or you add 30-60ppm weekly or 3x a week therefore allowing build up if it isn't used?  

Do you not worry that if (for example) 30ppm was left over pre water change then 15ppm would be carried forward to the next week.  Then the week after you end up with 22.5 after the water change and so on?  Would that not equal incredible amounts after a year? Its a simple equation I am using and obviously doesn't include any other happenings within the tank.  Is there something scientific that reduces/breaks down the nitrate over time?

Surely if someone were to keep dosing 30ppm more than their plants needed each week (and I understand that to know this we would need to know the plants uptake) then the left overs coupled with the next week's dosing would accumulate.



> Under your regime you are quite happy to accept a certain levels of growth rate and algae, levels which I find unacceptable



Yes I am quite happy to accept the rates of growth I have.  Any faster and there would be no room for water   I am not quite happy to accept certain levels of algae though.  I am not happy to accept any (or at least not any amount that is visible) thus I battle with CO2 diffusion techniques and circulation issues time to time caused by the 'slow' rate of growth that I am quite happy with 

AC


----------



## ceg4048

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> The answer is I'm not sure that 10-20ppm is the most one would ever need.  I am taking that from what I have read from others on here and other forums that we all use.  I have no idea.  I add 2ppm nitrate a day and it works for me.  How much is in the tap water?  I don't know.  How much of that ppm do the plants use?  I don't know.  How much is left over after my 10% water change?  I don't know.  What is my current ppm?  I don't know.  The shrimp are still alive so I guess its less than Tom's suggestion of 150ppm.
> From the way you write are you saying you have 30-60ppm present or you add 30-60ppm weekly or 3x a week therefore allowing build up if it isn't used?


 What I mean to say is that I dose anywhere from 40 to 60 ppm NO3 per week and so that is on top of whatever the tap water value is, which like you, I have no idea whatsoever what the that value actually is because neither of us test it or pay attention to the municipal water report NO3 data.



			
				SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> Do you not worry that if (for example) 30ppm was left over pre water change then 15ppm would be carried forward to the next week.  Then the week after you end up with 22.5 after the water change and so on?  Would that not equal incredible amounts after a year? Its a simple equation I am using and obviously doesn't include any other happenings within the tank.  Is there something scientific that reduces/breaks down the nitrate over time?
> Surely if someone were to keep dosing 30ppm more than their plants needed each week (and I understand that to know this we would need to know the plants uptake) then the left overs coupled with the next week's dosing would accumulate.


Andy check the arithmetic exercise I gave in  my post on the previous page. A 50% weekly water change means that it is impossible to have a total NO3 value greater than the sum of the tap water value + the dosage level. Actually, in practical terms, there are two things that help me avoid toxic buildup. The first is that I do much higher volumes of water changes than 50%. My water changes are in the neighborhood of 70%-90% (although the more water I remove the more KNO3/KH2PO4 I'll add back.) Huge biomass means huge organic waste production. I get as much detritus out of the tank as I can and so that I'm removing a lot of water to maximize the detritus removal, stirring up the sediment, siphoning out whatever is suspended etc. Secondly I often do business trips for a few days so the buildup is consumed because I'm not there to dose for a couple of days. So in truth I have a real mania about cleanliness and so the things I do to satisfy that obsession in effect serves to mitigate the buildup even though I'm dosing massive quantities. I reckon if we focus more on cleanliness we'd have less algae, and healthier fauna. Toxic buildup wouldn't even be an issue. Dirty tanks kill more fish than nitrate buildup can ever dream of doing.



			
				SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> Yes I am quite happy to accept the rates of growth I have.  Any faster and there would be no room for water   I am not quite happy to accept certain levels of algae though.  I am not happy to accept any (or at least not any amount that is visible) thus I battle with CO2 diffusion techniques and circulation issues time to time caused by the 'slow' rate of growth that I am quite happy with


Exactly. I totally agree with this and I'm not slamming your particular objectives or suggesting that my objectives are more noble than yours. What  I'm saying is that I've discovered that breeching the standard dosing limits can not only produce higher yields but that if executed properly (i,e commensurate CO2 levels) it actually produces occasional prettier foliage and often more unusual forms/colors than can be achieved with the standard dosages alone.  Look at the evidence for yourself. These are life forms found only in the Delta quadrant of the mega-dosing galaxy and you're not likely to see these anomalies while fretting about PO4 or worrying about exceeding 10-20ppm NO3:





















Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> Tom you misundestand us I think
> 
> We are not saying excess nutrients are bad nor cause algae.  more a case of why dose 3 x what is already excess if it can get close to the levels that 'could' be harmful wether that had level was know or not.  If 10-20ppm per week is EI then why dose 30-60ppm?



Good I was not mistunderstanding
We agree!
10-20ppm will be plenty for some tanks, whereas some might require more.

Without looking at biomass, CO2, light, % cover etc, we cannot compare and say that we "need" 10-20ppm vs 30-60ppm.
I think 30ppm is about as non limiting as we can really get at most any light level, I'm not sure about really high CO2+ really high light. But it's unlikely certainly.

At lower light, then 10-20ppm is a more suitable dose range, that's the first part of the advice/comments I mention above. EI/daily or otherwise, is not about just adding more and more, you can and should likely dail it down if you use lower light, have ADA AS etc.



> Surely 10-20ppm should be the MOST that needs to be dosed and the decision to be made would be how much to reduce if necessary rather than to increase by 2x 3x increments.



Well, I suggest 20-30ppm as a target, then reduce, but if you have low biomass, low light etc, then 5-10ppm might be okay, as the tank fills in more, then maybe 10-15ppm etc.

Another higher light tank with weeds a plenty, then 20-30ppm is good.
Etc.

A little common sense applied to EI is good and less wasteful. Still, no need to cut to the bone either.
Likewise, adding more than you need, even 2x as much, does no harm, many claim and argue otherwise but I've just never seen it and have not be able to test and repeat such claims. Each time I do that, it falsifies such claims further.
Still, folks do have a logic behind using less than the 30ppm etc range say...........but some common sense needs applied.

Otherwise you get the same blind use, and folks apply 10ppm instead of say 30ppm to all cases, while 10ppm is fine for some, it's not for all. 30ppm is for all, but wasteful for lower light tanks.
This can be reduced using the method described above.

If you start too low, you might be running the tank too lean and stunt plants etc. *This period of reduction does not waste much for long.*

That is the main point.
I'm not suggesting that anyone needs to use 30ppm all the time for all cases, only that doing so shold not harm fish/plants, induce algae etc.



> I guess on a highlight tank then the starting point is higher but then does that mean dose 2, 3x?  Surely the ppm within the tank is still reduced accordingly anyway?
> 
> AC



Yes, I think you, Clivel, myself all handidly agree on all points.
If we got together in person and sat down, had a drink, we'd all be preaching to the choir 
So with that, let me toss a bone out for this stew

http://nospam.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_44/issue_8/1993.pdf

This discusses NO3 and NH4 in relation to the sediment and denitrification(NO3 loss).
Some interesting findings indeed.

Regards,
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> In the end James discontinued that scheme because there were clear and present dangers, but there was also a lot learned. I've tried it myself and I saw no advantages but came to the same conclusion that there are plenty of risks. I'm sure that there are those who accept the risk and continue to dose urea. I would never normally advocate it's use except in special cases, and even then I would warn of the dangers. Since I've not experienced any dangers in the 30-60ppm nitrate range, whether that be in hard or RO water, there is no reason for me to conclude that it "...could be harmful..".
> 
> Cheers,



I think James went about things correctly, he made me proud. Sometimes you have to learn things through experience, I did, so did he and we came up with fairly similar conclusions about it. I'd like to do the pdf experiement above but ask a different uestion: how much NH4 are the various species of plants getting, and how much NO3.Not what os removed from the water, rather, what is taken up into the plant tissue.

Same for algae.

Measuring biomass of each over time as well.
That would be a great test to do.

But alas, it will not be done anytime soon by me  
Darnit

Tom Barr


----------



## tennis4you

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> A fair few of us have been using a PMDD+PO4 daily recipe for quite a while albeit a leaner version with lower water changes.
> 
> AC



I see the dosing for the EI above, but what about for PMDD and PO4?  I have a 125 gallon tank that is fairly well planted but I am not sure I am dosing enough.  Plus I do not know how often to hit it with water changes.


----------



## GreenNeedle

If you follow EI then you 'should' be dosing enough.  As Ceg points out above I have no  experience really with larger tanks so I think someone else would be better pointing you there.  I personally am too lazy for 50% water changes even on my 125Ltr.  I think with a tank the size of yours I would be pondering giving up plants if EI were the way  

The PMDD + PO4 recipe I use is a much lower dosing than EI so if you are using EI already then you almost certainly have enough dosing.

Someone else will point you in the right direction here.

AC


----------



## ceg4048

tennis4you said:
			
		

> SuperColey1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair few of us have been using a PMDD+PO4 daily recipe for quite a while albeit a leaner version with lower water changes.
> 
> AC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the dosing for the EI above, but what about for PMDD and PO4?  I have a 125 gallon tank that is fairly well planted but I am not sure I am dosing enough.  Plus I do not know how often to hit it with water changes.
Click to expand...

I guess it's not clear to me what you mean by not dosing enough. Enough for what? If you are below the minimum threshold for required nutrient levels then the tank would exhibit some symptoms of malnutrition such as poor growth or nutrient-starved related algae. If the tank is algae free but you want higher growth rates then you'd need to increase the dosage levels and CO2 to achieve that, but you should also look at better distribution/flow. However, if you have algae related to some other factor such as organic waste buildup or poor CO2 then increasing the nutrient levels alone will have dire consequences, so really we'd need a better idea of why you think the tank needs more...

Cheers,


----------



## tennis4you

Organic waste build up could be an issue for me.  Can bba be caused (or triggered) by that was well?  

I now have 2 canister filters so I can clean one once per month and the other the following month, and so on.  I probably need to be trimming dying leaves faster too.  I also have no snails or shrimp to help break up the bigger stuff.  I have also been afraid to really dig at the substrate since there are roots below.


----------



## aaronnorth

tennis4you said:
			
		

> Organic waste build up could be an issue for me.  Can bba be caused (or triggered) by that was well?
> 
> I now have 2 canister filters so I can clean one once per month and the other the following month, and so on.  I probably need to be trimming dying leaves faster too.  I also have no snails or shrimp to help break up the bigger stuff.  I have also been afraid to really dig at the substrate since there are roots below.



organic waste when it rots produces ammonia which causes algae so in effect yes it does.


----------



## tennis4you

I need to keep up on the water changes, getting into the substrate and maybe look into some snails to help.  I also think I need to prune more.  My center swords are at the top of the tank.  I assume by trimming it will force others to grow and the more growth the less algae?

Ugh, algae...


----------



## ceg4048

BBA is primarily CO2 related. Fix your CO2/flow distribution and you will fix your BBA.

Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain

Planted tanks require long term care and work. No real way around some of it.
You can get crafy and plan well and use lower light, good CO2 etc, and ADA AS etc, then have a good sized fish load and feed them good, then dose a little each time you feed the fish etc.

Certain species of plants require less work than others..............same for fish..........

Most of the issues folks have tend to be social/human, not methods related :idea: 
I tend to focus folks there rather than the method.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## keymaker

I updated the dosing calculator from the first page of this topic. Now it includes Trace Elements Mix dosage calculation and a "How Much To Order" box to determine the quantities of powders needed for a certain period of time. Thanks to Henrik for the new ideas and to James (again!) for helping me with the dosage of the traces.

Please let me know what other additions you'd like to see. Cheers.


----------



## John Starkey

Hi All,this thread is the best read ive had in ages,respect to all you clever people   ,regards john.


----------



## dazcoops

Hello

Is the dosing calculator still on file factory? i cant seem to download it.

cheers
Darren


----------



## keymaker

dazcoops said:
			
		

> Is the dosing calculator still on file factory? i cant seem to download it.


I moved it to our server. The new link should work fine.

(update 05.09.2009 - there was a typo, the EI top range for the Fe was 5 instead of 0,5 - mistake corrected.)


----------



## grayceworks

I'm a little confused with the calculator -- there's a few spots where if you enter your numbers, it is not set up to actually calculate them... one just has ml in the space, and another has ??? in the space, and a couple others just don't do anything... Do I have an old version? Or am I doing something wrong? Thanks...


----------



## keymaker

grayceworks said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused with the calculator -- there's a few spots where if you enter your numbers, it is not set up to actually calculate them... one just has ml in the space, and another has ??? in the space, and a couple others just don't do anything... Do I have an old version? Or am I doing something wrong? Thanks...


Yepp, it seems to be some Excel version number problem... Messing with just the orange bkgd cells would result in problem-free calculation. This is verified by many.


----------



## plantbrain

BTW, add some DTPA Fe in with CMS + B, say 5mls to each 15 mls of volume when you make the solution, this will enhance the life of the Fe in solution(more like Tropica 's trace mix).

Sequestrene 330 might be sold over there, a 1-2.5 kg bag will lats a lifetime and a few freind's as well. 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## B4M

keymaker said:
			
		

> Yepp, it seems to be some Excel version number problem... Messing with just the orange bkgd cells would result in problem-free calculation. This is verified by many.



Keymaker- The calculator looks great. However I don't understand a few of the columns. G12 -22 Dose amount; is this volume of all in one mix per dose added to tank? i.e. if I add 25ml per day I just put 25 in each?

I assume I12 -22 is a reference to DIY TPN+ (3) from James' site. Out of interest what are the two grey columns either side?

Thanks,

B4M


----------



## keymaker

B4M said:
			
		

> Keymaker- The calculator looks great.


Thanks!


			
				B4M said:
			
		

> However I don't understand a few of the columns. G12 -22 Dose amount; is this volume of all in one mix per dose added to tank? i.e. if I add 25ml per day I just put 25 in each?


Yepp, exactly. If you do it all-in-one, than all the values should be the same. If you mix separate solutions, you can add separate quantities from each. Some would like to make different solutions for all the macro powders separately.


			
				B4M said:
			
		

> I assume I12 -22 is a reference to DIY TPN+ (3) from James' site. Out of interest what are the two grey columns either side?


James has acutally more than one mix - he has one for ammonia dosing too. This is the left grey column. The grey column from the right can be used to store some other benchmark you prefered at one point. I just came out with something and I like to keep that in view when experimenting with values in column G.


----------



## Superman

Reposted Question Here


----------



## foxfish

plantbrain said:
			
		

> This is an example of EI for a 12 week supply for a 20 gallon tank for those with teaspoon adversion.
> 
> To 1 liter of DI water add:
> 
> 60 grams KNO3
> 10 grams of KH2PO4
> 25 grams of GH booster
> 
> Add 5 mls daily.
> Add TMG at 2.5 mls daily.
> 
> That's it.
> As always, focus more on CO2.
> That makes or breaks results more than anything else.
> Regards,
> Tom Barr



Sorry if i am starting back at the beginning but can I please ask a few questions.....
What is TMG?
Will there still be a 50% weekly water change?
If I dont add the GH booster will the mix ratios still be the same for the other two powders & will it be OK to admit the GH?


----------



## plantbrain

Tropica Master grow = TMG, now renamed to Aquatic plant nutrition traces.
Same thing.

The goal of many is less % or frequency for WC's.
To do this, we start at a some non limiting value, say EI.

We slowly and progressively reduce the % dosing every 2 weeks till we see a negative response, yellowing or leaves, algae presence etc.

Then raise the dosing back up to the next higher level the prior week before.
This should be about the min amount needed to dose and keep things good for that particularly tank.

It requires that you look at the aquarium and adjust accordingly.
You should do this no matter what method anyone uses.
Common sense.

There's no perfect method that will adjust to every tank.
Aquarist need to take responsibility and use good judgment
Some seem to skirt this or gloss over it when promoting "their method".
EI nor any method is meant to be followed strictly.
You can and should adjust things to see what effects they often have and then discuss those observations.

So if reduced water changes is the goal, and you want not too little, watch the plants, and not too much: slowly reduce down till you have a response then bump it back up, you should be able to do once a month water changes say 30-60% without much issue.

You can also do this method even easier with less plant issues if you use a rich sediment like ADA AS or worm castings etc.

That way even if you run too lean in the water, there's a back up in the sediment.
ANYONE wanting reduced water changes should use soils/rich sediment types.

Also, if the goal is reduced WC's and less labor, why bother with daily dosing at all?
Reduce the light and then dose 1-2x a week, add plenty of fish etc, rich sediments.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## geoffbark

keymaker said:
			
		

> I just made an Excel File that can be easily used to calculate the *all-in-one solution* dosing quantities needed to comply with the EI range of nutrients. The chart can be customized to any regime of water changes and can be used to mix a solution with dry ferts.
> 
> I used fert amounts from the DIY TPN+ solution published on James' site and NO3 data from my water company (the others are still missing). The molecular weights calculation is based on James' dosing calculator.
> 
> Big thanks to James, and to Mark for giving me the initial calculation method. As Mark rightly pointed out, this calculation does not include the amounts used by plants and assumes there is no other source of nutrients. It should be used as a guide only.
> 
> If you see anything that could or should be modified, please let me know, and I'll edit this post accordingly!!!
> 
> Download with confidence - No Viruses! (I made it under Mac OSX !)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://akvarisztika.budapet.hu/dosing_calculator.xls




Hi, 

I like the calc well made   

I have one question, i thought to get dgh/dkh from mg/l or ppm you divide by 17.9.  I think you have set it divide by 10

Is this correct


----------



## plantbrain

Folks make EI way to complicated   

Add ferts, be done with it. focus on CO2, lower light, then the real goal .........gardening.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Fred Dulley

plantbrain said:
			
		

> Folks make EI way to complicated
> 
> Add ferts, be done with it. focus on CO2, lower light, then the real goal .........gardening.
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Barr



Amen


----------



## tovtm

hi not sure if to add a question here but here it goes.

i have just started using co2 and wanted to know if i should use something like this http://www.aquariumplantfood.co.uk/spec ... 250ml.html

or should i do this EI daily method? the only reason i ask is i am a beginner and reading the first page or so i don't really understand the ingredients or where to get them etc where as the fertilizers i listed above is already made and cant really go wrong, but i want the best option and obviously value for money.

i have a 125ltr tank 
2 x 40w 4' t8 tubes 7hrs a day
co2 running through a atomizer on my fluval 205 external
28 degrees
sand substrate with plant tabs

now i have a breeding pair of discus so cant have any form of dosing effecting these.


----------



## plantbrain

You can get them at the various vendors here, AE (Aquaessentials etc) sells them........just ask them.

Seems intimidating initially, after a couple of times, it's like "making" cereal.


----------



## bigmatt

if you go to the APFUK section and ask Jonny (the owner) the same question he should be able to help. His ferts are getting good reports, but are a bit more expensive than mixing your own, but they are ready to use straight from the packet. Hope this helps, Matt


----------



## vartan

Does someone have the calc meantioned in the link? It seems broken, and im unable to download it.


----------



## nbaker

keymaker said:


> I just made an Excel File that can be easily used to calculate the *all-in-one solution* dosing quantities needed to comply with the EI range of nutrients. The chart can be customized to any regime of water changes and can be used to mix a solution with dry ferts.
> 
> I used fert amounts from the DIY TPN+ solution published on James' site and NO3 data from my water company (the others are still missing). The molecular weights calculation is based on James' dosing calculator.
> 
> Big thanks to James, and to Mark for giving me the initial calculation method. As Mark rightly pointed out, this calculation does not include the amounts used by plants and assumes there is no other source of nutrients. It should be used as a guide only.
> 
> If you see anything that could or should be modified, please let me know, and I'll edit this post accordingly!!!
> 
> Download with confidence - No Viruses! (I made it under Mac OSX !)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://akvarisztika.budapet.hu/dosing_calculator.xls


 
Nice looking calc unfortunately link not working.

Has anyone got a copy or link please?


----------



## LondonDragon

nbaker said:


> Has anyone got a copy or link please?


Send a PM to keymaker you might get lucky


----------



## Martin cape

I'd be interested in this too


----------



## Martin cape

Any info on link?


----------



## nbaker

After a bit of hunting I found this link  not had chance to try it out yet.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CIIBEBYwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenaqua.hu%2Fdownload%2Fdosing-calculator.xls&ei=GixjUYeEMOml4gSFz4HQDQ&usg=AFQjCNFHgLQ4MCtxn5EaaMzmtDBgoLbv1Q&sig2=McU10zNbcyyxXgTrcCVdhg


----------



## Martin cape

Good find. 

I have no idea how to use it lol


----------



## Jaap

I am sure these questions have been asked before and I am sorry if I am repeating this:

1. Why not dose all micros and macros together once off at the beginning of each week and avoid the x3 micros and x3 macros? Also if they react together then why not dose all macros on Monday and all micros on Tuesday and be done with it?

2. Do micros and macros react together to something unwanted?

3. Is is better to dose macros first and then micros or vice versa or doesn't matter?

Thanks and sorry once more if I repeated these questions.


----------



## ian_m

1. Yes they do react together the phosphate reacting with iron to produce insoluble iron phosphate which precipitates out and becomes unavailable for the plants to use. So dose alternate days to prevent reaction.
2. Yes.
3. Doesn't matter.


----------

