# EI (again) (sorry)



## Vyncenze (22 Jun 2011)

Hi

I have a 2 month old planted tank (360l). Up until now I have been using the pre-mixed fertiliser from aquariumplantfood.co.uk but once my initial supply ran out last week I decided to switch to EI to save a bit of cash.

I bought the starter kit from the same website, but now I am a bit confused about the amounts being suggested.

The guideline on the aquariumplantfood website says to pre-mix 1tsp of micros into 500ml, and add 10ml of that solution per 50 litres of tank water 3 times a week. So for my tank, I'm adding 70ml of micro-mix 3 times a week, so a total of just under half a tsp per week. 

By the same guide, that works out my macro dosing to be 1 1/2 tsp potassium nitrate, 1/2 tsp potassium phosphate, and 2tsp of magnseium sulphate. Per week.

Then I looked at the calculator on here and fluidsensor, and the numbers on there suggest I should be roughly doubling all of those doses.

So my question really is two-fold - 1) should I double the dosing? and 2) is there anything to stop me mixing double the amount of dry salts into my mixing bottles so that the mix will last twice as long (or, for that matter trebling it, etc etc).

One other thing, my tank is quite heavily stocked, and my tap water is fairly nitrate heavy (I think, I know the test kits are unreliable). Would it be sensible therefore to scale down the amount of potassium nitrate I'm adding compared to what the calculators say?

Thanks very much!

Joe


----------



## foxfish (22 Jun 2011)

Here is an easy way to follow http://www.fluidsensoronline.com/calcul ... ive-index/


----------



## Vyncenze (22 Jun 2011)

Hi

Thank you, that's the one I was using. I just wondered why the numbers it gives are so much higher than what aquariumplantfood recommends. The calculations are as below - perhaps I will switch to using those numbers...

Day 1
50% Water change
7/8 tsp Potassium Nitrate KNO3
5/16 tsp Monopotassium Phosphate KH2PO4
2 1/8 tsp Magnesium Sulphate MgSO4

Day 2
5/16 tsp Trace

Day 3
7/8 tsp Potassium Nitrate KNO3
5/16 tsp Monopotassium Phosphate KH2PO4
2 1/8 tsp Magnesium Sulphate MgSO4

Day 4
5/16 tsp Trace

Day 5
7/8 tsp Potassium Nitrate KNO3
5/16 tsp Monopotassium Phosphate KH2PO4
2 1/8 tsp Magnesium Sulphate MgSO4


----------



## PeteA (23 Jun 2011)

I'm going to start doing Ei today (providing the powders arrive), so have been doing some calculations too   I've bought my powders from Aquarium Plant Food (APF) like you (John has been very helpful).  One thing that I have read is that Ei is Estimative (i.e. not an exact science) - so you will naturally have to adapt based on the plants in your tank and their absorption rates (I think I'm right in this) and the lighting in your tank.

I've worked out the following using the APK recipe and the Fluid Sensor Online (FSO) calculator that 500ml solution would contain the following (and 10ml dose).

```
APK    FSO     APK     FSO
        500ml  500ml    10ml    10ml
KNO3    18.6g    15g  0.372g    0.3g
KH2PO4   6.9g   5.8g  0.138g  0.116g
MgSO4   33.6g    37g  0.672g   0.74g

Trace    4.7g   3.9g  0.094g  0.078g
```

It is worth noting that I've used the FSO calculator to work out the following:

```
1tsp Potassium Nitrate   KNO3    6.2g
1tsp Potassium Phosphate KH2PO4  6.9g
1tsp Magnessium Sulphate MgSO4   5.6g
1tsp Trace                       4.7g
```

Going on the Ei article here for a 90 litre tank (20 gallon), you want 3/16tsp KNO3 x 3; 1/16tsp KH2PO4 x 3; 1/2tsp MgSO4 x 3; 1/16tsp Trace x 2.  This gives the following amount added per week for each method (adding 18ml of the APK solution and using the calculator for the FSO dry amounts).

```
UKAPS     APK    FSO
KNO3     3.488g  2.009g  4.20g
KH2PO4   1.294g  0.745g  1.56g
MgSO4    8.400g  3.629g  9.90g

Trace    0.588g  0.508g  0.72g
```
As you can see - this has made things even more complicated   The FSO calculation overdoses on every count, where as the APK underdoses - and yes FSO is almost double on the Macro.

ALSO - the FSO calculator instructs you to add Trace only twice a week, APF instructs you to do it three times.
10ml of APF solution is for a 50 litre tank and FSO is for a 20 litre - HOWEVER, as you state, using the APK solution you'd be using 70ml per day and the FSO says to use 175ml...

I am personally going to go with the APF levels for my tank as I know I only have a fairly low light level.


----------



## Vyncenze (23 Jun 2011)

Thank you for that very helpful reply. I think you're right in that by it's nature (the "E" in EI) recommendations will vary a bit. I just thought it odd that FSP and APK were *so* far apart.

I think I will aim for a middle ground, my tank doesn't have very high light. I just don't want to under-fert.


----------



## ceg4048 (23 Jun 2011)

Guys,
         We need to keep things real. It's a complete waste of time to compare APK's recipe with FCO's recipe because you will not see any difference. The amount of nutrition that you are putting into the tank is so high that you will already have satisfied the minimum requirements. It doesn't matter which of these you use. These are all simple baseline values that are to be adjusted based on the tanks response. It's entirely possible that any of these recipes will generate too much growth and that it may be desired to lower the dosages. It is also equally possible that there may be an uptake shortfall based on the tanks configuration. The procedure is to make the adjustments based on the tanks response. Estimative Index is a world view, it is not a single recipe or formula.

Comparing these recipes is like comparing  the daily food intake of PeteA versus that of Vyncenze. Is the comparison even relevant? Will it be the same today is it will be a month from now? Does PeteA care whether Vyncenze eats more or less than he does every day? It would be absurd for Vyncenze to decide to eat the same amount as PeteA, wouldn't it? PeteA eats the amount he wants to eat and Vyncenze eats the amount he wants to eat - and they are each happy about their daily intake. If either becomes unhappy with the results he makes an adjustment. If PeteA gains too much weight, he decides to eat less. If Vyncenze feels hungry he eats more. But Vyncenze does not first send a PM to PeteA asking him how much he eats. Wouldn't that be absurd? Well that's exactly how absurd it is comparing two EI recipies.

Ei is meant to be simple. Throw some plant food in the tank and see how they respond. If they need more add more if they gain too much weight add less. It is the user who makes things complicated by worrying about things that don't matter. So we're completely missing the point if we think that we can reconcile any two recipes or if we think we need calculate the daily nutritional requirements of all the plants in a tank to the nearest milligram. There are simply too many variables and we lack even the most basic set of tools to enable us to measure these variables and hoe they interact. Therefore the only thing we can do is to observe the plants and make adjustments from there. Forget about all these comparisons, pick one vendor and just get on with it.

Cheers,


----------



## PeteA (23 Jun 2011)

Hehe, the voice of reason   Just re-read my post and realised I had got carried away with over-geeking it! (though I did quite enjoy working it all out)

cheers!

pete.


----------



## niru (23 Jun 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Guys,
> We need to keep things real. It's a complete waste of time to compare APK's recipe with FCO's recipe because you will not see any difference. The amount of nutrition that you are putting into the tank is so high that you will already have satisfied the minimum requirements. It doesn't matter which of these you use. These are all simple baseline values that are to be adjusted based on the tanks response. It's entirely possible that any of these recipes will generate too much growth and that it may be desired to lower the dosages. It is also equally possible that there may be an uptake shortfall based on the tanks configuration. The procedure is to make the adjustments based on the tanks response. Estimative Index is a world view, it is not a single recipe or formula.
> 
> Comparing these recipes is like comparing  the daily food intake of PeteA versus that of Vyncenze. Is the comparison even relevant? Will it be the same today is it will be a month from now? Does PeteA care whether Vyncenze eats more or less than he does every day? It would be absurd for Vyncenze to decide to eat the same amount as PeteA, wouldn't it? PeteA eats the amount he wants to eat and Vyncenze eats the amount he wants to eat - and they are each happy about their daily intake. If either becomes unhappy with the results he makes an adjustment. If PeteA gains too much weight, he decides to eat less. If Vyncenze feels hungry he eats more. But Vyncenze does not first send a PM to PeteA asking him how much he eats. Wouldn't that be absurd? Well that's exactly how absurd it is comparing two EI recipies.
> ...



+1 on this   

To add, like Tom & Clive have mention goooglian number of times, its best to START the dosing regime from the excessive side, and then with time and proper tank observation, tweak very slowly to the leaner side. Of course continuosly watching the nemesis CO2 & the overall driver: light. Guess in a high-tech tank, with all nutrients unlimited initially, the plants grow like mad thereby increasing the need of fert uptake. So dosing regime will tend to stabilise with time & proper periodic, consistent plant prunning/scaping. In the tank world its good to make provisions for over-eating than for starving   

-niru

Of late, I have started loving Clive's analogies with food! Easy to understand, though they leave me a bit hungry when reading without any snacks nearby to munch on


----------



## ceg4048 (23 Jun 2011)

I'll have to discuss this with Paulo to see if we can issue a bag of virtual crisps with selected threads.


			
				PeteA said:
			
		

> Hehe, the voice of reason   Just re-read my post and realised I had got carried away with over-geeking it! (though I did quite enjoy working it all out)


Well, you know, geeks are people too. I actually think this is a good mental exercise as well. Yes, we absolutely should be aware of and should understand the numbers, no argument there mate. 

Historical background:
I reckon that what happens is that we're now 20 or so years on from the introduction of EI, and what EI had to be compared with 20 years ago was the ingrained worldwide philosophy of zero nutrient loading. People were trying to completely rid the tank of nutrients because "nutrients caused algae." So if you were to compare any EI recipe with THAT dosing mentality EI concentration values were almost infinity. That's why there is no point in comparing one to another because it's like comparing infinity with infinity.

People then moved on slightly from ZERO Nutrient Tolerance, to "Oh, just enough nutrients, but not so much as to cause algae", which gave rise to schemes like PPS or PPS Pro, which required a sizable investment in test kits in order to continually monitor the nutrient levels. So if you compared any EI recipe with PPS you would have an order of magnitude (10X) difference in the nutrient levels. 

Nowadays, you have to compare EI with the contemporary schemes such as the commercial mixes (Seachem, Profito, JBL and so forth.) By comparison, any EI recipe provides two orders of magnitude (100X) differences in nutrient levels to these commercial mixes. 

The ADA scheme on the other hand offers up to two orders of magnitude higher than EI, except, that enormous nutrient load is primarily stored in the sediment, not in the water column. The stored nutrient levels are so high that they leach from the sediment into the water column because such high nutrient osmotic pressures are unstoppable. That's why people have to continually do massive water changes for weeks until the concentration levels in the sediment are reduced. In actual fact therefore, ADA = EI, because it provides higher than the minimum nutrient requirement.

When you think about EI, so long as NPK+Traces are included, try to think about what it is that you are doing, not so much what product you are using or what recipe you are mixing, or what vendor you are buying from, or what combination of instructions you are following. They are all equal in this sense because they all reject the "nutrients cause algae" propaganda and they all attempt to eliminate plant stress caused by malnutrition. It's that simple mate.

And remember, do not try to bend the spoon with your mind. That's impossible. Instead...only try to realize the truth...There is no spoon....then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends, but merely yourself that bends...

Cheers,


----------



## niru (23 Jun 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> I'll have to discuss this with Paulo to see if we can issue a bag of virtual crisps with selected threads.



Count me in, Walkers Vinegar flavour (pH = 5) packs!!    










> And remember, do not try to bend the spoon with your mind. That's impossible. Instead...only try to realize the truth...There is no spoon....then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends, but merely yourself that bends...



... and all these days I was dosing with a spoon! Guess that's the reason for all the algae.   

Cheers,[/quote]


----------



## plantbrain (24 Jun 2011)

EI grew from PMDD, mostly.....maybe 90% form the fert dosing side, PPS is virtually identical to PMDD, but....they seem to not give any credit at all to the obvious rip off. I'm still pissed and no admission or correction has ever been made. 

Still, dosing solutions, weights in grams, must add this mls of this each day etc.........it's all techy which turns many newbies off and has them to continue usign commericial brands.

Only the algae falsification, dosing more CO2/ferts/PO4 and the elimination of test kits and overly techy stuff is EI, the concept is not mine.

But........once something gets popular, other incarnations, versions, modifications are done.
But EI is still close to the same as PMDD, both add the same things for the most part.

All methods do.

The only really difference is how much.
As far as I am aware, EI is the only method that suggest non limiting ranges for ferts.
The rest are clinging to the myth of what "feels right".

I look at this from a research point of view today.
I want to know how a sediment performs with an aquatic weed. Say Ludwigia repens.
I place the stem in a solution of DI water and 100 grams of the sediment.
I also place the stem is another solution of DI water only.
Then another with a non limiting nutrient solution.

Since I have a non limiting and a no nutrient control, the sediment will yield a result somewhere between those two control references. As gardeners, we want the best growth, if we lard on a little bit more to make sure, this cost us nothing in relative terms.

EI is no different.

To reduce down to avoid water changes, you progressively reduce till you note a negative response. With CO2, you start with the pH/KH table at 30ppm, then progressively adjust up till you hit a spot that no longer added better growth.

Both use similar methods.

Teaspoons are common, so folks use those vs scales and all that. Anyone can follow a cooking recipe.
Everyone knows how to do a water change.

Fairly straight forward thing.


----------

