# EI calculators



## Martin cape (1 Apr 2013)

Hi guys,

How come the various EI calculators out there are all different? I have been using the one on the Fluid Sensor website and my phosphate levels have reached over 20ppm over the months I've been using it. Been doing my 50% weekly changes too. 

I have found this calculator online which is different, anyone used this one?
Yet Another Nutrient Calculator

Says to use a lot less Monopotassium phosphate than I've been using. Could this be the reason I'm getting some algae?


----------



## Martin cape (1 Apr 2013)

Do these figures look right for my macro solution?


----------



## ltsai (1 Apr 2013)

Have you tried APC fertilator?



It looks accurate to me.

Otherwise, you can try calculating the ppm yourself to verify.


----------



## Martin cape (1 Apr 2013)

I don't want to do it myself lol. Had enough problems doing it through my A Level in Chemistry.


----------



## sciencefiction (1 Apr 2013)

It's probably nothing to do with the calculator. Your particular tank just doesn't use up as much phosphates, presuming your test is accurate. I know in my tank with EI dosing and 50% water changes the TDS was creeping up slowly, although not sure what exacty was building up.
EI is not bullet proof. 50% water changes won't magically reset something that is not used up and is dosed up regularly. Then your tap water, or your fish food maybe rich in that too.


----------



## ltsai (1 Apr 2013)

Heh. It took me some time to calculate them manually and to relearn molar mass.  I even had them in a spreadsheet to calculate the ppm in each dosage.

Eventually, I found out about Wet's calculator or APC's fertilator. It is so much easier with them. 

Do remember to keep a copy of the mixture recipe. It will come handy when you need to recall the concentration or increase the dosage per ml. I have a mixture of MG for months and I can't remember whether I'm dosing 5 ppm or 10 ppm per week.


----------



## Martin cape (1 Apr 2013)

Yea I'm guessing its not being used up. Then I get green spot algae which is supposed to be low phosphate level. 20ppm is not low lol. It's 10x ideal amount. 

Yea I used an Ion Chromatography system to test it but think that gives total Phosphate, whereas normal over the counter phosphate test only tests for 1 specific phosphate anion.


----------



## Martin cape (1 Apr 2013)

Yea I like calculators. Very easy. I'm going to use either wet or apc I think. Been using fluid sensor one and probably dosing too much phosphate so ill try a new one I think.


----------



## ltsai (1 Apr 2013)

Try it out. Wet's calculator will warn you about solubility which is very useful.


----------



## sciencefiction (2 Apr 2013)

> Yea I'm guessing its not being used up. Then I get green spot algae which is supposed to be low phosphate level. 20ppm is not low lol. It's 10x ideal amount.


 
Not necessarily. It could be just an imbalance between K, N and P. I'd try decreasing the phosphate, or even stop dosing until it's used up, and at the same time increase KNO3. Another option is I came across another forum that works with high light(3WPG and over) and injected CO2 tanks(presuming your CO2 is at it's optimum/maximum level)

1. 50% water change(or whatever is needed to bring the phosphate back down, presuming your tap water isn't the source to the high phosphates)
2. Stopt fertilizing at all.
3. Clean the GSA (This is your indicator) every day.
4. Add Po4 every day. The doze is a gram every 500 gallons.
5. Repeat #3 and #4 until GSA doesn't show up again.
6. The amount of Po4 you needed to stop GSA is the doze you should use per week.
7. 50% water change on the 7th day.

To explain the science behind this, GSA is a type of algae that appears when all other algaes have been outbattled and you are near balance but not there yet. You need not worry about the other nutritients while doing this because if your plants were well fed, they'll be fine for that period of time. The test is to show you how much phosphate you need in order to prevent GSA and not cause imbalance in your particular system.

So for example after daily dosing, if on day 5 of dosing PO4 the GSA doesn't appear anymore, then 5 days multiplied by your daily dose is the weekly dose your tank and all its unique balance is what it consumes and will keep it free of GSA, without overdosing. You should spread that dose across the week for future dosing.
If the GSA doesn't clear up withing the first 7 days, then do another 50% water change and double the daily dose of phosphates, repeating the cycle. If it takes lets say another two days afterwards for the GSA to clear, then your weekly dose will be the total amount you dosed the first week plus the amount you dosed the couple of days of the new week. All this should be spread around your weekly dose to prevent GSA.

This way you'll know nearly how much you need without causing disbalance.


----------



## sciencefiction (2 Apr 2013)

Edit: You can induce GSA in a similar manner using the same method, but adding KNO3 at 1g per 50G until you see GSA appearing, or doubling the dose after the 7days and water change, etc...(this should be started with minimal po4 levels in the tank) By not adding any other fertilizers, the KNO3 added will soon help the PO4 in the water be consumed, leading to GSA, hence the method. That's the amount of KNO3 needed for your tank/flora/CO2 combo per week. You use GSA as a reference, because this is the near perfect balance. After that you resume dosing using the new KNO3 amount you calculate and your PO4 amount you calculated in your previous test, instead of the EI dose that didn't work for you.


----------



## sciencefiction (2 Apr 2013)

And to correct the first post, when doing the PO4 test, you need to keep adding your normal KNO3 dose, but daily. However, if you have a heavy GSA infestation, add only PO4 as per the steps.
I am not sure I can post the entire article here as it's from another forum and includes pictures. Perhaps it's allowed?


----------



## ceg4048 (2 Apr 2013)

Martin cape said:


> ..How come the various EI calculators out there are all different? I have been using the one on the Fluid Sensor website and my phosphate levels have reached over 20ppm over the months I've been using it. Been doing my 50% weekly changes too.


Martin,
  You need to stop worrying about this. It doesn't matter what recipe you use. You will not solve your problem by changing recipes, and you can always adjust any recipe you use based on the conditions that you observe. See my comments in the thread EI Newbie, totally confused lol | UK Aquatic Plant Society



Martin cape said:


> Says to use a lot less Monopotassium phosphate than I've been using. Could this be the reason I'm getting some algae?


NO it can't. In freshwater tanks, high levels of PO4 cannot cause algae. You may not realize that GSA is caused either by poor PO4, or poor CO2, or by both. If you are adding lots of PO4 and the algae does not abate, then you know the cause is either poor CO2 or poor flow or both.

Hand wringing over recipes is a complete waste of time.

Cheers,


----------



## sciencefiction (2 Apr 2013)

I am not sure this is allowed, so please delete if it's a problem but I can't find the article separately. However, it is worth the read in relation to CO2/Light/fertilizer dosing and why EI can still be a limiting factor.
@ Ceg4808:  I did not suggest that PO4 is causing algae, but that imbalance of P04 and other fertilizers can.

Method of Controlled Imbalances Summary - Algae - Aquatic Plant Central


----------



## Martin cape (2 Apr 2013)

Thanks guys. I know I do look at things at too much detail at times. Just like to get to the bottom of the problem.

I know with EI the ratio of nitrate to phosphate is approx. 10:1, however after a few weeks it stabilises at 2:1. Could that be the imbalance referred? 

Another quick question, my tap water has 3 ppm phosphate in it, I'm led to believe that's the range I'm aiming for when dosing. Do I need to dose phosphate?

Thanks a lot


----------



## Martin cape (2 Apr 2013)

sciencefiction said:


> I am not sure this is allowed, so please delete if it's a problem but I can't find the article separately. However, it is worth the read in relation to CO2/Light/fertilizer dosing and why EI can still be a limiting factor.
> @ Ceg4808:  I did not suggest that PO4 is causing algae, but that imbalance of P04 and other fertilizers can.
> 
> Method of Controlled Imbalances Summary - Algae - Aquatic Plant Central



Bloody good read that pal


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Apr 2013)

sciencefiction said:


> I did not suggest that PO4 is causing algae, but that imbalance of P04 and other fertilizers can.


No, this is just another clever way of saying that nutrients cause algae. You need to forget about imbalance because that doesn't cause algae either. Algae is caused by deficiency, not imbalance or ratios. Ratios have no place in this scheme. You can use any ratio you want as long as you are not below the minimum threshold for any given nutrient.

Cheers,


----------



## sciencefiction (3 Apr 2013)

ceg4048 said:


> No, this is just another clever way of saying that nutrients cause algae. You need to forget about imbalance because that doesn't cause algae either. Algae is caused by deficiency, not imbalance or ratios. Ratios have no place in this scheme. You can use any ratio you want as long as you are not below the minimum threshold for any given nutrient.
> 
> Cheers,


 
That's the strange thing, I understand that in case to get algae we are more probably limiting the nutritients somewhere, wether it being CO2 or fertlilizers, etc...
But the problem is no one can explain once you convert to high tech for example, why there's seemingly something that drives the shortage. For example, I have 4 tanks, one fertlized with nutritients and liquid CO2 and 3 with nothing at all. I do grow easy plants in the 3 low tech plants but I have 0 algae in them, including one of them suffering meltdown after the subsrate change, but still didn't get any algae at all. One of them has the same light as my "high tech" tank.
The supposedly "higher tech" one suffered from algae on an ugly scale. I did dose EI rates for a long time, increased the liquid carbon but no luck. One would say I still didn't put enough, but then the truth is that then EI dosing as explained, is limiting too. The more stuff I put, the more my plants wanted I guess. So what is driving this imbalance?  Which one of the stuff I already dumped on high scale should I increase? It's worth noting that this tank never had any problem like this before it was dosed with CO2 and nutritients, light and lighting period remained the same.
After seeing my plants being destroyed for so long and increasing nutritients, I went the opposite way and decreased certain nutritients without decreasing the liquid carbon or light.  4 weeks down the road the algae stopped but the plants still grew healthy.  Did the algae just go dormant, I don't know,  but at least no more algae is growing and the plants look healthier. So why did this happen? How come I balanced it out with that? Are actually nutritients a driving force for growth too, not only CO2 and light?


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Apr 2013)

Hi,
Well, comparing a CO2 enriched tank to a non-enriched tank is like comparing a Formula 1 race car to a Metro Bus. Although the processes are the same, the rates of chemical reactions within the plant are vastly different.

The addition of CO2 fundamentally changes not only the structure and chemical makeup of the plant, but it also radically alters the metabolic functions that occur.

If you imagine that a plant is like a factory complete with a moving assembly line this will help to visualize the how and why things go wrong. The whole point of light, CO2 and nutrients is to build a final product which is a sugar. The plant then eats the sugar to gain energy and to grow, and any excess sugar is stored in silos for future hard times.

CO2 is THE most important ingredient for making the sugar. Without CO2, shining a light on a plant is about as effective as boiling it in a soup. Plants produce what is probably the single most important enzyme called *Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase*, normally abbreviated to "RuBisCO". All carbohydrates on the planet are made possible by the action of this very complicated enzyme. Here is a typical image:




The areas in dark grey and light grey are the areas on the enzyme where individual CO2 molecules are attracted and held. They are then transported to an area where the Carbon portion of CO2 is combined with other molecules to create a form of glucose.

Despite its huge importance in life, RuBisCO is, by enzyme standards, rather slow, with a turnover rate of between 3 and 10 CO2 molecules per second. Typical enzyme reaction rates are somewhere around 1/2 million molecules per second. So the first two severe limitations to this enzyme are:
1. Complicated and energy expensive molecule for a plant to manufacture, which may require a few weeks to adjust the levels.
2. Very slow reaction rate.

The central role of RuBisCO in the process of photosynthesis means that it must be tightly regulated, to ensure that it is active only where and when it should be. One important layer of this regulation is the activation of RuBisCO at the beginning of the day. During the night, the RuBisCO active sites are blocked by inhibitors. So, at the beginning of the photoperiod, the plant then has to re-activate the binding sites by removing the inhibitors from the CO2 binding sites. This means that there is another set of proteins which are sensitive to light. There are additional regulators to ensure that RuBisCO only operates at daytime. Magnesium typically increases as the chlorophyl molecules become active so the sensors monitor the movement of Mg++. So here is a third limitation:
3. Activation of the enzyme is very slow at the beginning of the photoperiod. The RuBisCO in algae is more efficient because algae have a mechanism which concentrates CO2 and holds it, so they respond very quickly to the daylight. This is why siestas are a very bad idea.

Competing with CO2 for RuBisCO binding sites are O2 molecules. As both CO2 and O2 are small gaseous molecules, and moreover as RuBisCO evolved at a time when atmospheric oxygen concentrations were negligible, RuBisCO does not have perfect specificity for CO2 over O2,, i.e, it cannot tell that Oxygen has bonded instead of CO2. This is a problem for plants and algae because the Oxygen activity reduces the sugar yield. So there is a fourth and fifth limitation:
4. Oxygen availability reduces the efficiency and sugar yield of RuBisCO.
5. When RuBisCO reacts with Oxygen this results in a product called Phosphoglycollate, which cannot be converted into sugar and instead, the plant performs a function called photo-respiration which results in dangerous radical formation such as Hydrogen Peroxide, which is highly toxic to the plant.

In a low tech, non-CO2 enriched environment, because the CO2 levels are low and constant, and because the metabolic rates are also very low, the plant has time to slowly increase the RuBisCO content of the leaves.

In a high tech CO2 enriched environment, plant actually reduces the concentration of RuBisCO, because there is less need for this expensive and high maintenance protein if CO2 availability is high. However our total incompetence at maintaining a steady state high CO2 concentration means that the the plants are forever seeing changes in the level of CO2 which commands a production rate changes and confuses the plant. Have you ever tried steering a large boat or lorry? When you turn the wheel the vehicle dose not respond right away so you turn it some more, then suddenly the rate at which it turns accelerates so you correct in the opposite direction and you suddenly find that vehicle becomes a yo-yo. That is what the plants try to deal with in our tanks.

When you add CO2 the assembly line in that factory speeds up. Sugar production rate increases and so this requires that the nutrients accumulation also speeds up. More CO2 results in a higher demand for Nitrogen. More Nitrogen creates a higher demand for Phosphorous. More Phosphorous creates a higher demand for Potassium and so on and so forth.

Likewise, adding more Phosphorous drives a higher demand for Nitrogen and adding more Nitrogen creates a higher demand for CO2. So when you start adding more of one thing you yourself create a shortage for something else. So that's why there are so many problems in a CO2 enriched tank and that's another reason why ratios can have such a profound negative effect, because no one can monitor any ratio and no one knows, under any given condition, how much of what is needed at any one time.

People always seem to assume that adding CO2 to a tank will automatically solve their problems but they are wrong. Adding CO2 only changes the type and speed of your problems. The concept of EI is to add more than the plants will ever need and so if you see a deficiency then you have to fix the deficiency of that nutrient, not play with ratios or balances.

Because people have not yet learned how to identify nutritional deficiencies, they often add the wrong things, or worse, they actually stop adding the right things, which makes their problems more acute. There are almost an infinite number of ways to screw up a CO2 tank and that's because CO2 has so many far ranging effects. Therefore, if you have a problem in a CO2 enriched tank, there is a 95% probability that it's due to incompetent CO2 administration.

Cheers,


----------



## sciencefiction (3 Apr 2013)

Thanks for a thorough explanation. I read about Rubisco as well

So according to this,



> More Nitrogen creates a higher demand for Phosphorous. More Phosphorous creates a higher demand for Potassium and so on and so forth.
> 
> Likewise, adding more Phosphorous drives a higher demand for Nitrogen and adding more Nitrogen creates a higher demand for CO2.


 
This renders formulas like EI, PMDD, etc...useless because first you don't learn to think outside the box and in fact one is caught into a never ending circle where if you add too much of one thing, then you need to scrap all your dosage understandings for the other and add more of it as well...that's if you have any idea what shortage you've created.  But EI tells you for example that the nutritient dosages suggested by this method are more than enough for the highest demanding tank, which catches us up in a trap we can't get out from.
We know also that CO2 and light are driving more demand for nutritients too. We know that providing less of that, demands less of the plants, they grow slower etc...So either way, it is a balance between all to have healthy plants. It's up to one's needs to decide whether they want fast growing or slow growing tank. And now you are also confirming for example that higher nutritient dosage can create demands for other nutritients and eventually CO2.
So in fact you are saying what I said, it's about the balance. Add more Potassium, you'd need more Nitrogen, too much posphorous, and you'd need more potassium, then at the end you'll end up needing more CO2 again, so this doesn't mean that 95% of people are incompetent CO2 administrators. It means they don't know they are creating more demand using their current nutritient method because no theory addresses that. And then we don't even take into account what comes in the tank via your weekly water changes or fish food, which based on your words too, could be creating an even higher demand for other things.

And then again, coming back to my low tech tanks. They did suffer from defficiencies from time to time,  Some plants showed yellowing, some showed lack of nitrogen like smaller yellow leaves, some corrected themselves, I have no idea how,  some plants did not like it at all and died, some of them thrive and grow like weeds(not sure if allelopathy plays a role or possibly it depends what my particular tank water contains via the water changes and fish food I put in considering I can't keep java fern and floating plants alive)But as I mentioned, even a complete meltdown(planst just went into mush) did not cause an algae outbreak. So the nutritient defficiencies alone are not the trigger in my opinion.

And sorry to keep rambling about it, but it is for example said that high organic waste, dirty filters, dirty pipes, etc..on one hand can trigger algae. But organic waste in filters is just another name for nutritients leaking in the water column. Hence the Japanese use nutritient rich soil and lean water column and don't use mechanical media in the filters that traps waste there. So that leads me again to believe that inbalance and overload of certain nutritients triggers algae, possibly creating more demand for other things too but who is going to confirm.


----------



## ceg4048 (4 Apr 2013)

Well I don't see how you can possibly arrive at the conclusion that EI and PMDD are useless. First of all, what box are you talking about? The only box I can think of is the mental prison people have been locked in for years thinking that nutrients cause algae. Secondly, EI already takes into account the fact of nutrient demand. When all nutrients are at an unlimited value then it doesn't matter, because from a plant's perspective, there is an infinite concentration level of all nutrients, so there is not a never ending circle.

I am definitely not saying what you are saying. What I'm saying is that CO2 creates a higher demand for nutrients and that demand is easily satisfied by using any of the eutrophic dosing systems such as EI. However, this does not mean that you will not have problems. Incompetent CO2 administration fundamentally leads to CO2 related faults. This is above and beyond any effects of nutrient demand. The two sets of issues may intersect but they are distinct. If you have a CO2 deficiency then you will trigger CO2 related faults such as CO2 related algae as well as structural faults.

The OP thinks that he needs to change the recipe, whereas I am saying that any EI recipe provides unlimited nutrient levels and that he is not suffering a nutrient related fault. He is suffering a CO2 related fault. The OP has not reported any nutrient related issues. YOU are the one that assumed that PO4 is an issue. Therefore the OP is not running around in an endless circle. He is simply looking in the wrong place for the root cause of the problem.

Plants turning to mush is a CO2 related fault, and as I mentioned before, CO2 is so important that there are many different ways a plant can express a CO2 fault. It can be via algal blooms or via structural faults. The way in which the deficiency is expressed is based on all the other issues in the environment.

Organic waste is not a nutrient. There are nutrient elements locked inside the molecular structure of organic waste and the chemical changes associated with rotting are sensed by algal spores, which cause them to bloom.

And do you really believe that tanks that have Japanese soils do not suffer algal blooms? Is that what it says in the marketing brochures? All tanks are subject to organic waste buildup regardless of substrate choice. Additionally, the nutrients from the sediment are at a much higher concentration level that in the water, therefore, osmotic pressure forces these nutrients into the water column, so this is nowhere as lean as you would imagine. ADA Aquasoil has approximately 100X EI levels of nutrients and these nutrients will always leach into the water. Later, as the nutrient levels are exhausted, organic waste from food and fish waste settle into the sediment. Within the sediment the waste is broken down and the nutrients are released.

I don't have any problems with EI dosing and I've dosed up to about 5X EI values. Some people have dosed 10X EI values without any issues and with amazing growth. The more we dosed, the more incredible the tank became and the less algae was present. So inorganic nutrient levels do not trigger algal blooms. What I did not allow was the buildup of organic waste within the tank and filter. The tank has to be kept immaculate because the more you dose the higher the rate of organic waste buildup. CO2, flow and distribution were excellent. Clean water is good for plants and animals, so this is in our interest. The whole idea of EI is to simplify the dosing so that you do not need to worry about ratios or balance or any of those time wasting endeavors. But the dosing program by itself is not enough. It is the total effort involved with light, CO2, flow, maintenance that determines success. As I mentioned, in a low tech tank many of these issues become moot. Maintenance requirements are sharply reduced, dosing requirements are reduced, and so forth. This does not mean that low tech tank are problem free. If you add too much light without adding CO2 then there will be problems as well.

Cheers,


----------



## sciencefiction (4 Apr 2013)

> whereas I am saying that any EI recipe provides unlimited nutrient levels and that he is not suffering a nutrient related fault.


 


> I don't have any problems with EI dosing and I've dosed up to about 5X EI values. Some people have dosed 10X EI values without any issues and with amazing growth.


 
But these two again are contradictory. A 5x EI  or 10x EI dose is no longer an EI method.

My plants going into mush was not a CO2 issue, or the minimum a combination of issues
 because I added CO2 for the first time in this tank in the hope this would correct it since current understanding pointed a CO2 problem, along with nutritient dosing.  They were melting in the space of a couple of days and I kept replanting with no success.
I am not saying that low tech tanks are problem free or/and are better, just pointed out that in my case they have no algae.



> Organic waste is not a nutrient. There are nutrient elements locked inside the molecular structure of organic waste and the chemical changes associated rotting are sensed by algal spores which cause them to bloom.


 
So organic waste does not break down to nutritients? How do low tech tanks get their nutritients then?
Is there any information I can read about algal spores stimulated by that specific molecular structure?


----------



## Martin cape (4 Apr 2013)

Interesting thread this. 

I've noticed that with my current EI recipe I'm dosing approx 22.5ppm NO3- and 10ppm PO43-.

Thing I've noticed from "testing", is that my plants do not use very much at all. As, with doing 50% changes every week, the nutrients are reaching an equilibrium level. Where I'm removing (during water change) as much as I'm dosing. So the NO3- has levelled out at 45ppm, and the PO43- has levelled out at 20ppm. Is this the norm for EI?

My CO2 level, in my mind is ideal, this is the colour when the CO2 stops and there is 3 hours of light left: 


 pH being 6.3 from lights on to an hour before lights off where it goes to 6.4. 

If its a flow issue, I am struggling with this as I can't really increase flow, some pics: 





This is the tank as a whole, any obvious flow restrictions? 



I could remove some hard scape, there are 6 pieces in there, or I could get bigger powerheads, running 2 Nano 900's at the min. 







I have noticed this green spot on the glass in front of the HC:



Also, is this BBA too, slight darkening on some HC stems:



Thanks again guys.


----------



## ceg4048 (4 Apr 2013)

sciencefiction said:


> But these two again are contradictory. A 5x EI or 10x EI dose is no longer an EI method.


If you believe this then you are completely confused about what EI is.

EI is concept of preventing nutrient deficiency by providing unlimited nutrition. This is what the OP was confused about. His thinking was that EI was some set formula and that all the formulas must agree. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If a plant is presented with a level of nutrients that it considers infinite, then it doesn't matter whether that value is infinity, 5X infinity, or 10X infinity. It is still infinity.

EI is an interactive procedure. It does not really care what the numbers are. It only cares that the plants believe that the nutritional availability is unlimited. The actual concentration value necessary to achieve this can be almost any value. That value depends on the uptake demand. If the uptake demand is low then the concentration value necessary to achieve unlimited is also low. If the amount of CO2 being injected is lower, then this also lowers the nutrient uptake demand and so unlimited can be achieved using a lower dosing value. On the other hand, if light and/or CO2 are high then it is likely that the required dosing to achieve unlimited are the values specified in any of the recipes. If flow and distribution in the tank is very poor then it might be necessary to use even higher amounts for the plants to be convinced that nutritional levels are truly unlimited.

EI is a world view. It is NOT a formula. The recipes exist simply because they were the values the the inventor of the scheme arrived at when he determined that in his particular highly lit, CO2 injected tank, adding more nutrients resulted in little to no increase in the rate of growth, therefore, it made no sense to prescribe any higher dosage. Naturally, in his tank, CO2 and flow distribution were excellent, so he had no limitations. The same cannot be said for many of us, who reject the principles of the importance of CO2, flow and distribution.




sciencefiction said:


> So organic waste does not break down to nutritients? How do low tech tanks get their nutritients then?


Yes, organic waste breaks down into many things including nutrients. But again, you are fixated on nutrients causing algae. As I've attempted to explain, it is not the nutrient end products that do the damage. It is the chemical process by which the waste is broken down. We covered this topic in post #9 of the thread Fishless planted tank | UK Aquatic Plant Society Please review that explanation which explains why organic waste is an issue in a CO2 injected tank. The organic waste blocks nutrient uptake and stifles gas exchange in the plants. This leads to nutritional deficiencies, as well as a reduction in Oxygen when the waste is broken down by bacteria. These chemical changes in the water column contribute to the triggering of algal blooms.

In a low tech tank, since the rate of metabolism is very much slower (at least an order of magnitude slower) the AMOUNT of waste expelled by the plants is also very much lower. A low metabolism rate means a low demand rate for nutrient uptake, so that the amount of time it takes for the bacteria to break down and release the nutrient products into the water is adequate for the plants to uptake and recycle these products. So in a low tech tank, the plants do not become smothered by the small amount of waste and they can use the nutrients that are released. This is much closer to what happens in natural systems that are not fed by CO2 enriched springs. Additionally, the large volumes of water reduce the concentrations of toxicants produced by the breakdown process. In our tanks we have to do water changes to reduce the toxicity.




sciencefiction said:


> My plants going into mush was not a CO2 issue, or the minimum a combination of issues because I added CO2 for the first time in this tank in the hope this would correct it since current understanding pointed a CO2 problem, along with nutritient dosing. They were melting in the space of a couple of days and I kept replanting with no success. I am not saying that low tech tanks are problem free or/and are better, just pointed out that in my case they have no algae.


Well that's what you think, but the plants do not think that. Mushiness is only ever caused by poor CO2, period. All this proves is that just because you add CO2 it does not mean that you automatically eliminate CO2 related faults. You have assumed incorrectly that all you need to do is add CO2. As I tried to explain in my post about Rubisco, CO2 is not a pill that you take to solve health problems. It fundamentally changes the way in which plants adapt to their environment. The way that it is delivered to the plants is crucial. There are plenty of CO2 injected tanks out there right now with mushy plants, translucent, leaves, rotting stems, black spots, browning, curled leaves and a host of other symptoms, and all of these are due to poor CO2. Another issue is that the damage to the plants could already have occurred by the time you added CO2 and they were on their way out. It takes weeks for the Rubisco mechanism to adapt to the new level of CO2, and that is assuming flow, distribution, as well as injection method and injection rate are adequate.

I'll show you an example: Here is a fern in my tank suffering from a mild CO2 deficiency. It's easy to tell if you understand how to read the signs. Just look at the tips of some of the leaves. It's annoying, but the amount of CO2 required to eliminate that symptom would annihilate the fish in less than an hour, so it's easier to ignore it and to just accept that level of deficiency. If I were to lower the CO2 progressively, the symptoms would change. The leaves would show black spots, then there would be more translucency and so forth. As the CO2 levels decline further, under that particular lighting level, I would start to see hair algae, then BBA as well as leaves disintegrating. Each degree of severity of CO2 deficiency causes a progressively more widespread damage. So you have to learn and understand what the plants are telling you. You should never just assume that because you are adding CO2 that it is enough. If you see BGA in the tank and you know you are dosing EI, you should never assume that the plants are getting enough NO3. You must investigate to understand WHY the NO3 uptake is poor even though you are adding EI levels of NO3. Only by adhering to the basic principles of deficiency syndrome recognition can you truly solve the root causes of the issues in your tank.




Cheers,


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Apr 2013)

Martin cape said:


> I've noticed that with my current EI recipe I'm dosing approx 22.5ppm NO3- and 10ppm PO43-. Thing I've noticed from "testing", is that my plants do not use very much at all. As, with doing 50% changes every week, the nutrients are reaching an equilibrium level. Where I'm removing (during water change) as much as I'm dosing. So the NO3- has levelled out at 45ppm, and the PO43- has levelled out at 20ppm. Is this the norm for EI?


Well I'm not even going to touch this because there is no way I will believe any test kit readings, and one of the tenets of EI is that testing is irrelevant. In any case it's a simple mathematical and physical law that has nothing to do with EI. If the production rate of NO3 from [organic NO3 production + Inorganic NO3 addition + tap water NO3 content - NO3 consumption] are all more or less consistent, and if the water change amount is consistent, then the final NO3 concentration level will approach some asymptotic value. The same is true for all other constituents of the dosing. Therefore, who cares?



Martin cape said:


> My CO2 level, in my mind is ideal..


Again, plants do not care what is in our minds. They only care about what's actually in the tank and what CO2 level actually finds it's way across all the boundaries and obstacles. If they think that CO2 is not ideal they will communicate that fact to you in no uncertain terms. If we see structural anomalies, disintegration, straggly growth, discoloration, browning and CO2 related algae then this means that CO2 is marginal to poor from their point of view. Saying to ourselves that we think CO2 is excellent is only putting our heads in the sand. Again, all plants are not created equally. Some plants like Amazon swords are highly adaptable and have a low CO2 compensation point, while others such as carpet plants evolved in different niches of the environment and therefore have a very high CO2 compensation point. If we wish to keep these plants we have to cater to their ineptitude at CO2 uptake.

Cheers,


----------



## Martin cape (5 Apr 2013)

The reason I say that in my mind its ideal, is that I cannot increase the level anymore without causes some adverse effect on the fish. It's no longer a variable in my setup. Same with lighting. Due to the size of the hood, I cannot change or lower the lighting. I am trying to find a balance to go with these 2 fixed variables.


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Apr 2013)

OK, well I reckon a better expression would be that you are CO2 limited. That term defines the condition exactly, definitely not ideal. You can get some darkened acrylic panels which would block light. Maybe think about a bigger filter or stronger/more pumps. Can't recall if you are using liquid carbon, but that would help.

Mate you actually need to trim more. You've got a mass of plants clogging up an area of marginal flow, which makes the situation worse. Also, the HC looks like it's behind some hardscape. Try moving that wood just to see the effects. Reduce mass as much as possible for now until you can solve the problem. Uproot the Amazon and trim it's roots as well as the leaves.

Less mass of plants require less CO2 and uptakes less CO2. When you have a CO2 problem, try to address these two fundamental parameters;
maximize availability and...
minimize uptake demand.

Cheers,


----------



## Martin cape (5 Apr 2013)

Hi Clive,

Had an ingenious idea regards lighting today. I basically used one of my old reflectors to block out the light from one tube to the tank. So now I only have 45w going directly to it. Can I ask, will that be enough for my plants to grow? On for 6 hours.


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Apr 2013)

Martin,
		  Another tenet is that CO2 make plants grow. More light just makes them grow faster. So naturally, the rate of growth will fall significantly. There no relationship between lighting level and plant health until PAR falls below the minimum. Without a meter it's impossible to tell what the PAR level is. I doubt that you would be close to that minimum value. The upshot is that you might be able to increase the photoperiod. Give it a try mate, your options are limited so you need to try all the tricks you can conjure up.

Cheers,


----------



## Martin cape (5 Apr 2013)

Thanks Clive. 

I can only see what happens. I like my Blyxa and I read it prefers 2+ wpg. Which I will now be under, but like you say, PAR should still be fine. Itll just grow slower. Only thing is the one bulb now on is more towards the back as opposed to the middle.

I am going to upgrade the Nano 900's to 2000's, when I get the money. Would you use the Nano's aswell? Put them under the spray bar? Or would that be too much do you think?

Thanks again pal. It's appreciated.


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Apr 2013)

Well really, the only reason someone came up with 2wpg was that that person was simply able to grow Blyxa quite well and that happened to be the wpg calculation for their particular tank. I grew Blyxa fine at 1.5wpg and at 3wpg. What does that mean? Nothing.

2wpg in one size tank produces a different PAR than 2wpg in a different size, or even different shape tank. Flow and CO2 will also be different in every tank, so publishing a "favorite" wpg values for any plant is simply fantasy. Use any wpg that grows the plant at a rate that you can accept and that doesn't generate problems. That's what the lighting instructions should say.

Whatever pump(s) you get, throw everything at this problem. If it solves the problem and produces too much commotion, then you can dial back the flow and find the right level. You can mount them under the bar. You might have to play with spacing and so forth or with minor angle adjustments.

Cheers,


----------



## Martin cape (5 Apr 2013)

Thanks again. 

Hopefully ill eventually get there. It's a balancing act to say the least. Especially with named brand aquariums. 

Custom ones with custom lighting must be easier to get the correct balance.


----------



## sciencefiction (8 Apr 2013)

> If you see BGA in the tank and you know you are dosing EI, you should never assume that the plants are getting enough NO3. You must investigate to understand WHY the NO3 uptake is poor even though you are adding EI levels of NO3.


 
Couldn't the NO3 be poor in certain cases because one has high phosphate for example, driving more NO3 demand? Hence BGA could be because of let's say high phosphate levels, along with low NO3 levels? Or that isn't possible you think?
I don't want to go into an argument or anything. And in my low tech tank when the plants melted, although I respect your opinion in theory, but I am talking about a plant that grows like weed in two other low tech tanks and I also have it in a tank dosed with ferts and liquid carbon, all sand substrate. As much as I wanted to believe it is some carbon defficiency, it didn't work out and it's been 5 months since the problem started when I changed to soil. I dosed everything I have from micro,macro to liquid carbon and it wasn't enough for the couple of survivors.
In my case, here is what became of the plants in the problem tank. These are just the last left overs from a tank that was well planted with hydrophila along with some others:





Here is another low tech tank I have with the same hydrophila growing without CO2 or ferts.





Here is a closer shot




And my betta tank, hydrophila keeps growing through the surface, no ferts or CO2, same water and water change schedule as in all low tech tanks(50% weekly)


----------



## ceg4048 (8 Apr 2013)

sciencefiction said:


> Couldn't the NO3 be poor in certain cases because one has high phosphate for example, driving more NO3 demand? Hence BGA could be because of let's say high phosphate levels, along with low NO3 levels? Or that isn't possible you think?


Hi mate,
	 Yes, this situation can happen. Nitrate uptake demand can be driven from both directions, from the CO2 side as well as from the PO4 side. In the first possibility, adding CO2 drives uptake of everything else. So if nutrients are low and you add CO2 the CO2 will expose a shortage of nutrients. Likewise, in the second possibility, if the Nitrate level is marginal, adding more PO4 can expose that fact and the plants can exhibit Nitrate deficiency symptoms. This is where the so-called "imbalance of ferts causing algae" comes from. That's a very narrow perspective because growth and health is a always a dynamic condition. Just the fact that the plant has more mass today than it did a month ago can result in a nutrient shortfall and reveal deficiencies. More mass requires more nutrition. So if we were to follow the path of the "imbalance" we would reach the absurd conclusion that growth causes deficiencies.

The thing to remember though is that there is always a range of nutrient levels that the plant can make adjustments to. It is NOT that if you violate some specific ratio, or if you add a little bit more of PO4 there will automatically be problems. You would need to be at the very bottom end of the acceptable Nitrate concentration range and then you would have to have added a significant amount of PO4 in order to drive the plant over the edge.

The reason there are no strict "speed limits" is due to the fact that plants have multiple methods of nutrient uptake. Normally there is a "Low Affinity" and "High Affinity" systems in place. When the nutrient levels are high then the Low Affinity system is in place and when the nutrient levels are low then the High Affinity systems kick in which is more aggressive and efficient at nutrient uptake. Also, some nutrient elements, especially some trace metals can be substituted for. So if there is a shortage in the target element, some other element can be used in the particular chemical reaction.

So because no one can actually measure the values with any degree of accuracy or consistency, it's very difficult for us to tell which way, for example the Nitrate uptake is being driven. Someone uses a hobby grade PO4 test kit and the levels show a false high, then it's easy to be duped into thinking high PO4 is causing problems.

The normal procedure in the EI dosing method is that when there is a noted nutrient deficiency, simply adding more of everything solves the problem.



sciencefiction said:


> I am talking about a plant that grows like weed in two other low tech tanks and I also have it in a tank dosed with ferts and liquid carbon, all sand substrate. As much as I wanted to believe it is some carbon deficiency, it didn't work out and it's been 5 months since the problem started when I changed to soil. I dosed everything I have from micro,macro to liquid carbon and it wasn't enough for the couple of survivors.


Did you by any chance take samples specimens from the tank where it was not doing well and insert into other tanks were it was doing well, or were these different points in time? We don't know the PAR level in the tanks, so it's difficult to assess, but there can be very little doubt that, unless the leaves and stems were being eaten by snails or fish, that photo shows classic CO2 starvation. Nothing else causes that kind of damage unless it's a foreign agent, such as herbicide.

What kind of lighting and how much liquid carbon were you adding when you tried to save the survivors? What kind of water change schedule? Did you try to reduce the light intensity, and if so how was it accomplished?
Sometimes, the failure has been so widespread as to damage every system in the plant, that it is almost impossible to fix.


Cheers,


----------



## sciencefiction (8 Apr 2013)

Hi ceg. Thanks very much.

In the problem tank the only variable that changed since the problem started was the soil(JBL  aquabasis plus). The plants melted in the space of 2-3 days. I didn't put a specimen from this tank to a healthy tank(didn't think of it and they got destroyed in no time), but I kept putting healthy specimens from my other tanks into this one. It's really strange beause they melted too fast.
I tried single and double dose of Easy Carbo as per the dose on the bottle(I had shrimp in it so didn't push it harder than double)
The lights were the same as always(8hrs of 2x15W T5s on a 30G tank). I tried first reducing them to 6hrs, no luck. Then I tried with one tube switched off, no luck. The water change schedule is/was the same as always 50% weekly. I didn't think of reducing that but I did increase it with no difference. Honestly, the plants acted like I did put herbicide or something. Not only the hydrophila, but I had some elocharis that melted totally and some vallis, but that may have been the liquid carbon. Only the anubias and the amazon swords survived. The anubias actually put out new leaves that look ok, so they liked the ferts and CO2 but the amazon swords seems to have stopped growing,they are kind of stunted now, not dying, not growing.  Worth mentioning that my bottom feeders developed a bacterial infection whether because of the plants melting causing spikes I couldn't detect or because of the soil, I don't know but I have corys with no barbels now.  Ammonia/nitrite remained 0 all along and Ph was the usual 7.4. The TDS went sky high after the soil addition though and it did go down after a few months so the soil did leach something into the water column. I am not even bothering anymore as I am going to take this tank apart as soon as another one is fully setup(the 5f tank with the flow setup question). I am sick of it. The plants I have just don't like it in this JBL soil for whatever reason.


----------



## ceg4048 (8 Apr 2013)

Hmmm..that's an oddball one. I don't know much about that JBL sediment, but it ought not to be much more than clay or some kind of volcanic material. Swords are normally bulletproof, so that is really strange. If you still have the swords, can you rub the leaves between your thumb and fingers just to see if there is a slimy coating? It appears that something is blocking CO2 uptake, and the only thing I can imagine, if the sediment was not contaminated with something, is that it has coated the leaves.

You can also try to doing a massive water change to expose those sword leaves to air, but instead of refilling right away, allow the leaves to dry out and curl a little, say for an hour. Then refill. If there is some unusually thick biolfilm, allowing it to dry out might help to break it up and it will give a CO2 boost to the leaves. Try doing this just at lights on or an hour after. If you can gently scrub the leaves clean with a toothbrush or even microcloth and observe whether their condition improves that would give good information.

Cheers,


----------



## sciencefiction (8 Apr 2013)

Thanks Ceg. I'll try to feel the leaves for slime. They aren't coated visually with anything that I noticed but I haven't thought checking them physically. I probably won't be able to keep the water level so low for a period of time because of the fish, and the swords are small, but I can pull them out and move them to another tank. I was going to do that anyway once I start planting the tank where all these inhabitans will be moved.
Here is how these swords look. If I can give them an age, they'd be around 8 months old, when I pulled them from a mother sword from another tank. They bushed up while on the old substrate but now they are taking a more grassy look and I cut a lot of leaves. This one on the picture below is the biggest amazon sword in this tank  I added white sand at some stage on top of the JBL stuff because of the corys barbels.


----------



## sciencefiction (8 Apr 2013)

To give a better idea of how the hidrophila used to grow in the problem tank and still grows with just water and fish poop in the other low techs, hence I was/am confused what's happening to the "melt" tank.


----------

