# EI vs PPS vs Logic?



## megladon (2 Jul 2015)

Right then, i guess there is a few questions here and im sure ive confused myself somewhat. But here goes, ive read lots about EI dosing ( which seems to be the most popular method ) also a fair bit on PPS, i can understand the differences, but the method i use is i just test the water for FE, K, NO3, PO4, KH, GH and CO2, researched some ideal \ optimum levels and worked the uptake by the plants and dosed liquid fertilizers accordingly. After testing some different brands of fertilizers found the one which seems to have the closest balance to my requirements \ uptake and dose with that. So i dont really use either method which everybody else talks about , would i have better results using either EI or PPS? I get the feeling like if it aint broke dont fix it, but does anyone else do anything similar? Or do most people just use tried and tested researched methods? It seems logical to have a consistant level of the fertilizers without having to 'overdose' and then do 50% water changes every week. I do water chages every week ( or most weeks ) just for good practise and the fact that i do have quite a number of fish as well. Thoughts \ suggestions appreciated and welcomed.


----------



## Tim Harrison (2 Jul 2015)

You're probably right and have instinctively found what works for you. So if that's the case just stick with it. 
But the idea of EI is that it negates the need to test and your plants are never nutrient deficient so you can concentrate on the more difficult conundrums of light, CO2, flow and distribution. 
That said, EI was never cast in stone and the idea is that once you get use to the unique requirements of your tank you tailor EI to suit...which, if I've understood, you've done already...in your own inimitable way. 
Check this out - especially the latter posts...you're not the first to ask this sort of question...http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/weekly-nutrient-consumption-in-planted-aquarium.34930/


----------



## xim (2 Jul 2015)

I think EI is more like an attitude toward fertilisers than the amount of them. The crux is the idea "fertilisers don't cause algae".

If you have to adjust your ferts to suit plant mass all the time because you “think” too much ferts is not good for plants and will cause algae. Then you're not doing EI. Even though your dosage happens to be exactly the same with EI.

On the other hand, if you dose half of the EI amount. Because your tank is low tech. And you think the ferts 
is more than enough, adding more is a waste. And you don't think too much ferts is bad for plants and will cause algae. Then you're still doing EI. Even though your dosage is half the amount the EI method suggests.

Personally, I had played with EI for the first few years, then turned toward test kits and adjusted my ferts because of algae problem. From (calibrated) test kits I learned that my tank's uptake for various nutrients were in the ball park of EI except PO4 which always worsened algae problem when presented in excess. You can blame it on CO2. But I just limit the PO4 (just enough to keep GSA at bay) and I'm fine.


----------



## megladon (2 Jul 2015)

Thanks for that link troi, thats a really detailed look its what is really required and helped answer a few questions, nice one


----------



## Tim Harrison (2 Jul 2015)

Watch your plants...they will tell you what's amiss better than test kits can...but then again I guess its a skill that maybe can or can not be learnt. So much in dealing with nature is intuitive...green fingers etc...


----------



## megladon (2 Jul 2015)

Good point xim, especially about the phosphate, another consideration coming from fish stocking levels, as all feeds have phosphate for bone development (i think ), lots of fish= lots of food = more po4 without dosing


----------



## parotet (3 Jul 2015)

It looks like this is going to be another of those very long threads 



xim said:


> I think EI is more like an attitude toward fertilisers than the amount of them. The crux is the idea "fertilisers don't cause algae".


Which is not what a lot of water biologists/ecologists I have asked think... IMO a healthy tank is very resilient to high fertilizer dosing, transforming all the nutrients in biomass, but for this it has to be a really stable/mature/high biomass tank (which entails a lot of things more: good co2, good o2, microbes, balanced light, etc.)



xim said:


> But I just limit the PO4 (just enough to keep GSA at bay) and I'm fine.


That's basically what I do BUT I always rely on enriched substrates. IME adding K, micros and occasionally an lean NP solution when plants need them is more than enough. Adding loads of NP in my tanks lead to a "never enough CO2" situation and BBA problems. I have very low fish stock in my tanks, sometimes like now no fish at all, just shrimps.



megladon said:


> So i dont really use either method which everybody else talks about


I went from EI to PPS to... not really sure what, a standard fert routine that works for me which is close to PPS but not always.



Troi said:


> Watch your plants...they will tell you what's amiss better than test kits can...


Exactly. It sounds confusing when you are a new to the hobby. You struggle to grow plants and someone tells you "you have to read your plants little grasshopper", frustrating but it is honestly the truth. It takes some time but it is the way to go. I also tried some test kits (from Merck, so higher grade compared to the ones you get in the LFS) but even once calibrated the results were not telling me that much. What if your water has between 10 and 20 ppm of nitrates? Is it enough or not? When do I measure? What I am measuring?

TDS is now the only think I care about following Darrel's advice on this forum. I realized that low-medium TDS makes my life easier than high TDS (1000+ Microsiemens). I try to keep TDS around 400. Could go lower but I don't have fancy shrimps or soft water fish, and I have very hard tap water so I have to carry a lot more of rainwater butts if I try to go lower. It's my balance.

Jordi


----------



## Jose (3 Jul 2015)

megladon said:


> but the method i use is i just test the water for FE, K, NO3, PO4, KH, GH and CO2, researched some ideal \ optimum levels and worked the uptake by the plants and dosed liquid fertilizers accordingly.


Nutrients are near impossible to measure with with hobbyist test kits. You are going to be better off without testing as a general rule of thumb except for co2 and maybe pH, kH, conductivity etc.



megladon said:


> After testing some different brands of fertilizers found the one which seems to have the closest balance to my requirements \ uptake and dose with that.


That is good enough. But if youre going to keep a really high tech tank this probably wont work because everything is going to go faster. It might be fine in a low tech setup because you have more time to take decisions.



megladon said:


> So i dont really use either method which everybody else talks about , would i have better results using either EI or PPS?


What do you consider "results"? healthy plant growth?. Well then youll get the best results with whichever method is not limitting nutrients too much for the light and co2 that you have in the tank. EI is non limitting most probably for you. There is a chance that pps pro might also be if light is not too high, and co2 isnt great either. Maybe your dosing/method is already non limitting. Its not about the method but about supplying enough ferts for your plants. I think there are basically two methods. 1) The one that doesnt limit anything too much so plants grow at the maximum speed (approx). 2) The ones that limit some nutrients like P. This last methods slow everything down and CO2 demand is also lower so you need to inject less of it.



megladon said:


> I get the feeling like if it aint broke dont fix it, but does anyone else do anything similar?


This depends on if youre happy with your plant growth or not. If youre not, then try something else.



megladon said:


> Or do most people just use tried and tested researched methods?


I think its wise to do so specially at the beginning of the learning curve.



megladon said:


> It seems logical to have a consistant level of the fertilizers without having to 'overdose' and then do 50% water changes every week.


50% w.c a week is not done to keep nutrients in check. Its intended to keep the tank clea. You need to do more water changes the faster your plants grow just because they make your tank dirty with organics.


----------



## dw1305 (3 Jul 2015)

Hi all, 





parotet said:


> I also tried some test kits (from Merck, so higher grade compared to the ones you get in the LFS) but even once calibrated the results were not telling me that much. What if your water has between 10 and 20 ppm of nitrates? Is it enough or not? When do I measure? What I am measuring?


 That is the problem, water testing is much more problematic than is implied by the sellers of most test kits and meters. Have a look at these threads <"Accurate method of measuring....."> &  <"Mg + K +Fe....">.





Troi said:


> Watch your plants...they will tell you what's amiss better than test kits can





parotet said:


> TDS is now the only think I care about following Darrel's advice on this forum. I realized that low-medium TDS makes my life easier than high TDS (1000+ Microsiemens). I try to keep TDS around 400. ..... It's my balance.


 I combined these approaches, mainly to try and do away with the need for testing.  

The only test kit, or meter, that I could find that worked over a whole range of scenarios, gave accurate and consistent results, and that was really a "dip and read" test, was electrical conductivity. It isn't the measure you would choose, but it was the only one that fulfilled all the criteria.

It would be nice to have a reasonably priced dip meter that could quantify the health and nutrient status of your tank. My suspicion would be that eventually some-one will develop one (probably for marine usage and as a spin off from commercial aquaculture), but I'm not holding my breath.

If you have a look through the forum for the <"Duckweed Index">, it is a KISS solution to  tank management. It doesn't have any "_bells and whistles_", and you can't grew the full range of plants, but it gives you stability.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Zak Rafik (6 Jul 2015)

xim said:


> I think EI is more like an attitude toward fertilisers than the amount of them. The crux is the idea "fertilisers don't cause algae".
> If you have to adjust your ferts to suit plant mass all the time because you “think” too much ferts is not good for plants and will cause algae. Then you're not doing EI. Even though your dosage happens to be exactly the same with EI.
> On the other hand, if you dose half of the EI amount. Because your tank is low tech. And you think the ferts
> is more than enough, adding more is a waste. And you don't think too much ferts is bad for plants and will cause algae. Then you're still doing EI. Even though your dosage is half the amount the EI method suggests.
> Personally, I had played with EI for the first few years, then turned toward test kits and adjusted my ferts because of algae problem. From (calibrated) test kits I learned that my tank's uptake for various nutrients were in the ball park of EI except PO4 which always worsened algae problem when presented in excess. You can blame it on CO2. But I just limit the PO4 (just enough to keep GSA at bay) and I'm fine.



Hi
I just want to know if GSA is always due to lack of PO4? Are there any other factors to take into consideration?


----------



## xim (6 Jul 2015)

Zak Rafik said:


> Hi
> I just want to know if GSA is always due to lack of PO4? Are there any other factors to take into consideration?



I'm not sure. But Tom Barr had said another one is not enough CO2.


----------



## Zak Rafik (7 Jul 2015)

xim said:


> not enough CO2.




There we go again. Not enough Co2.


----------

