# Good EI discussion (split from Paul's 200L journal)



## Graeme Edwards

paul.in.kendal said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the resulting ammonia spike and sudden reduction in plant mass has clearly upset the tank's balance, and I'm now awash with BBA and other algae, and plants have gone into decline - the collapse of the frogbit is fascinatingly horrible.
> 
> So - I've learned yet more from my 'learning' tank, and I'm now thinking about how to re-scape.  If you can advise, perhaps you'll look at my post on 'How to re-scape' in the  General Discussion thread.
> 
> I'll post some pictures of the mess in a while.



Yep, this, along perhaps with the Co2 issue you had will have done it. 
In hindsight, what you would of been better doing, is doing a few extra water changes and cutting your ferts down until things grew in again. 
This is where in my opinion ( controversial im sure ) EI does fall down. ( I dont know if your dosing EI or not,but im guessing you ).
In future, if things start looking grey and iffy, check everything and do more water changes until you know what is going on.

Cheers


----------



## ceg4048

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*

 


I'm not going here at all....I simply refuse.

Cheers,


----------



## Graeme Edwards

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*

 
Go on clive, better out than in.


----------



## paul.in.kendal

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*

Clive! Please, please jump in! You can't offend me (I'm the newbie with bugger-all experience), and if it's Graeme you'll be taking issue with, I''m sure he can cope with a (cough) 'difference of opinion'.   

Cheers for the sound advice Graeme. I'll be following it - unless anyone else cares to suggest an alternative course of action!


----------



## ceg4048

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*



			
				paul.in.kendal said:
			
		

> Clive! Please, please jump in! You can't offend me (I'm the newbie with bugger-all experience), and if it's Graeme you'll be taking issue with, I''m sure he can cope with a (cough) 'difference of opinion'.
> 
> Cheers for the sound advice Graeme. I'll be following it - unless anyone else cares to suggest an alternative course of action!


Hey Paul,
  I reckon there is one fundamental error you made after you returned from vacation; you turned the lights back up. You should have just turned the CO2 and nutrients up, fattened the plants up and then slowly introduced more light.

The problem is that the plants adjusted to the low light/low CO2 by lowering their light gathering ability. They had also started using their energy reserves as well as pulling nutrients from the sediment. By the time you got back they would have been low on energy reserves. Turning the lights up drains them further of those reserves because they are unable to use the extra CO2 for at least a few weeks. It takes that amount of time to generate Rubisco increase.

So energy production demand increased (due to higher light) but energy production did not (because Carbon fixation apparatus was stuck in low gear.) Since they were already low on reserves, you basically emptied the tank by turning the lights up.

This is a classic failure that happens to many nutrient haters at tank startup. They put in new plants that have been grown emmersed. Emmersed plants have a pretty good energy reserve built up. The tank is flooded, the plants are pummeled with light and the hobbyist decides that no nutrients will be added. This is fine if a nutritious substrate is used, but often it isn't. The plants grow fine for weeks but then they start to fail. The nutrient hater then immediately blames NO3 for his/her problem. The real problem is that the nutrient and energy reserves are spent. With poor nutrient uptake and under high light, the plants economy crumbles.

Now, apart from the obvious CO2 related algae, what algal forms do you see in those images? Is there BGA? Well, do you really think that a post blackout NO3 restriction will solve that problem? You know what causes BGA, so why on Earth should you only dose traces, which the plant needs very little of and not dose NO3, which the plant needs a lot of? Do you also see the GSA? What causes GSA? Do you really think that restricting PO4 will solve that problem?

I agree with Graeme that you ought to start with a blackout and massive water change, but our opinions diverge drastically for the post blackout procedures. This is a nutrition failure due to poor uptake as a result of the inability to adapt quickly enough to an acute spectral change. That was your fault, not EI's fault.

Dosing programs do not fall down, whether  ADA, PMDD+PO4, TPN, EI, PPS, whatever. They are all valid. It is the poor implementation of the dosing principles that causes _the hobbyist_ to fall down.

As far as I can tell from looking at the progress within the 17 pages, you started the tank using the ADA procedure and then switched to EI, at which point you saw the most improvement in your tank until your departure. Is that right? I can't quite tell, but I believe that there was a change to the spectral energy input (from fluorescent lighting to MH?) which cause problems, undoubtedly because you were unable to compensate the CO2 delivery for the energy increase.

At the end of the day, this is the same old story. Too much light, poorly compensated for by adequate delivery of nutrients CO2. I see this every day. Yours is simply a different flavor, but the physiology of the failure is the same. Oh, but now, EI must be evicted, because it surely must have been the cause of the falling down, even though it saved you 10 pages ago. Tsk. tsk, tsk, what an ungrateful so and so.... 

My suggestions are that you dose NPK but delete CO2 while you are doing the blackout. Passive uptake of nutrients will occur in the plants during the darkness but the algae will fail due to the darkness because light causes algae.

Post blackout, continue EI dosing, as high a CO2 as the fish can handle + Excel. Keep the lighting levels low. It will take a few weeks for the Rubisco synthesis to build enough of the protein to be useful at CO2 uptake (then you'll see real improvement.) During this time 2X to 3X massive water changes per week will help. So will a lot of elbow grease - physical removal is necessary. high nutrient and high CO2 levels will encourage new growth far more than nutrient restriction.

I've never seen the logic in withholding nutrients. I don't care if the algae grow faster in the beginning due to high nutrient levels. This will happen. But your focus needs to be on getting plants healthy, not killing algae. This is fundamental principle that all EI haters have difficulty coming to grips with. EI is concerned with maximizing plant health. EI is never about killing algae. When I look at those photos I see unhealthy plants.

When you maximize your plants' health the algae will automatically go away, so there is no point trying to starve algae out of existence because you couldn't do it even if you tried. And if you try to do it you will hurt the plants more than you will hurt the algae because plants need 1000X more nutrients than algae do. Unhealthy plants have ruptured cell membranes which eject what nutrients they have into the water column, so it doesn't matter to the algae if you restrict nutrient dosing, they are already sitting at the banquet table munching on the plant. That's why they attach themselves to the plant. The longer you restrict nutrients, the longer the plants suffer, and the longer the algae can feed off of damaged plant structure.

In my view, it's much better to take the early hit of faster algal growth in high nutrient water. That's what the high water changes and scrubbing helps to mitigate. It's more annoying, sure, but ultimately, more successful, because we are all about plants, and plants need food.

Cheers,


----------



## Anonymous

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*

I have to agree with Ceg that all of the problems we have with our tanks are due to our laziness . Good advice, you can post it and stick it as an article .


----------



## Graeme Edwards

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*

Thats the most rounded and honest post you have written about EI that I have seen, Clive.
Nice one.

Normally people who love EI dont talk about the algae, or the pitfalls, because there are, you mention them your self. ( scrubbing, 3x water changes etc...... thats the first time ive heard some one talking about EI in that way...... )

My interpretation of EI from what I read, not what I have done, ill be honest, is loads of light, loads of ferts and a big water change. Well I know, and I know you know, its not as basic as that. And that is why I have had to deal with many people trying to get EI right. Because EI to the nubie or the non ppm/science waffle waffle,  minded people is not black and white like some science, techie peeps see it. 

That post, to me, finally admits that EI is still a case of balance and its not about throwing everything you have at the plants all the time from the day dot. Come on, its not that simple.....

Nice post Clive.


----------



## ceg4048

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*



			
				Graeme Edwards said:
			
		

> Thats the most rounded and honest post you have written about EI that I have seen, Clive.
> Nice one.
> 
> Normally people who love EI dont talk about the algae, or the pitfalls, because there are, you mention them your self. ( scrubbing, 3x water changes etc...... thats the first time ive heard some one talking about EI in that way...... )
> 
> My interpretation of EI from what I read, not what I have done, ill be honest, is loads of light, loads of ferts and a big water change. Well I know, and I know you know, its not as basic as that. And that is why I have had to deal with many people trying to get EI right. Because EI to the nubie or the non ppm/science waffle waffle,  minded people is not black and white like some science, techie peeps see it.
> 
> That post, to me, finally admits that EI is still a case of balance and its not about throwing everything you have at the plants all the time from the day dot. Come on, its not that simple.....
> 
> Nice post Clive.


Thanks mate. It's no secret that a high tech planted tank takes a lot of work. That's why some people decide to try low tech, to fit in with their busy lifestyle. Barr had never implied that his dosing technique made growing plants easy all by itself. What he said was that the technique made the dosing regime easier and cheaper. It's easy because you just add a couple of powders with no need for testing. At the time, he developed these dosing principles people were manically trying to control nutrients with testing, restrictions and all sorts of harebrained schemes. Since most people now are new to this hobby they do not have the sense of history and they therefore cannot have the proper perspective or the proper context. Dosing regimes in the 1990's was a very complicated affair. All one has to do is to read the posts on The Krib to get an idea of where we were in those days.

You still need to pay attention to the other things associated with plant keeping. You can still get algae if you don't pay attention to the other aspects of plant husbandry. This was never in question, and algae is only one type of failure mode - other things can go wrong that have nothing to do with either nutrients or dosing regime. But people become fixated on nutrients. 

The Matrix tells our brains that nutrients cause algae, so it seems everyone is born with an ingrained fear of nutrients. That's why many of the posts you read seem to ignore all the other aspects of plant husbandry, because things have descended into a battle between nutrient haters versus nutrient lovers.

Lost in the heat of battle are the fundamental truths, which blinds us from being able to isolate faults that develop in our tank systems. Learning how to grow plants means understanding how to differentiate between dosing issues, flow issues, lighting issues, CO2 issues, maintenance issues and so forth. Inattention to these other areas can cause plant health failure regardless of the dosing program.

Cheers,


----------



## Graeme Edwards

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*

Dam strait brother, I'm with ya! 

Another great post. There needs to be more layman style dosing article.


----------



## paul.in.kendal

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*

Clive, I'm once again totally gobsmacked by the amount of time and effort you are prepared to spend helping people like me with the hobby. After reflecting on your post, I was stunned by how accurately you diagnosed the errors I made that led to the current soggy mess I'm in.  I'm certain you're right that what I've got is the  result of poor application of EI, a heavy-handed approach to adjusting light levels and a complete ignorance of the need to beef up plant vigour and SLOWLY increase light levels after the holiday-time reduction.

What I find intriguing is that, once I'd arrived at a stable balance of light/nutrients/plant-mass/flow, it all seemed easy.  Yet that balance was actually on a knife edge, and as soon as I slipped off it I was punished severely.  

I've now got to decide whether to try to resurrect the existing aquascape, which will be fascinating, or create a totally new scape, but using the existing hardscape - which will also be fascinating.  As a terrestrial gardener I always consider plants to be cheap for the amount of joy they bring, so I'm leaning towards a new planting scheme, just to see how different it looks, and whether the same hardscape can support a wildly different planting scheme. Moss and stems only, anyone? 

Don't you just LOVE UKAPS?


----------



## George Farmer

Great dialogue here, guys.  

I've split the relevant posts from Paul's journal and pinned them here in the Aquarium Fert Dosing sub-forum for everyone's benefit.


----------



## CeeJay

paul.in.kendal said:
			
		

> Don't you just LOVE UKAPS?


Yes we do   
But one thing I have learnt round here is not to fear nutrients.
I now treat nutrients as a one of the tools in my armoury to actually prevent the onset of algae (if my plants are healthy), not cause it. We just need to make sure we have enough to keep the plants in tip top shape.
One things for sure, all of my tanks are never short of nutrients these days.
If I do have any grief these days, I can certainly rule out nutrients as the problem and concentrate on my CO2 delivery and lighting levels.
Seems to work for me   

BTW great thread guys


----------



## plantbrain

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*



			
				Graeme Edwards said:
			
		

> Thats the most rounded and honest post you have written about EI that I have seen, Clive.
> Nice one.
> 
> Normally people who love EI dont talk about the algae, or the pitfalls, because there are, you mention them your self. ( scrubbing, 3x water changes etc...... thats the first time ive heard some one talking about EI in that way...... )
> 
> My interpretation of EI from what I read, not what I have done, ill be honest, is loads of light, loads of ferts and a big water change. Well I know, and I know you know, its not as basic as that. And that is why I have had to deal with many people trying to get EI right. Because EI to the nubie or the non ppm/science waffle waffle,  minded people is not black and white like some science, techie peeps see it.
> 
> That post, to me, finally admits that EI is still a case of balance and its not about throwing everything you have at the plants all the time from the day dot. Come on, its not that simple.....
> 
> Nice post Clive.



I talk about algae, but generally in the context what we know does *not* cause it.

This person did a few thing, none of which address nutrient specifically.
There was no replacement series test done here, so you cannot conclude that one thign specifically caused the algae.

Removing this much plant biomass alone, regardless of the dosing can lead to algae.

I did it recently when I hacked the Starougyne way back. Dosing was the same, but....algae appeared. If I trimmed less % of plant biomass no algae.

In both cases the algae has the same access to nutrients. So that was not it.
Would doing a large water change and then not adding ferts back prevent this algae bloom?
Plenty of folks do not dose much and also get algae  

Each dosing method also have good examples where they no algae, also good examples where there is a lot of algae, every method. This suggest that dosing itself is not the only cause/issue. There must be other factors both direct and indirect potentially.

Removal of biomass is one, but I've also done large removals without algae too.
Still, the % chance of algae goes down as the % biomass goes up in any aquarium, I think this is a good general observation we could suggest is a rule of green thumb/generalization that is safe to make.

CO2 is also addressed poorly, even myself and Amano admit this. He's killed tanks full of fish more than once. Ask him if you do not believe me. We are both aware of it a bit more than most, CO2 is much harder to rule out.
I have another tank where I removed the same amount, no algae. Depends on the plant species in question also.

However, can we say it's really about balancing JUST the dosing/nutrients?
I think not, nor is this a wise thing to do, focus solely on one element to suggest dosing is the root of algae.
the observations I've seen simply do not support that conclusion, even a little bit, and I've done enough test on many tanks of various sizes to have a good  safe set of data to draw from.

You can say what it is not, but rarely can you say what it is that causes algae. Many are tempted to conclude much more than they really can with algae and nutrients. This leaves you wide open to make mistakes and errors in the assumptions. You have to test and see if you can falsify your claims. Even that does not guarantee you did not make a mistake in the experimental set up.

I have falsified many hypothesis I've made about algae.
So have others.

I have to let them go and see why I made those mistakes. Often it is things like I had a lot more light than the person who showed it was false, maybe my CO2 was a tad off? It's only when I get no response, no algae etc, that I can really say I falsified it. Another aquarist may never get to that point however. So they will not believe it.

They will look for other causes, and often nutrients are insanely popular left with few options in their own minds.
Nutrients do have indirect effects on CO2 and light use efficacy. So if you moderately limit PO4 say, you can reduce the CO2 deamnd indiretcly. the CO2 is now non limiting, but was slightly limiting prior when you had good PO4.

This effect leads many to believe nutrients play a role in algae reduction, and entirely overlook the real issue: CO2. In one case, the CO2 was limiting, but switched to a PO4 limiting, which does not induce much algae, other than say some GSA. 

Liebig's law applies strongly with aquatic plants, but also with CO2(and should be included with any limitation model) and light since we add these and they can limiting and changes the rates of growth dramatically.

EI is simple: it provides non limiting nutrients.
Like modified Hoagland's solution for hydroponics testing.
Unlike terrestrial plants, CO2 is also highly limiting in submersed aquatic plants.

So it must be included.

Next is light, which also must be included for management of rates of growth. This is very different than the sun outside, we can change the PAR a great deal tank to tank. This in turn, affects the CO2/nutrients. 
I view this issue holistically, not just with nutrients in mind, but whole the entire plant grows. There's more to each also and more subjects like plant species and % biomass, current etc........CO2 is complex in and of itself, more than I ever thought.

Still, Ole, Troels and Claus hit the nail on the head with their conclusion and they used a non limiting, thus independent(no interactions due to nutrients)m nutrient levels for the study, this way they could look at CO2 and light without confounding factors.

This allows them to make much more clear conclusions.

http://www.tropica.com/advising/technic ... light.aspx

We spoke a couple of years ago along with Karen Randall after a meeting. I took them to see the Redwoods and the coast etc, good food etc. We spoke maybe 4-5 min on plants, that was it. 

Can any of you guess what we discussed?

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

I think the newbies coming in need to focus 1st, on their goal, then the best light to get there(less is better, add just enough light, not excessive, wasteful overloading), then CO2 or not.........then nutrients, and have a sediment rich version as part of the routine.

Most are privy to water changes, so that's a lot of issues out of the problem of dosing, sediment ferts helps reduce any under dosing errors. So EI is not even all of it for dosing, I include sediment ferts along with EI.

I also provide a simple method to start high(EI), then slow and progressively reduce the dosing till you note a negative plant response. then bump it back up to the last dosing level from there.

Now you can reduce water changes(or not) as your tank has "just enough".
This is modified minimal EI. It's easy to do if you are patient.

If you start low, say PPS/PMDD ranges, and happen to have high light, med etc........then the plants are already nutrient starved, you do not know quite what to look for in the plant health, the recovery from nutrient stress can last weeks or more.

Best to start with a fat cow and lean it down, than sickly ill cow and try to fatten her up.  
Easy to do.

I also believe strongly in helping the person step by step personally.
There's no substitute for live on the fly help vs some cook book recipe.

You need folks who can see the 1001 ways to mess something up.
New folks make mistakes. We are there to help them. No method article is going to help 100% of the newbies.
Non CO2 would come as close as any I think though.

Why? Less growth, o CO2, low light, min nutrient demands.

No secret.

Still wanna know what Ole and I discussed??

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## chrisfraser05

Enlightening stuff, keep it coming guys


----------



## Graeme Edwards

Brilliant. Another leader of EI admitting, its not flawless. Thank you...

I have never done the dry ferts thing when dosing tanks, yet, I still to some extent do EI, its a method, not a fertiliser.

What has been said is interesting, and im pleased to read it. 

EI has this reputation of gun hoe, let um'have'it, give them everything you have from the day you wet the scape, type of attitude. Which I dont agree with.
It is said above, that when pruning, cutting the plant bimass down can result in algae, yet the vibe from the EI articles, is that this shouldnt change anything, yet it does. It effects nutrient uptake within the scape. You keep that level or fertilising and change nothing... what do you get? The result depends on how much you cut out. 

I think the best way to approach growing plants is holistic. Why throw more than you need to at them? Ok, dry ferts are cheap, so what, save your self more money. 

I just feel that when people are advocating or pushing EI they generally fail to talk about *ballance*.
Yes, give the plants food, give them as much as you can, more even if it will handle it. But this has to be ballance with rate of growth, lighting,flow, filtration, fish levels etc. Its not black white like the EI article suggest.

You know. All of the above post suggest that even if you have the right amount of light, great Co2, good substrate etc etc, you can stil get algae when over dosing your tank...... but hang on, is that not the selling point of EI.... ? A planted tank with no algae? Give it to them, and enjoy!?!? Come on....

I feel that if you dont have the green fingers and are new to the hobby, the pushing of EI without explaining in laymens terms, will and does get hobbiest is a sticky spot with algae. It happens.

Instead of talking about ppm this and lumins that, oh PAR, etc, we should be taching *balance*. We should be finding ways of teaching them to look for the signs. Getting a feel for what the plants want, looking for small subtleties. We need to make it easy for new people to *get it right* not blindside them with techno babble that no matter what background, it can still go over peoples heads. Im fighting the corner of the nubes here. I know how to grow plants, I know when things dont look right and what to do, and my approach works, and it works for the people I have taught during my work in a specialist aquascpaing outlet. When people come in so green to the hobby you think your wasting your time, and yet several months down the line, after talking to them, guiding them as they go, in my way of doing things, its an achievement when they have had no algae the whole time. An thats not specifically doing EI. This is growing plants by observation and basic planning. This is what we need to teach people.

My method of fertilising a tank is im sure, frustrating to EI fans. Shall I divulge? 

Ok.This is based on moderate light/high with ADA or similar substrate. Good filtration/co2 etc. Thus usual targets shall we say. This is the easy bit for any one to get their head around. Its the dosing people get worried.Also, its worth mentioning that I cycle the sacpe with out plants to get past any ammonia stage, its once the ammonia has gone, do I plant up and tern lights on etc.

1st week, dose K and continue for the whole duration if you wish. Some people may not need to depending on their water.
1st week onwards, dose easycarbo, dosing double,maybe tripple if needed be. Continue for the life of the scape if you wish, but at least for several weeks, up to the two months mark
Then at 2-3 weeks, start dosing trace or more commonly to me TPN. This has to be accessed by plant mass and tank volume. But generally start with the recommendation on the bottle. This is for the first 2 months. You can add TPN plus early if you have a serious amount of plant growth or lots a fast growers. This again, is done by feel and accessing plant mass, plant species and all the usual equipments suspects.
After the 2 months mark, you should have sufficient biomass and growth to be able to throw almost any amount of fertilisers you wish. Given that all other permitters of OK.

I have always mentioned that if you do any pruning you must drop your dosing down.And this, again is trying to teach balance. So, trying to visualise how much growth has gone from the tank. Trying to get them to see cut ends of a plant as using that as a way of saying, they are no longer needing the same amount of fertiliser. When buts start showing, then, start upping your dosing, taking your time and watching the plant mass, increasing as you go.

Balance. EI needs to be including the search for balance in my opinion. 

I cant compete with science heads, its just not me, so I find a way that makes sense to me and those who ask my advice. I have to teach, and like all good teachers, they find the best way of saying the key points and an easy and digestible form. Ego can often get in the way with this hobby and I dont like that. We all love plants so we should be making people feel confident about having a go, selling it to them in plain english. This is why we started UKaps, to sell and teach the hobby.

My thoughts on the matter.
Cheers.


----------



## Fred Dulley

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> I did it recently when I hacked the Starougyne way back. Dosing was the same, but....algae appeared. If I trimmed less % of plant biomass no algae.
> 
> In both cases the algae has the same access to nutrients. So that was not it.
> Would doing a large water change and then not adding ferts back prevent this algae bloom?



Surely that's down to ammonia. A high% of plant biomass has gone and therefore there is a reduced rate of ammonia absorbtion in the tank. If ammonia isn't being utlized as quickly as before (by plants and filter) then the algae spores have more of a chance to use it.



			
				Graeme Edwards said:
			
		

> It effects nutrient uptake within the scape. You keep that level or fertilising and change nothing... what do you get? The result depends on how much you cut out. .



If by nutrients you mean ammonia, then I agree. Cut away a large proportion of plants and the ammonia that used to be taken care of by the plants is more widely up for grabs right?



			
				Graeme Edwards said:
			
		

> I think the best way to approach growing plants is holistic. Why throw more than you need to at them? Ok, dry ferts are cheap, so what, save your self more money. .



To ensure that the plants really do have enough and why not, it's cheap and nutrients don't hurt.



			
				Graeme Edwards said:
			
		

> I just feel that when people are advocating or pushing EI they generally fail to talk about *ballance*.
> Yes, give the plants food, give them as much as you can, more even if it will handle it. But this has to be ballance with rate of growth, lighting,flow, filtration, fish levels etc. Its not black white like the EI article suggest..



So many factors to consider, coming up with "the ideal amount" of nutrients is very tricky if not impossible. This is where EI is so easy because it gives us a rough amount of nutrients that you should dose. I'm not a fan of this "balance", as everything starts getting trickey then and folks can misinterpret balance and try achieve perfect ratios (there are none).



			
				Graeme Edwards said:
			
		

> You know. All of the above post suggest that even if you have the right amount of light, great Co2, good substrate etc etc, you can stil get algae when over dosing your tank...... but hang on, is that not the selling point of EI.... ? A planted tank with no algae? Give it to them, and enjoy!?!? Come on.....



We'll never completely starve out algae, we'll never completely get rid of evey algae spore and we'll never get true "0" ammonia, cant be done.


----------



## JamesM

Well for me, EI has always been about good light/co2/fert balance, regular maintenance, and great plant health. I don't recall anyone saying EI was flawless.


----------



## Graeme Edwards

JamesM said:
			
		

> Well for me, EI has always been about good light/co2/fert balance,



*Balance*, there it is....


----------



## JamesM

Graeme Edwards said:
			
		

> JamesM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well for me, EI has always been about good light/co2/fert balance,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Balance*, there it is....
Click to expand...


I fail to see the point though G... AFAIK, no one has ever said anything different


----------



## JamesM

Just to correct myself about the 'balance' - its more about the balance of light and co2. Ferts make no difference. I've double dosed EI from day 1 and not had issues. The problems arise when nutrients are simply too low.


----------



## Fred Dulley

JamesM said:
			
		

> Just to correct myself about the 'balance' - its more about the balance of light and co2. Ferts make no difference. I've double dosed EI from day 1 and not had issues. The problems arise when nutrients are simply too low.



Agreed.


----------



## El Duderino

I am totally new to the plant keeping side of this hobby and so far my understanding of EI is to load up on the ferts to the point of excess, then to do a water change at the end of the week to reduce that excess and start again the next week.  That to me is not keeping a balance.  It may be good for the plants and ensure that they never run short of nutrients but its not really a balance.  Balanced would be having just enough nutrients to see the plants through the week and not having to do a water change.

I could be totally wrong in my understanding and to be honest I am struggling to get my head round a lot of what I have read on here.  Rather than ask ridiculous questions that have been asked many times before, I keep on reading. I think I am getting there.  I have gone low tech with my tank until I get a better understanding of what is going on.


----------



## ceg4048

El Duderino said:
			
		

> ...EI is to load up on the ferts to the point of excess, then to do a water change at the end of the week to reduce that excess and start again the next week. That to me is not keeping a balance...


This is what a lot of people assume and it's based on a superficial perspective. This often occurs because most can't quite interpret the function and purpose of the dry salts in the same terms as what's on our dinner plate. I mean, do you have a dog or a cat? Do you feed them? Is there a relationship between the amount of food your dog eats and his health? If you have fish in the tank then I'm pretty sure you feed them too. Would it ever occur to you that you should starve your fish of nutrients? As an example, what are you feeding your fish when the label on the food says "high protein"? What is a protein and why does it matter if it's high? Well, proteins are constructed of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen - the very same stuff that's contained in the dry salts. Proteins have these elements arranged in certain patterns that enable them to perform functions. The dry salts are therefore the building blocks by which plants can fabricate proteins so that your fish, cat, dog, and even you can have access to.

The second part is this; If you feed your fish a lot, do they produce a lot of urine and poop? The answer is yes. Well, feeding plants a lot means that they produce a lot of waste that is neither healthy for them or for the fish. So the water change is to rid the tank of waste, not to rid the tank of excess nutrients. The principles of EI allows you to modulate the nutrient loading. You are not forced to use the standard numbers. You can use lower dosing numbers that approach zero dosing, however, as most agree, their must be a good reason, such as low light, low CO2, high tap nutrient content and so forth to justify the lower numbers, otherwise you risk malnutrition. When the nutrient loading is lowered, the organic waste production is also lowered and therefore the need to change a lot of water is lowered. So EI is not about "excess". It's about dosing as required for best health. Under extreme environmental conditions such, as super high lighting and super high CO2, you need super high nutrient levels. Under medium conditions the dosing is medium and under low conditions the dosing is low.

Everyone talks about this word "balance", yet few really have a sense of it. They'll have high lighting, poor flow, poor CO2. This combination triggers a bloom, regardless of what they are dosing. There is generally poor understanding of CO2. This has absolutely nothing to do with EI.

The more nutrients you feed your vegetables the stronger they grow and the better they are for you. Why is that such a crime?
This dosing system is based on two facts:
1. That more nutrition grows healthier plants.
2. That nutrients in the tank are not a causal factor for algae.

Time and time again we have demonstrated these facts in our tanks. We couldn't possibly get away with what we are doing if either or both of these statements were false.
Now lets look at the other side of the story:
1. If algal blooms are present in the tank a rich nutrient level accelerates the blooms.
2. Applying high nutrient levels can never cure algae that is related to poor CO2.

What these two statements tell us is that although nutrients are not a causal factor in our tanks their presence in the water column can exacerbate the situation. Now, lean dosers often argue that because these statements are true, then it makes sense to get rid of the nutrients in the water column to cure your algae. But this is a trap. Since nutrients cannot cause algae to appear, then getting rid of nutrients cannot cause the algae to go away. That will slow the bloom but not rid the tank of it. That brings up the fundamental truths:
1. One must address the fundamental cause that triggered the bloom.
2. If nutrient levels are completely withdrawn this increases the risk on unhealthy plants, which can trigger other forms of algae related to poor plant health.

In order to achieve this so-called balance, it's necessary to understand the effects of the various parameters we impose on the tank. Light, CO2, maintenance, flow/distribution and so forth. Nutrient dosing is only a part of the picture and even if there were no EI you'd still have to pay attention to these details.


Cheers,


----------



## chris1004

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> 1. If algal blooms are present in the tank a rich nutrient level accelerates the blooms.
> 
> Cheers,



Hi all,

I was that newbie you guys have been  been discussing 18 months ago and this single statement whilst the others are all undoubtedly true is the one which IMO should be hammered home time and again to anyone attempting EI for the first time. 

In my mind its manifested itself as the biggest downfall of the EI method, because having unlimited ferts high co2 and limiting the light is so efficient at growing stuff it also benefits the algae once its triggered to such an extent that if your not 100% on top of your game you'll be over run in no time at all. After all isn't algae just another form, albeit a lower form, of plant life? and doesn't EI dosing give us ideal conditions for rapid plant life growth?

But the alternative methods of limiting ferts risk plant health and causing the exact same problem but from the other end so to speak by triggering algae spores to bloom when you get it wrong because of decaying plant matter producing ammonia.

So in summary no method is flawles and if we falter algae is with us whether we like it or not no matter what method of fert dosing we choose.

IMO we should all no matter what fert regime, lighting setup or amount of co2 used be pummeling away at the newbie about the control of AMMONIA.

This is the common enemy of all of us and the least understood by the newbie in its relevance to planted tanks .at least IMO.

Regards, Chris.


----------



## El Duderino

As I have said before, I am new to the plant keeping side of things.  It never occurred to me that plants would produce waste, now that it has been mentioned it seems perfectly reasonable that if you put something in then you should be getting something out.  

There are an awful lot of big gaps in my knowledge and I am really struggling to know how or what to bridge those gaps with.


----------



## plantbrain

I eat more than I need too
I'm not balanced, so I have to go run and bike and exercise a lot to burn the excess fat off.
Aquariums are not really different.

In fish only aquariums, they have to do water changes to reduce the nutrient loading.
Are those balanced? 

Are Discus over feed tanks worse?
There's a trade off there, they want big fat high brood production, fast rates of growth and do not mind doing more water changes.

EI can easily be balanced=> where balanced = input of nutrients = output of plant growth rate.
You start high(typical EI dosing, then slow and progressively reduce it till you have a negative plant response, then bump the dosing to the last slightly higher dosing rate. 

Easy if you are patient.
This assumes that CO2/light are independent, which often is not the case.
Therein with light and CO2 lies the belly of the beast for most planted hobbyists.

I think if balance or better yet, *"sustainability" is honestly the goal*.........then go non CO2.
Non CO2 means the system grows slower, there is more recycling of nutrients, limitations do not manifest themselves severely, rates of growth and input, energy etc is reduced.

The inputs are greatly reduced, we only feed fish, maybe dose a sprinkle 2-4x a month, and/or chose a rich sediment as a backup or a primary nutrient source.

If we want higher rates of growth and more options for plant species and gardening ability, then CO2 is a good option with low light, rich sediments as well. This is a trade off however, we can still minimize the water changes and the dosing to add just enough for balance, but there's always some user error here and under dosing leads to more issues for most than over dosing a tad more and then just doing a quick water change once in awhile.
Tanks look nicer and cleaner after water changes.

It's quick and has less issues than testing NO3/PO4/Ca/Mg etc. No one has gotten into this hobby to measure ppm's of these things, the water change is a much easier thing to deal with and one we can use to our advantage. I think many put up their own barriers mentally about water changes, dosing NO3, PO4 etc, testing etc.  These are often counter to what is often suggested in other parts of the aquarium hobby. 

No method will meet all goals for a good method for management, so if you state and specific goal, say a sustainable planted tank..............from there, the advice can be tailored.

EI is not much more than a tool to rule out nutrient limitations, then you can focus more on reducing light, better use of CO2, or reduction from a known non limiting ppm nutrient dosing to just enough. There are other factors that are much more important than nutrient dosing for management and sustainable goals.

Mostly light => then CO2 would be next=> nutrients are last on the line, do not let the tail wag the dog.
I also encourage folks to try a non CO2 small tank out.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

El Duderino said:
			
		

> As I have said before, I am new to the plant keeping side of things.  It never occurred to me that plants would produce waste, now that it has been mentioned it seems perfectly reasonable that if you put something in then you should be getting something out.
> 
> There are an awful lot of big gaps in my knowledge and I am really struggling to know how or what to bridge those gaps with.



Getting the big picture is the best way and then go to the details from there.
What is your goal?

Start there, and then proceed.
Folks will be much better able to help you.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

chris1004 said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If algal blooms are present in the tank a rich nutrient level accelerates the blooms.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this, if anything, EI exposes where the weakness is and is better able to isolate it than any other method. We use this same principle in research.
> 
> See Tropica's article for interactions between CO2 and light on Riccia.
> http://www.tropica.com/advising/technic ... light.aspx
> 
> If I wanted to test the effects of say just light, I'd have to ensure than the CO2/nutrients would be non limiting for all light levels. This way the CO2/nutrients would be independent. My dependent variables would be light and say growth, or O2 production, cm of growth per day, %biomass increase/cover etc.........
> 
> If CO2 was limiting at the upper ranges..........then my test method would not be able to detect the real relationship with just light intensity changes on plant growth. I would have confounding issues with my test and could not conclude much about lighting alone.
> 
> The same is true for EI, the issue with high ppms and algae, the algae are non limited in both cases, adding more should not do anything to algae because the algae are nutrient independent to begin with    Folks who have algae already have something messed up and no independence, let alone any control over their methods. EI would simply rule out the nutrients as a potential dependence issue, then they could focus more on filtration, current, CO2, light reduction etc.......
> 
> Experimental approaches are designed to pick apart relationships that are complex and rule them out one by one.
> EI simply rules out nutrients.
> 
> It does noit encourage algae any more than any dosing method.
> Why do we see bad algae blooms with every type of dosing method?
> Is it the method or other factors?
> We also find most all dosing methods also have examples where they have no algae and decent plant growth also.
> Those are the observations, so you should be able to draw a different conclusion based on those if you think about it.
> You do not start with a conclusion, then go about looking for facts that might support it.
> 
> Chris stated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> I was that newbie you guys have been  been discussing 18 months ago and this single statement whilst the others are all undoubtedly true is the one which IMO should be hammered home time and again to anyone attempting EI for the first time.  In my mind its manifested itself as the biggest downfall of the EI method, because having unlimited ferts high co2 and limiting the light is so efficient at growing stuff it also benefits the algae once its triggered to such an extent that if your not 100% on top of your game you'll be over run in no time at all. After all isn't algae just another form, albeit a lower form, of plant life? and doesn't EI dosing give us ideal conditions for rapid plant life growth?
> But the alternative methods of limiting ferts risk plant health and causing the exact same problem but from the other end so to speak by triggering algae spores to bloom when you get it wrong because of decaying plant matter producing ammonia. So in summary no method is flawles and if we falter algae is with us whether we like it or not no matter what method of fert dosing we choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, any method will have the humans messing it up and not looking at light/CO2 issues.
> But we fail, not the methods so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO we should all no matter what fert regime, lighting setup or amount of co2 used be pummeling away at the newbie about the control of AMMONIA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that NH4 is that critical, but light and CO2 are.
> Non CO2 offers up a nice method as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the common enemy of all of us and the least understood by the newbie in its relevance to planted tanks .at least IMO.
> 
> Regards, Chris.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes, they tend to focus too much on ppm's and ferts, not enough on light and CO2.
EI rules out any co limitation with nutrients.

If you have strong limitations with say PO4, this affects the CO2 demand from plants(reduces the CO2 demand). So adding non limiting PO4 can shift a tank from a CO2 rich to a CO2 limited system once the PO4 limitation is lifted.
Still, the problem was CO2, not the nutrients, PO4 was an indirect effect.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Anonymous

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*



			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Removing this much plant biomass alone, regardless of the dosing can lead to algae.



Plan removing the plants a week ahead and clean the canister filter. Large biomass removal or trimming can lead to huge amounts of nutrients in the water column which the biological filtration cannot process and this leads to algae as simple as that, if you still get algae then your biological filtration needs to be adjusted. Of course if cannot be planned one can use Eichhornia crassipes for example which acts way better then a canister biological filtration, but the underneath plants (some of them) may "suffer" due to dim light. Of course the co2, flow etc. needs to be adjusted also to the biomass/tank size, hard-scape  ...

Mike


----------



## plantbrain

*Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"*



			
				clonitza said:
			
		

> plantbrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Removing this much plant biomass alone, regardless of the dosing can lead to algae.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plan removing the plants a week ahead and clean the canister filter. Large biomass removal or trimming can lead to huge amounts of nutrients in the water column which the biological filtration cannot process and this leads to algae as simple as that, if you still get algae then your biological filtration needs to be adjusted. Of course if cannot be planned one can use Eichhornia crassipes for example which acts way better then a canister biological filtration, but the underneath plants (some of them) may "suffer" due to dim light. Of course the co2, flow etc. needs to be adjusted also to the biomass/tank size, hard-scape  ...
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


No, I can easily remove the plants without much disturbance, I can also clean the tank after the trim etc, but still get algae. We have large tanks at the lab and we see this all the time, we use pots to grow plants.
We remove a % of the pots and then algae blooms when it gets below a critical % of coverage, the nutrients are less, not higher.

Yet we get algae when the plants are removed.

When I trim my 180 Gal tank too much, I also get mild algae, but I do not disturb the sediment at all.
Just mow the tops. 

If you over trim, then you end up with algae/too little % plant biomass.
I think you can get more algae and worse algae if you also uproot, but even in cases where that is not done, we still see a similar relationship with plant biomass removal. I can easily trim some, a little etc, without any issues, but if you whack 50-80% of the plant biomass, and clean after, there's going to be some algae response. Algae "know" if there's not much plants there or not.

Nutrients are still independent.

CO2 changes, perhaps some chemical sensors etc. Newly available substrates for the algae spores to colonize that are not actively growing. A good sized water change would address any Biofiltering issues or Zeolite etc. I've done that and never found a lot of relationship there. No relationship with varying O2 levels either.'

As far as using a cover plant like Hyacinth, this limits light a great deal....... so the algae have little light/strong light competition, that's very different from nutrient competition. Aquatic plants mostly use fast rates of growth to grow faster than the algae can colonize and light mostly. Nutrients, not much.



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Anonymous

Tom let me tell you about my observations:

I have 3 tanks (25l, 60l, 100l)

The first (25l) - 6 months old 
Soil: JBL Aquabasis + some rocks (under the gravel) +  Nano Shrimps Gravel Bed, Borneo brown - covers 40-50% of the water column so the actual volume is ~15l.
Plants: Glossostigma, Didiplis, Crypts, Rotala Indica, some snails
Fauna: 6 Pseudomugil Gertrude, *Clithon corona/diadema and some RCS*.
Light 26w 6500k Aquatic Nature Duo Boy.
No CO2 injection, no NPK dosing, dosing trace, scarce ~ 1-2 times a month (Easy Life Profito)
Water change 30% once a month
Filtration one small Eheim 2006 Pick up Internal Filter with Eheim Substrate Pro (~20 granules and a small particle pad).
The surface is covered 80% with Eichhornia crassipes, I used this plant as a last resort to get rid of Cladophora (the only algae in the tank) and it worked (I don't like to use chemicals to get rid of algae and I don't use EC/Excel in any tank).
Soil + gravel cover 40-50% of the water column so the actual volume is ~10-15l.

-------------------

The second (60l) - 1.2 year old
Soil: JBL Aquabasis + Nano Shrimps Gravel Bed, Borneo brown + Sulawesi black + Hobby Natalit + Sand
Decor: Petrified wood + some thin unidentified branches.
Plants: Cyperus Helferi, Ludwigia repens, Echinodorus Vesuvius, Bolbitis heudelotii some Crypts, Anubias nana, Rotala indica, Pogostemon Helferi etc.
Fauna: Hemmigramus bleheri x 8, Gasteropelecus sternicla x 3, *Paraotocinclus Jumbo x 2, Corydoras Panda x 2, Corydoras Aeneus x 3, RCS hundreds*.
Light Osram 865 T8 15W x 3
No CO2 injection, no NPK dosing, only trace weekly (Easy Life Profito).
Water change 15% twice a month .
Filtration JBL e700 with 1.5l of Eheim Subtrate Pro and the original sponges, ceramics tubes, a particle pad.

Algae: some BBA on a 1 year old petrified wood (100% it's not inert) that I plan to throw it away, and that's it. Last time I worked in the tank I pulled 80% of the biomass due to the lack of swimming space and still no algae.

-------------------

The third (100l) - 2 months old
Soil: JBL Aquabasis + Peat Moss + JBL Manado
Decor: Mangrove wood
Plants: Barclaya longifolia red, Crypts, Glossostigma, Hydrocotyle Verticillata, Lindernia rotundifolia 'Variegated', Pogostemon Helferi, Staurogyne sp., Didiplis Diandra, Rotala indica, Rotala macranda green, Ludwigia arcuata & brevipes, Nymphaea Rubra, Hygrophila pinnatifida.
Fish: Apistogramma cacatuoides x 5, Hemigrammus rodwayi x 9, *Otocinclus affinis x 5, Corydoras aeneus x 5, Cardinia japonica x 18*
Light: 4 Osram 965 T5 24w (2 working at the moment, I need to replace the ballast)
Yeast CO2 injection, dosing at water change NPK + Trace (Easy Life products) and between water changes Easy Life Ferro.
Water change 30% at 3-5 days.
Filtration JBL e900 with 2.5l of Eheim Subtrate Pro and the original sponges, ceramics tubes, particle pad + Sicce Voyager 1 (~1000l/h)

Algae some GSA/GDA on glass when I forgot to dose  and that's it. I can trim, pull, uproot as much as I want without any algae issues.

--------------------

My observations (I could be wrong of course):

- not having a good cleaning team in your tank leads to algae 
- not having a very good water flow leads to algae
- dosing trace scarce or loads doesn't matter but you need good NP(K) levels, N>5 (best between 10-20 for some plants), P>0.3, K ? don't have a test kit yet.
- heavy non porous gravel leads to plant decay and algae issues
- sand, gravel and rocks with lime traces leads to BBA
- poor biological filtration leads to algae if you have an ammonia spike due to different reasons
- laziness leads to algae   
- without you folks, Tom's articles and Diana Walstad's book I wouldn't be here writing you.

Mike


----------



## plantbrain

clonitza said:
			
		

> Tom let me tell you about my observations:
> I have 3 tanks (25l, 60l, 100l)
> My observations (I could be wrong of course):
> 
> - not having a good cleaning team in your tank leads to algae
> - not having a very good water flow leads to algae
> - dosing trace scarce or loads doesn't matter but you need good NP(K) levels, N>5 (best between 10-20 for some plants), P>0.3, K ? don't have a test kit yet.
> - heavy non porous gravel leads to plant decay and algae issues
> - sand, gravel and rocks with lime traces leads to BBA
> - poor biological filtration leads to algae if you have an ammonia spike due to different reasons
> - laziness leads to algae
> - without you folks, Tom's articles and Diana Walstad's book I wouldn't be here writing you.
> 
> Mike



Hi Mike, I think a lot of the issues (they are somewhat minor) are due to CO2. Good algae eaters will help a lot in non CO2 planted tanks. Some of the minor algae issues you have can be addressed with spot treatment using Easy Carbo or H2O2 etc. If you have less light, you will have less CO2/nutrient demand. Good feeding of fish will help if you dose less rather than more. I'd argue that a good well feed fish load will help a well dosed tank also.

I have dolomite sand in 3 tanks, one of which is non CO2, I have little issues with it and algae. 

I think the biggest Achilles Heel for your tank using CO2 is the DIY yeast.
A nice gas tank and regulator system would goa  logn way to helping you and the tank do much better, with far more stability.

I think people should invest the time and energy into CO2 and not worry so much about nutrients.
No one I've met or heard of has ever killed their fish or gotten algae due to nutrients, but plenty have killed their fish with CO2, or had much worse algae when they started using CO2 gas. Non CO2 tanks can be all over the place as far as nutrients and still have nice growth.

This suggest that CO2, rather than nutrient is the real risk and problem area.
It also explains why folks can have a wide range of issues with all the other dosign methods for nutrients as well.

There are much larger factors than mere nutrients alone.
Aquarist want to blame nutrients because it's often the one area that they can test, light? Not much at all. CO2? poorly at best..........even nutrient testing is rarely done well for NO3 and PO4.

While many can tweak things with nutrients alone to suit their needs/goals, they could certainly improve their horticultural skill by a better focus and tweaking of CO2 and light. As you might notice, most of what I discuss is not about EI or nutrients  

The discussion with EI is one mostly of trying to help folks convince themselves that there's more to algae and plant growth than just nutrients, and that it's not nearly as evil or risky as long claimed. The real risk factors are high light, impatient CO2 usage. 

But many do not want to talk about this, having already made their minds up about nutrients.
If you start off with a conclusion, then go about looking for facts to support it, this is not good and not how Science operates. This leaves you wide open to make mistakes.

I've made hypothesis, tried to falsify them some, but if someone else falsifies them well......I move on and let them go, accept the falsification,. Many in the hobby however do not do this. They want to believe in their conclusion even after falsification has been demonstrated. 

This is bad, does not help the hobby, not a good attitude for the hobby in general.
It is not personal, it is simply what we learn about the relationships in aquariums, nothing more.
*We all make mistakes and chose how to respond to them.*

Try a gas tank CO2 system if you can. DIY the parts, if you have little $$, take your time and you should be able to put together a nice system.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Anonymous

I'll replace the yeast CO2 with a gas tank, I'm just waiting/searching for a good deal.

I've tested growing around 100+ plant species in different conditions, some thrive without co2 addition some don't, most of them don't, so yes, not having co2 addition is a big issue for people who aspire more than just raising some vallis. I don't care much about algae, I've learned how to avoid them or to resolve some algae issues before they are going to be a problem, but I just don't want to wait months for plants to grow ...

Regarding EI you are right, having good nutrients levels in the water column adjusted to the biomass is a must, not for algae's sake but for good plant growth, and a nice looking aquarium.

I have a question, I hope people don't mind posting it here:

How about adding to the EI scheme some growth stimulators  like Dennerle Planta Gold 7 or ADA ECA, do they improve something or they are only placebo?

Cheers,
Mike

LE: Found a deal and ordered one  .. I'll write on it "Tom made me ..." so when my missy sees it she'll now who's responsible ..


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
   EI freedom fighters (AKA EI Fan Boys) maintain the position that you do not need placebos. We live in the real world. There is nothing that you cannot do with NPK + Traces + CO2. Occasionally there are issues with shortages of Ca, Mg and so forth, primarily with those using soft water, but these are easy fixes.

Cheers,


----------



## Graeme Edwards

Here is a simple question.... If you could answer this in non science speak, then we all might understand whats going on.

If you have perfect Co2, 10x tern over, a rich substrate, good light and ideal ranges of nutrients....
Why, if you remove 30% of your plants would that give you algae? 

If ever I do any plant maintenance, I always drop my dosing down, never the light or Co2. I rarely have any problems.

Its interesting that you say, adding Co2 to a tank can give you algae blooms. That's going to worry the nube. They need to know that adding Co2 to a previously established aquarium will increase the demand of the plants.

Its been said that excess nutrients do no cause algae yet this has been said -


> We have large tanks at the lab and we see this all the time, we use pots to grow plants.
> We remove a % of the pots and then algae blooms when it gets below a critical % of coverage, the nutrients are less, not higher.


If all perimeters are adequate, then why would this be a problem?



> If you over trim, then you end up with algae/too little % plant biomass.
> I think you can get more algae and worse algae if you also uproot, but even in cases where that is not done, we still see a similar relationship with plant biomass removal. I can easily trim some, a little etc, without any issues, but if you whack 50-80% of the plant biomass, and clean after, there's going to be some algae response. Algae "know" if there's not much plants there or not.



I think, what is not being spoken about clearly enough is that its not so much the fertiliser levels, ie being high and having enough for the plants - I get that. What isnt hammered to people doing EI is what is being discussed in this thread.
Again, *I come back to balance. *

I always try and describe how a person should look at their plants and what kind of energy they might need. An all crypt and anubias tank does not need much energy. Too much energy, i.e light, then no matter what ferts and Co2 you put in, those plants just wont and cant use it up. You then have an excess, i.e the light. You get algae, then they feed of the excess nutrients. 
I tank with hygrophila will and can use more energy. This means, you can have high light, you can add as much ferts as you want/need, and you do need high levels of Co2.

What needs to be spoken about is light balance, in fact, just balance. Getting the ratio of plant species-light-co2-ferts. Thats the balance people need to grasp. And this will be individual. A tank with some fast growing plants and some slow growing plants is a nice balance. 

I agree fertilisers limit plant growth and that in tern can cause algae. But I still maintain, that it is more about trying to teach people about balance and not about throwing tones of fertilisers at plants. There is a bigger picture that is getting glossed over in written articles. Its fine on a forum, but it can get missed.
We need to spell it out, tell it like it is, not with complicated language and pomposity.

Cheers.


----------



## Mark Evans

Graeme Edwards said:
			
		

> We need to spell it out, tell it like it is, not with complicated language and pomposity.



correct. Simply put, EI works   

I've never had issues after heavy pruning, whilst adding full EI dosing. The only issues I have, is when I don't dose....'Savannah dreaming'


----------



## GreenNeedle

I agree with Saintly, GE and Tom on most points here.

When I had CO2 and got the circulation right I could do any amount of pruning I liked with no fear of algae.  before I got the circulation right whilst still the same rate of injection I got lots of algae issues especially after a mad pruning session.

I think the problem with many people is they don't complete the jigsaw.  They either are missing a few pieces to complete the picture or they have all the pieces but can't put them together . lol

As Tom says CO2 is the main key.  The cause to most problems but it is often a side issue.  Not that the CO2 is the problem but that either the light is too high to be able to maintain a constant good level of CO2 or that the circulation is not good enough to 'deliver' the CO2 to all corners of the tank.

These 2 should really be addressed at the beginning, the setup stage.  research of other similar setups.  research as to what the 'top scapers' use or do and then setup your own.  The main problem with most people is that they up their lighting as soon as they go planted and then attribute the algae problems to CO2 and nutrient.  Whilst technically they are right it is more a failure to deliver the CO2/nutrient needed for the level of light supplied.  Whether that be too high light or poor delivery is a conundrum for the user 

Similarly the assumptions listed seem to me to be attributed as a problem when they in fact are more likely with other factors:


> not having a good cleaning team in your tank leads to algae


There are far too many algae free scapes that have seen zero or minor algae problems without ever having any type of 'cleaning crew' in them.  In fact there are far too many examples of algae free scapes that were free of any livestock through their creation and only towards their completion were any fish added. This seems to be something I used to read quite a lot.  It is beneficial of course but it address the problem not the cause.  We want to eliminate the cause of algae as much as we possibly can rather than have a 'cleaning crew' that _hides_ the problem.



> sand, gravel and rocks with lime traces leads to BBA


Not sure this is to do with Lime.  Many people use Aquatic Compost meant for ponds as their substrate and Aquatic compost contains Lime .  I sem to remember a year or 2 back discussing with JamesC that it may be hard water that has a problem with BBA.

I have always had little traces of BBA. Before I got flow right which thus improved CO2 I had lots of BBA problems.  When I went non CO2 I expected it to return but it didn't.  I guess in the time I used CO2 I got the rest right alongside and then when the CO2 and nutrient was abandoned and the light lowered it wasn't a problem.  That goes along with the statement above regarding 'balance'.  I think balance isn't such an appropriate word really because it makes people think that if there is so much of X on one side then there needs to be so much of X on the other side to maintain the balance.  In reality I think the only 'balance' is to put the light on one side of the scales and then everything else needs to be on the other side.  However it doesn't need to be the right amount for the scales to be level. It just means that everything else on one side of the scale needs to be equal to or greater than light on the other side.  I've not used a test kit for many years.  When I was hi tec I followed EI.  played with it a little every now and again if I saw some problems but algae was never caused by me 'spilling' too much fert in 



> poor biological filtration leads to algae if you have an ammonia spike due to different reasons


Plants ARE biological filtration!!!  There are lots of planted tanks with minimal or no algae without using a filter at all!!!  Flow/Circulation definately needed but this can be supplied by a circulation pump with no need for a filter.  As long as the 'input' is correct (enough ferts added, enough CO2 added) and the circulation is adequate then you shouldn't have problems.  In the main we do use filters for a few reasons.  1 - Some people would rather use a filter than have a pump in their tank.  2 - It is a back up in case of problems.  3 - It provides a reassurance for anyone who doubts their plants ability to safeguard their fishies 



> laziness leads to algae


I think you should be saying 'laziness at the setting up stage leads to algae'.  I would say that as long as you get the system right at the beginning then you should be OK.  Be lazy in the setup then you get problems until you sort them out.  At the time of writing this my tank has had no water changes for 10 months.  No substrate cleaning.  The filter is cleaned every 2 months and other than throwing some fish food in that is the extent of my work 

So I clean the filter every 2 months and then do nothing other than sit watching!!!

Even when I was CO2 I dosed macro and micro on the same day in the morning and then walked away!!!

The key to success is the setup.  Get it right at the beginning and there are few or no issues from there on.  Get it wrong and the fight is on.  Once you get into a fight it can be very frustrating and more than a few have been lost to the hobby because of it.

Think of it this way:  It is always better to talk and reason than have a fight.  If you talk and reason the other guy may back down and it is a win win situation.  If you fight then you can lose and take a battering. Even if you win you more likely than not have taken a fair amount of punishment.  Thorough research, planning and care in your work at the beginning will nearly always mean that you can sit back and relax rather than have to solve equations.



> I always try and describe how a person should look at their plants and what kind of energy they might need. An all crypt and anubias tank does not need much energy. Too much energy, i.e light, then no matter what ferts and Co2 you put in, those plants just wont and cant use it up. You then have an excess, i.e the light. You get algae, then they feed of the excess nutrients.
> I tank with hygrophila will and can use more energy. This means, you can have high light, you can add as much ferts as you want/need, and you do need high levels of Co2.



I know what you are trying to put across here but I'm not overly sure I agree.  I agree that a Crypt/Anubias setup doesn'tNEED as much energy as a faster growing setup BUT I don't agree that too much energy means algae due to excess light. I think you marry the nutrient and CO2 to the light level and then it shouldn't matter which plants are in there!!!.  I think its more a case with light that different plants have a 'maximum' need and they grow to their full once this maximum is reached.  Thats not to say if you only have plants that can take no more than (example) 1WPG that putting them under 2WPG is going to mean algae due to excess light.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the statement. lol

AC


----------



## Anonymous

> There are far too many algae free scapes that have seen zero or minor algae problems without ever having any type of 'cleaning crew' in them.



Yes they are plenty scapes without algae problems and no fauna for sure. What I'm trying to say is that minor problems can be addressed with algae cleaners, that kind of problems that are annoying when you want to take a good photo.



> Not sure this is to do with Lime. Many people use Aquatic Compost meant for ponds as their substrate and Aquatic compost contains Lime



This I can always prove .



> Plants ARE biological filtration!!!



They are until you forgot fertilizing and they are decaying, what about than? I've seen this kind of failure way too many times.



> There are lots of planted tanks with minimal or no algae without using a filter at all!!!



The same thing I can say about Italian cars, there are Italian cars that are working for years with minor maintenance or no maintenance at all, are they all like this? For sure no and for sure the percent of "ideal Italian cars" is around 0.000001% .



> I think you should be saying 'laziness at the setting up stage leads to algae'



That's not laziness that's rush  ... laziness comes when you have a good high tech aquarium that works fine, you've taken the final picture and after that you forgot about fertilizing and maintenance.

I don't want to turn this topic into a algae topic, 'cause it's about EI, but I want to make a final statement regarding this "issue" ...

... that's like a perfect fishing day around a lake, when you are sitting back and relax enjoying the sun and a good catch until that annoying kinds make their appearance with their splashing and screaming and playing and you have to decide to take your gear and start fishing elsewhere, smack the kids but beware of their angry parents or play with them and show them what fishing it's all about ... but ... you always forgot that your bait it's in the middle of the lake and this annoying kids are not doing any harm any of your fishing but only your tranquility, just put your headsets on and relax ... algae is just a part of your ecosystem.

Cheers,
Mike.


----------



## Mark Evans

clonitza said:
			
		

> you always forgot that your bait it's in the middle of the lake and this annoying kids are not doing any harm any of your fishing but only your tranquility,



true! Many fish, especially carp are greedy.

I used to do a lot of match fishing, did well to. I was once in a match and lost the top 3 kit off my Â£2000 pole...not impressed. The carp (which I landed) took off like a bolt of lighting, at one point in the motion I straightened the whole pole (something you shouldn't do) and the top kit came flying off. 

the carp went into the reeds. I waded in to get it (could see it bobbing like a float) I went right into the reeds up to my chest, grabbed the section and landed the fish (lucky git eh?   ) I thought my chances were over of winning, but within 5 minutes of fishing in the place where I was wading, I ended up catching another 130lb of fish and won the match    I'd obviously stirred up the silt to produce more natural food for the fish.

oooops...off topic


----------



## plantbrain

The goldy toe came out and posed and did not run this time.










Time to Mow the lawn.

I switched out the P stellataus for the curly Ech vevesius and more Blyxa, opens the tank up more and allows me to see the cards better, better current also and no trimming much.

This tank has more biomass than I think, evident when I trim  
Still, enough of looking at words, pictures help too.

I like the jigsaw puzzle comment. 
EI is suppose to be a simple concept and it is.
It just rules out nutrients so you can focus where your gardening, plant growing skills are/may be weaker, namely light/CO2/scaping.

So you can improve your horticultural ability much more when nutrients are no longer factor.
Some folks limit PO4 and have "less algae" with less nutrients. So they have better plant growth/results. 
This is indirectly affecting CO2 uptake.

They could do better if they chose to work more on CO2 and then not need to limit or dose carefully etc.
This way they are not limiting anything, other than perhaps light.
So you have better growth, higher rates of growth, larger healthier plants etc.

This hobby is about growing plants and the gardening.
Algae is a secondary pest that results from poor growth of plants.

Regards, 
Tom Barr






Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

Graeme Edwards said:
			
		

> Here is a simple question.... If you could answer this in non science speak, then we all might understand whats going on.
> 
> If you have perfect Co2, 10x tern over, a rich substrate, good light and ideal ranges of nutrients....
> Why, if you remove 30% of your plants would that give you algae?
> 
> If ever I do any plant maintenance, I always drop my dosing down, never the light or Co2. I rarely have any problems.



In simplest terms, plants define the system, not nutrients.
An article in support of this:
http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/Faculty%20P ... 2004LR.pdf



> Its interesting that you say, adding Co2 to a tank can give you algae blooms. That's going to worry the nube. They need to know that adding Co2 to a previously established aquarium will increase the demand of the plants.



Compared to what? Do you see nearly as many issues with algae in the ***well set up*** non CO2 planted tanks? I don't.
Many put a lot of effort into a CO2 enriched system, they cannot get a handle on the algae.

More light, more CO2 => faster disaster typically.
Everything is going faster. Measuring CO2 can be a bear.
CO2 is not much of an issue with non CO2.

Some would argue non CO2 is better for fish as well.
Hard to gas or kill fish with CO2 if it's not used, no?



> I think, what is not being spoken about clearly enough is that its not so much the fertiliser levels, ie being high and having enough for the plants - I get that. What isnt hammered to people doing EI is what is being discussed in this thread. Again, *I come back to balance. * I always try and describe how a person should look at their plants and what kind of energy they might need. An all crypt and anubias tank does not need much energy. Too much energy, i.e light, then no matter what ferts and Co2 you put in, those plants just wont and cant use it up. You then have an excess, i.e the light. You get algae, then they feed of the excess nutrients.



Again, plants, not nutrients define the system.
It's not about excess nutrients or availability of the nutrients to algae, they have MORE than enough nutrients in every case. We find algae blooms in very low nutrient tanks and in lakes, streams etc as well. Not much relationship is found between algae and nutrients in other words.

You seem to imply there is, but there's no such evidence in natural systems or aquariums if you look at the big picture.
Plenty of folks have lot sof nutrients and no algae, so it cannot be about excess nutrients, nothing to do with that.

Good healthy plants?
Sure seems that way.
What about them?
Not sure.

I'm not going to make something up if I do not know.
I can make hypothesis, test them etc.......if possible etc.
About all I can do   If you have a solution or a hypothesis etc, feel free of propose it.

Then we have something to test.

If stressed plants are suddenly limited by CO2, maybe algae spores can sense that.
We can move CO2 around and note poor plant growth and algae blooms.
Measuring CO2 really well and with calibrated methods is tricky though.



> What needs to be spoken about is light balance, in fact, just balance. Getting the ratio of plant species-light-co2-ferts. Thats the balance people need to grasp. And this will be individual. A tank with some fast growing plants and some slow growing plants is a nice balance.



But......I have slow growing plants, and dose the same ferts, no issues, not algae etc.
I also can add lots of light, again, little issue with these species, and I can also do the higher light stems with low light without issues, all awhile maintaining independence with nutrients. They can be non limiting, thus in excess for each case.

Providing non limiting Nutrients is among the easiest things we can do in a test.
So that is independent. Light we can also measure fairly well comparatively.

This leaves mostly CO2.
CO2 is the most dynamic and fastest changing parameter, seconds, minutes, hours ranges.
Nutrients? Days, hours, weeks.
Light? Months, years etc.



> I agree fertilisers limit plant growth and that in tern can cause algae. But I still maintain, that it is more about trying to teach people about balance and not about throwing tones of fertilisers at plants. There is a bigger picture that is getting glossed over in written articles. Its fine on a forum, but it can get missed.
> We need to spell it out, tell it like it is, not with complicated language and pomposity.
> Cheers.



I agree with this last bit here certainly.
Ferts can be honed and tweaked, like light and like CO2, they all have the similar weight, perhaps less so than CO2, since CO2 is so toxic comparatively, like a FIFA ref in a pub in UK about now.

In articles, they should try and suggest the slow methodical reduction from an upper known level, and then good observations. Unfortunately, many focus too strongly on nutrients/management, and not enough on the bigger picture, CO2, light and............the nutrients.

I mention these other two elements much more than I do anything to do with ferts. Have mostly for years, but folks just hear the EI part, not the light/CO2. Since folks cannot get everything all at once most times, it's good to master one thing at a time and make sure it is independent, then take the next step.  After 1-2 weeks dosing is down, light hopefully was addressed prior, then it's CO2, good general aquarium care etc.

I do not think our views ans goals are that far off here, other than you seem to think that excess nutrients are a risk in some way, encourage algae etc in and of themselves. You cannot argue with results from a test that test that hypothesis however. It is what it is.

In the null is rejected, then we must accept the alternative hypothesis _Ha_: Something other than nutrients is causing algae.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## GreenNeedle

I was just trying to clear the other subjects out really.  They aren't anything to do with EI in the main.  Like Tom says EI is a method that makes nutrients easy, especially for those who don't want to test, or calculate etc.  I see what you say about laziness being forgetting to fertilise etc.  In that scenario I would suggest they went the wrong route in the first place and a hi tec aquarium is not for them.

I would look at it the other way.  EI is a better method than any for those who want to think about 1 thing less.  Why?  Because it takes out any need to test, worry or even think about the nutrient.  You look at a recipe, mix it, read your tank size and then dose accordingly.  You can dose both macro and micro daily, on alternate days, once a week, it is up to the user.  If dosing daily is far too much work for someone they can just add up (from the already calculated guidelines) 3xmacro, 3xmicro then measure them out and dose.  Leave the tank alone for a week and then do the same again in a week's time.  Now that's what I call lazy   Thats not to say its a method for the lazy.  Just that it means you haven't got to think about it.  Just follow the instructions and dose it.

You could say _'but I could dose any method once a week and walk away, What makes EI more suitable?'_  This is pretty easy to answer.  All the other methods involve lean dosing, limiting or testing.  Testing is effort, limiting can cause problems, lean dosing can be managed in the same way as EI but not something I would suggest unless people already know how to put the jigsaw together.



> This I can always prove


Not much in science can ever really be proven at least not 100%.  This is what the problem was with phosphate/excess nutrients.  It was 'proven' that excess nutrient mainly P was the cause of algae.  Virtually the whole of the hobby could reason with the argument however it falls down when just 1 person who doesn't have the problem even when they put in 10x more than the minimal amount that was suggested was a max.

At that stage the majority have to either eliminate that thinking and look elsewhere for the reason or just maybe the 1 person may be doing something else that counteracted the P.

What I am saying here is yes someone can prove that their own tank/pond that has lime in it has BBA but they can't really prove that it is the lime causing it.  Someone else's will show otherwise and they then can both happily proceed to look at the next possible cause.



> They are until you forgot fertilizing and they are decaying, what about than? I've seen this kind of failure way too many times.



This is to do with the person rather than EI.  This statement is true of all methods.  You use a method and it may give superb results.  You miss something out and it will result in failure 99% of the time.  That is your laziness argument rather than something to do with EI.

I haven't tried it but I would suggest that a hi tec, high light setup using EI would work without a filter.  Circulation would still be needed. It would however mean not forgetting to fertilise just as much as not forgetting anything else like checking CO2, water changes etc.  That is to do with the person rather than the method.  The filter is more a 'safety net' in a lot of cases and also lets people get their source of flow/circulation out of the tank.  We also use the filter to try and remove some organic N (ammonia etc) whilst replacing it with inorganic N (via KNO3) however that doesn't mean we need to.  Just at the speed a hitec setup works it is reassuring to have that 'safety net' in place.



> The same thing I can say about Italian cars, there are Italian cars that are working for years with minor maintenance or no maintenance at all, are they all like this? For sure no and for sure the percent of "ideal Italian cars" is around 0.000001%



I think you're glooking at this the wrong way around.  If we use your comparison in the same way as we do with our hobby we should be saying 'If 99.99999% italian cars are not 'ideal' does that mean none are.  This is like above.  1 person uses P no problems so its not the P etc. lol  You can't suggest that because 100 people use EI and have problems that EI is the problem because the 1 person who uses it and doesn't have problems disproves the theory.  It is easy to disprove a theory but almost impossible to prove it 100%.  Maybe in a 1000 years time we will have proven everything and then..............science will be replaced by fact.



> That's not laziness that's rush  ... laziness comes when you have a good high tech aquarium that works fine, you've taken the final picture and after that you forgot about fertilizing and maintenance.



We all have a different defination of lazy.  I would argue that not doing much is lazy, someone else would argue that its not doing anything and someone else could argue it is more than me etc...  If we want to get to the stage of lazy means not doing anything then that person should not be using EI nor any other fertilisation method and I would never suggest lazy and hi tec are suitable partners .  Again its the person not the method at fault.  All methods are only as good as the administrator.

The fishing example is good.  Most people who challenge the concept of EI are obsessed by the kids and forget the rest only to come back and find their kit gone or smashed or sunken on the river/lake bed.  Those of us who don't challenge the concept are happy to ask the kids if they could be a tiny bit quieter and concentrate on the other elements of the day.

So I was answering your questions and other's comments.  EI is quite a simple thing.  Light is quite a simple thing, CO2 is quite a simple thing.  Sensible light + good circulation + Good CO2 administration is all that an EI user needs to think about because they don't need to think about nutrients.  It doesn't need thinking about just administering   Light can be kept very simple. Don't use too much and never worry about it again.  CO2 is a simple thing but hard to maintain.

Many variables that make a once perfect CO2 setup suddenly not work.  Simple things like increased uptake, plant mass increasing, circulation changes, failure to maintain the CO2 equipment (diffusers reactors etc)  all these can make that once perfect system struggle or fail.  The nutrients though?  EI is already making sure that there is enough for increases in uptake.

If someone wants a planted tank but doesn't want to do much work they shouldn't be using EI nor any other method nor CO2 etc.  They should be using a non CO2 method.  EI just means that for those who are prepared to do a bit of work then they can concentrate their efforts on keeping the CO2 right, keeping the maintenance up, pruning etc 

Hi tec CO2 enriched aquariums are not compatible with laziness really but like I said that depends how little you want to call lazy  

At the end of the day there are many systems and many believers of each system.  EI users tend to be a more realxed 'breed' and if someone wants to say EI is **** they tend to try and explain why it isn't.  If they don't want to believe or listen etc.  Fair enough it is their choice but of all the methods out there it is the least effort.  There are other methods which involve testing continually and adjusting the nutrients to suit etc.  If you enjoy testing and dabbling and are happy to spend that time then go for it.  If that method works then great.  It doesn't mean that EI is wrong though.  It just means that you prefer one method to another.

We aren't trying to protect a certain 'beloved' method here.  We aren't trying to belittle anyone who doesn't agree.  We are just trying to clear up the myths and false correlations that make so many planted tanks fail.

AC


----------



## plantbrain

I talked to our local group today and it struck me as rather simple: If you make each parameter of the big 3,: light, CO2 and nutrient independent.....then you have mastery of all the main horticultural growing methods.

You can grow things with only the metabolism of the plants as the limitation.
In otherwords, you get max yield.

This is not the goal for most however, they want good growth, but be able to manage it to suit their routine.
So if we chose the most stable parameter we have available: light, then this is easy to adjust.

CO2 becomes easier, nutrients as well.

We also get much high light use efficiency and larger plants with good nutrients/CO2 vs a limited nutrient method.
If you leave for a few days, a week etc, raise the lights up 15cm, demand goes down, plants still grows etc.
Plants still grow likewise if you limit ferts also...........but you have choices of how to do it, and less issues with CO2/nutrients if you chose say..light, not PO4.

Limiting PO4, limiting CO2 or limiting light..........they all work, but some are a lot easier to maintain and deal with, namely light, since everything downstream is easier. PO4? This is harder to keep down than somehing as stable as light.

I also use less energy and spend less $ if I use less light. PO4? I waste light.
Folks say EI is wasteful, but so is wasting all that light, you cannot suggest one part of the method is less wasteful and then not address light or CO2 also :idea: 

There's going to be some excess nutrients, or CO2 or light in all of this somewhere for decent growth and independence. To test something well, you need to ensure there's independence of the other factors before you can test the dependent factor(say like PO4 limitation, *CO2 must be non limiting* at 0.05ppm PO4, all the way up to say 5.0 ppm PO4). Light can be set at say 50micromol at the sediment etc, as a standard.

Unless you can verify the CO2 is non limiting for all cases, then you cannot make a conclusion fairly, there's confounding influence of the CO2. EI will simply expose if you have poor control over CO2 when nutrients are independent, and/or have too much to manage.

Some folks would rather go back to limiting nutrients than face CO2 head on.
But if you want to gain mastery of each of the big 3, this is the way to do it. 
Then testing nutrients is not that interesting any more. 

You worry about limiting light and seeing how low you can go with light instead.
Some suggest EI fails because they failed so there's a small group that seems to fail often, so there's more to this............I agree there is more to this small group of folks...........namely confounding issues with their use of CO2, lack of measuring with respect to light.

If you suggest there is more to it, you need to offer a reasonable hypothesis that explains the observations for the large % of EI users and the small group that fails with it..........as I have with CO2/light co limitation switching from CO2 to PO4.

Put forth a hypothesis that explains both observations. I have. It's testable, makes good logical sense, I can demonstrate both cases. So there is "more to it", it's indirect and involves light ad CO2 as well.

It's more simple than many seem to think.
It is how plants grow" allocating resources to light, CO2 and nutrients.

We showed this back in the mid 1990's.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Anonymous

I'm one of the folks here that's using EI for some time. Limiting nutrients under high light/co2 levels this can lead to plants decay 'cause of the fast nutrients uptake. For low tech setups I can go only to overstock, overfeed and dose trace now and than to maintain the tank at an acceptable level. I had trouble when I switched to a high tech setup last year due to my stubbornness to treat the setup as low tech thinking that I only need to overstock the tank more, boy I was wrong. I measured the nutrient uptake and it was 0.5 ppm trace a day, 5 ppm N/day, and 0.2 ppm P/day (with Echinodorus tenellus I had levels of 0.5 P/day), could overstocking / overfeeding and dosing only trace could address this nutrient uptake? No.

Now I use EI, and big water changes frequently and I'm very satisfied. I don't care about wasting nutrients due to large water changes 'cause I'm not dosing EI in hydroponic tanks, just a 100l tank .

Cheers,
Mike


----------



## George Farmer

@ Tom and/or Clive

What's the dosing recommendation for a tank where CO2 is 'limited'?

Say I want around 15ppm CO2 instead of 30ppm, because I'm keeping ultra-CO2 sensitive fish, even with high O2.


----------



## ceg4048

Hi George,
               Tom might have a different angle on this question, but I concentrate on keeping things simple. If the tank is truly CO2 limited, and if the lighting is indeed not excessive.....I would still start the tank out on the baseline values.

It's very easy for people to say "I have X ppm of CO2" but in fact we really don't have a clue. It's hard enough figuring things out when we _think_ we have 30ppm CO2. I don't think it would be productive to suggest a different set of dosing values for tanks having "X" ppm of CO2. In fact, just because our dropchecker is green, and if we supposedly have 30ppm, we have seen in so many cases that flow/distribution as well as lighting excesses, as Tom points out, can cause issues. The variety and number of permutations are bewildering. Toms baseline number are derived for a tank, that we can consider, had infinite lighting and infinite CO2, yet anybody can use these baseline numbers for an enriched tank, so he didn't have to arrange a new set of numbers for folks with less than infinite light/CO2. The baseline numbers can work for everybody. For tanks with zero CO2 enrichment, of course, there is a unique set of numbers, and even so, we can deviate from those baseline numbers as well. But there is no need for a 50% nominal CO2 or a 25% nominal CO2 tank, in the same way that there is no need for a unique set of dosing numbers for X WPG. The baseline numbers are offered under the logical premise that nutrients and algae are independent in a planted tank and that these dosing numbers are for health optimization.

As we've tried to point out, EI is an easy, interactive process. It is not a rigid ball & chain. You can deviate from the numbers to suit your requirements. So whatever CO2 concentration value you have, I'd always suggest to start with the baseline dosing values and to make adjustments from there. 

So if you have lower light and lower CO2, how to make the adjustments from baseline? Simply reduce the dosing by an arbitrary percentage and assess the results after a few weeks. Then make further incremental reductions as appropriate.

Cheers,


----------



## GreenNeedle

When I was running CO2 at '15ppm' (of course I was only going by 2 drop checkers in the same tank with 2dKH in them) I found JamesC's PMDD+P worked pretty well if that is any help 

AC


----------



## George Farmer

Thanks, Clive and Andy.

The reason I ask is for folk that aren't keen on maintaining 'high' CO2 levels, but still want relatively fast growth compared with non-CO2.

Does anyone re-call Amano's early tanks (Nature Aquarium Book 1) with claimed 15-20ppm CO2 and lots of lighting i.e. 4 x 20w T8 over 54 litres?! And lean dosing...  :?


----------



## Anonymous

> lots of lighting i.e. 4 x 20w T8 over 54 litres?! ...



If I'm not entirely wrong he used a suspended lamp and this means a low light setup.


----------



## ceg4048

George Farmer said:
			
		

> Thanks, Clive and Andy.
> 
> The reason I ask is for folk that aren't keen on maintaining 'high' CO2 levels, but still want relatively fast growth compared with non-CO2.


Yes, I get where you're coming from mate. EI has become more or less ubiquitous so we sometimes lose historical perspective. I'll reiterate here that 15-20 years ago there was tremendous consternation about algae due to nutrients. This more or less coincided with the advent of high energy lighting such as T5. There were competing philosophies about  dosing and the effects of nutrients in general. People were practically hysterical about avoiding water column dosing because of algae. No one thought about the fact that high energy spectral input was the main culprit. It was always about nutrients in the water causing algae.

Think about one of the competing dosing scheme PPS (or PPS-Pro) that grew out of this hysteria. Think about it's founding philosophy - that water column nutrients cause algae, that algae compete with plants for water column nutrients and that therefore one should only dose what is necessary for plants and to eliminate any excess. How is this to be accomplished? By taking repetitive test kit readings and in order to ensure that the particular nutrient never exceeds X ppm. PPS is the complete antithesis of EI because the founding philosophies are diametrically opposed. 

So from EI's point of view, it doesn't matter what the CO2 injection level is. You start with the baseline dosing numbers without fear of causing algae due to excess nutrients in the water column. Now, naturally, having more nutrients induces faster growth, and so if you have a reduced CO2 tank for the express purpose of lowering the stress and growth rates, then it absolutely makes sense to also lower the nutrient levels. This is logical, but it's important to remember that the nutrients are being lowered in order to lower the growth rate, not because you fear that extra nutrients in the reduced CO2 tank will trigger algal blooms. No matter what CO2 scheme or nutrient scheme your tank has, the blooms would be triggered by other factors (like too much light), not because you have more nutrients than you need. People still struggle mightily to understand this fundamental principle, and I think that's one of the reasons why those who have not tried EI fear it so much.

So when one uninformed person talks to another uninformed person about EI, the conversation always sounds something like; "Throw in tons of excess nutrients, tons of CO2 and tons of water changes - very complicated and too much trouble". That conversation almost never sounds like; "Well if you have excess lighting you'll need to support it with the appropriate levels of nutrients/CO2/flow/maintenance, here's a simple formula to ensure that at least the nutrient part of the equation is addressed..."

So what happens? People graduate from the Harry Potter College of Super Massive Gamma-Ray Lighting, don't add enough of anything else and then expect that their plants automatically will do well. Then they're afraid that all those nutrients in the water will make their problems worse.



			
				George Farmer said:
			
		

> Does anyone re-call Amano's early tanks (Nature Aquarium Book 1) with claimed 15-20ppm CO2 and lots of lighting i.e. 4 x 20w T8 over 54 litres?! And lean dosing...  :?


As clonitza mentions, it might be suspension lighting which would lower the PAR. But he might also have been using massive substrate dosing as well.

Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain

George Farmer said:
			
		

> @ Tom and/or Clive
> 
> What's the dosing recommendation for a tank where CO2 is 'limited'?
> 
> Say I want around 15ppm CO2 instead of 30ppm, because I'm keeping ultra-CO2 sensitive fish, even with high O2.



I question the accuracy of the CO2 measurement in ADA's tap water and show room tanks.
I know a bit too much about the effects of other buffering systems on CO2.

I do know that the tap water has about 0.5ppm of PO4, they do large frequent water changes. the PO4 throws off the pH/KH determination, and the CO2 is not data logged over time of the day, so it might change and not be what is stated. We also have no idea what the PAR is. I over estimated the PAR from ADA lighting by 200%!! I twas not until I broke out the light meter and went testing several ADA tanks, and then I saw a very interesting relationship.......they are all the same PAR, regardless of the wpg. 

So I still do not know what the PAR is for the tank you reference, and you do not really either.
But given the facts on other ADA tanks and systems, it's not too far fetched to suggest it might not be anywhere near what we might predict with wpg's.

Without some sort of standard for comparisons, such data is meaningless and suspect.
Nutrients are fairly easy, if you use a good light meter and a light curve vs distance, then you have light.
CO2 is more tricky.

So there may not be any conflict at all here.  :idea: 
There's just no complete answer in the data provided.

This is why researchers use calibration standards and knowns, controls etc.
It verifies the data.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain

George Farmer said:
			
		

> Thanks, Clive and Andy.
> 
> The reason I ask is for folk that aren't keen on maintaining 'high' CO2 levels, but still want relatively fast growth compared with non-CO2.



I think this gets at a key pragmatism that aquarist often desire goal wise.

Planted hobbyists want the nice growth rates, but not weedy hard to tend growth, too fast, too much etc.
They also do not want super slow growth, a bit too much patience required there.

We are going to waste "something", light, CO2 and nutrients.......no way around this for good horticulture. There's going to be some excess.

So what cost the $$$ out of the 3?
Light mostly, CO2 is cheap, we waste 90% of all the CO2 we add, if not more.......it's degassed.
Nutrients are also cheap, so is tap water.

So light is is also the most stable parameter, so that should be the main thing to adjust the rates of growth.
Good CO2/nutrients at a non limiting level= max light use efficacy.

So we get the most out of the least amount of light and the bets management/ease of use for dosing CO2/ferts.
Most ADA tanks are set up this way. The difference is that ADA went the way of the sediment for non limiting ferts(sediment holds most of the ferts, where as EI doses to the water column). I did as well, but got curious as to the claims about water column and ppm's with algae.
PMDD came along about then for me as well.
I could test the water column, could not the sediment.
So it(water column) offered a better test model.
Still, I also test both EI and ADA As together with the same results, no surprise.

Ole, Troels, Claus all concluded the best management for most horticultural goals was low light, CO2 enrichment and non limiting ferts. ADA does indirectly as well. What is not done well is the measure of CO2 and a calibration reference for it that's accurate and can data log. This is the Achilles heel data wise. I have no simple solution for hobbyists here other than experience and slow methodical tweaking  Wish I could offer something better that's cheap etc.

I find that management is MUCH easier with low light and good CO2/nutrients are far more forgiving with low light.
Most do and are amazed with low light still giving them very good growth/colors.

Again, see how this gets away from EI or algae etc, and back to plant growth and CO2/light?
These tend to be far more interesting and dynamic than nutrients, which tend to be almost boring once you understand them more. Ole and I spoke about this when he was over here.  I do not think we disagree about any of this. It all the hobbyists!!!

We even agreed on that  

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Anonymous

> Again, see how this gets away from EI or algae etc, and back to plant growth and CO2/light?
> These tend to be far more interesting and dynamic than nutrients, which tend to be almost boring once you understand them more. Ole and I spoke about this when he was over here. I do not think we disagree about any of this. It all the hobbyists!!!



That's good because I tend to get annoyed by the same discussions over and over again about algae and dosing.

How about this subjects:

- induce plant flowering both submersed and emersed.
- how can you make your stern plants to grow compact between the nodes.
- how much light do you need so that your carpet plants spreads near the soil rather than going up to the surface or vice-verse, does EI matter?
- how can you make your stern plants like rotala or ludwigia grow vertical rather than horizontal? What triggers them to grow vertical? What triggers them to grow horizontal?
- how can you make some plants to grow side shots if they doesn't do this usually? I'm regarding Proserpinaca palustris in particular.


----------



## GreenNeedle

You'll hate me but CO2 again is the answer to most of your questions 

Many plants shoot up because they need more than CO2 than is available at the substrate level.  The CO2 concentration will be higher further up the water column by it's very nature of gas rising 

I think Tom would verify that when tested the CO2 ppm at substrate can be in the region of 8ppm even when it is 30ppm+ towards the water surface in a very well setup aquarium.

As to plant flowering it is pretty hard to make plants flower submersed.  There are exceptions of course.  On the other hand as long as the conditions are right it is pretty easy to get plants to flower emersed.  You just leave them to reach out of the water and wait 

The vertical stems vs horizontal stems is pretty much similar to a garden.  If you let the plant grow it grows tall.  If you prune it then it branches.  regular pruning makes the plant thicken rather than stretching.

AC


----------



## Anonymous

Yeah I agree with you that there's no mystery regarding CO2  .. oh, I so don't like easy non-complicated things .. I'll just try to find another set of questions  

Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain

clonitza said:
			
		

> That's good because I tend to get annoyed by the same discussions over and over again about algae and dosing.



Well, welcome to my world and preach to the choir  



> - induce plant flowering both submersed and emersed.



Many will not flower submersed.



> - how can you make your stern plants to grow compact between the nodes.



High CO2, good O2, wide light dispersion.

Again, not much on EI here.........



> - how much light do you need so that your carpet plants spreads near the soil rather than going up to the surface or vice-verse, does EI matter?



Not much(40micromols, maybe less) and not much at all.



> - how can you make your stern plants like rotala or ludwigia grow vertical rather than horizontal? What triggers them to grow vertical? What triggers them to grow horizontal?



Not sure.
I've had some varieties of the same species do this in both EI and non EI tanks.
So it's not the nutrients. Does not seem to be the light either.



> - how can you make some plants to grow side shots if they doesn't do this usually? I'm regarding Proserpinaca palustris in particular.



Mermaid weed is really easy to grow, that's why we call it a weed. 
I got pics of acres of it.













Some places, as far as you can see.

Try emergent growth, it'll produce tons of seeds and is really easy to grow, you never find in deep water, maybe 1 ft or so deep, and typically the tops are 2-5cm max from the surface.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke

There's a hour of my life I'm not getting back but well worth it  I don't know how I keep missing these posts after spending most of my life on this board.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke

My worry is that out of all the information in this topic which would probably answer 90% of the posts on the board if read thoroughly the only part that has stuck in my mind is..



ceg4048 said:


> People graduate from the Harry Potter College of Super Massive Gamma-Ray Lighting, don't add enough of anything else and then expect that their plants automatically will do well.



 Probably the reason I left school with no more than a swimming certificate.


----------

