# Is EI enough?



## Jaap (9 Jul 2015)

Hi,

Christos and I were discussing the matter this morning. Is EI enough for good growth? I mean we both have clay based substrate that is not packed with any nutrients, we dose our EI, we have a good light source, we have good circulation and good CO2 but the growth is low. Maybe the macros and micros are not enough!

Take into consideration the fact that clay based substrate has a high CEC and what happens if we add the EI dosage every day? Will it get sucked up by the substrate? If it gets absorbed will it then be released into the water column until there is a balance between water column and substrate? Will this not cause deficiencies momentarily? Will the plants use the nutrients from the substrate though their rooting system? Will it be better to have an inert substrate that doesn't absorb all the nutrient.

I know its a stupid question but isn't EI supposed to be equivalent to a really good nutrient packed substrate? 

We are struggling with growth while other people have a full carpet in a month. Some have good substrates others don't. Those that don't are they overdosing EI?

Share your thoughts please!

Thanks


----------



## MedicMan (9 Jul 2015)

I personally think it depends more on your co2 than anything. What you think might be good co2 may inface be mediocre.
How are you diffusing the co2?
 Are you achieving a pH drop of 1 before lights on? 
What colour are your drop checkers near substrate level?
What recipie are you following for ei?


----------



## Jaap (9 Jul 2015)

CO2 is diffused via inlet of filter for me and Christos does it through a reactor. we definitely have a 1ph drop and also our drop checkers are lime yellow to yellow. EI I use the just another calculator on the web.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rahms (10 Jul 2015)

have you moved dropchecker about?

from what I've seen in my own tank, if you lack nutrients you wouldn't be getting slower healthy growth, you'd have growth that is clearly not happy. So you should be able to tell really- are you seeing any signs of deficiency?

+1 medicman, probably CO2 distribution.  If you think your CO2 is fine, turn up the lights as thats what ultimately controls your growth rate (whereas CO2/ferts prevent stuff melting or being deficient) <-- broad oversimplification warning

edit: is your tank deep?


----------



## MedicMan (10 Jul 2015)

Definitely agree with the drop checker.  I found while I had my dc at the top and it was yellow, I'd get little to no growth. Put it near the substrate, no changes in flow, turns out it was be dark green.
I


Please excuse grammar and spelling mistakes in this post. I'm posting from my phone/tablet.


----------



## Christos Ioannou (10 Jul 2015)

Lime yellow @ substrate level... Any chance that the high cec substrate is absorbing a large amount of nutrients?
I mean that an inert sand substrate may result in more ferts available in the water column?
I started double dosing macros, results can be seen here...


----------



## Edvet (10 Jul 2015)

No harm in doubling you dosis, just try it. I guess clay may absorb some, but it will stop when "filled".


----------



## Marcel G (10 Jul 2015)

In my opinion, there may be 100+ factors causing bad growth of our aquarium plants. I really don't understand why some people consistently blame CO2 for it all the time without any data from some serious experiments. Although they don't know the conditions in your tank, they are bold enough to claim that you have too little CO2 in your tank. Even after you tell them you have yellow dropchecker at the substrate level, they still insist on their "truth" with too low CO2. I don't consider it wise nor sensible. In fact, I think that such a statements are detrimental to our hobby as they keep us from a sincere effort to know what really happens in our tanks. Whatever problem you have, it's always CO2 issue ... they say.

To anwer some of your questions:
In my opinion (which may prove to be wrong), water parameters are very important in growing aquatic plants, then light intensity and nutrient content. For plants to grow well, they should have enough light. An optimum level of light for many aquatic plants is in the range of 500 to 1000 µmol/m2/s. At this amount of light the photosynthesis of aquatic plants reach its saturation point, meaning that the plants grow at 100%. In our tanks we usually supply plants with much less light. The most brave aquarists let plants have 150 µmol/m2/s at the substrate level. So from this you can see that we give our plants much less light than what can be considered optimal. The same applies for nutrients (except CO2). For many aquatic plants the following concentrations of nutrients are optimal: 190 ppm NO3 (part of which should be in the form of NH4), 50 ppm K, 19 ppm PO4, 1-5 ppm Fe, 40 ppm CO2. If you supply your aquarium plants this amount of nutrients (together with 500-1000 µmol/m2/s of light), then you can be quite sure they have optimum amount of nutrients and light for their growth. So, logically, when you supply them with less than this, their growth won't be optimal ... although it still may be very good (or close to optimal).
There is just one (big) problem with all this: This is optimal for plants, not critters! Also, under these conditions you will probably experience algae infestations. So although this amount of nutrients and light is _*optimal*_ for aquatic plants, as far as our critters and algae its very _*bad idea*_ to have it in our tanks. So if you want to have your plants grow at 100%, you should give them as much light and nutrients as possible (up to the above stated values) ... without causing troubles to your critters and encouraging your algae. The best way (I know of) how to do this, is to put all the nutrients into the substrate, so that the water column may stay relatively nutrient-free. Algae don't have roots, so they have no access to nutrients hidden in the substrate. So if you put the nutrients into your substrate, you provide your plants with optimum amount of nutrients without endangering your critters or risking algae problems. As to the light, you will be hardly able to increase your light over 150 µmol/m2/s at the substrate level. Such a level is achieved when using ADA Aquasky 601 which is very strong light. So you'll be hardly able to create an optimum lighting conditions for your aquatic plants. Your aquatic plants will be limited by light most of the time. As far as proper water parameters, this is very much species specific issue, as each plant species may have different demands for water parameters (temperature, pH, alkalinity, hardness ...). I think that plants can tolerate quite wide range of different parameters, but there may be some parameters which may hinder growth or cause other undesirable issues, and little is known about it. As I already said, too many people here blame CO2 for most of these issues. I am convinced that there is a lot of other things causing these issues (like pH of the water or substrate, redox of water or substrate, dissolved organics, dissolved oxygen etc. => most of which is very hard to measure or monitor).


----------



## parotet (10 Jul 2015)

IME EI is more than enough to provide nutrients to the plants even if you use clay based substrates... just have a look to some setups in this forum and other ones with JBL Manado. It is not probably an "unlimited amount of nutrients" but quite probably "enough to let the plants uptake a significant amount" (see Ardjuna's posts for more details about this). The point IMO is that EI is not the solution to all your problems... I mean, most people think that if you switch to EI plants will have plenty of nutrients and problems will be over (=no algae). Actually, in this is again a personal opinion, I think that under certain circumstances, EI can bring quite a lot of problems (=can be very demanding method).
Another thing, a lime yellow drop checker is no good... I was also pushed to yellow drop checkers at lights on when using EI. I never got rid of BBA and the answer was "more CO2"... I killed a lot of my cherry shrimps and I suspect my fish were suffering at that time. Now I have a stable CO2 delivery and aim at having a green drop checker at lights off, not even yellow at lights off.

After a few years of experience with planted tanks I think we pay too much attention to fertilization. Plant need nutrients, that's all. We know we cannot starve them, right. But there is a whole range of possibilities to achieve this, and there are a lot of variables to be taken into account. In my very hard water/medium light/enriched substrate/Co2 tanks I realized that EI was very demanding (2x 50% weekly water changes, slight but persistent BBA in lower parts of background plants, etc.). Then I realized that a leaner dosing (something close to PPS-Pro) was good enough for me, and then I realized that mixing 50% of my very hard water with 50% of rainwater made my life easier: 1x 50% weekly WC, no algae at all, good growth and colour. Now I am step ahead: I only dose macros when I see any deficiency

Jordi


----------



## 5678 (10 Jul 2015)

Rahms said:


> from what I've seen in my own tank, if you lack nutrients you wouldn't be getting slower healthy growth, you'd have growth that is clearly not happy. So you should be able to tell really- are you seeing any signs of deficiency?



This is the approach I'm taking. 

I've seen a few variations on plant growth so far while I have been altering the setup of my tank and switching from low tech to high tech. Lanky/Sparse growth, through to fast, thick growth but with pale leaves. 

I have backed off my light and worked on getting my CO2 and EI right first. Once I see healthy, but slow growth, then I am going to start upping the light levels again.


----------



## parotet (10 Jul 2015)

5678 said:


> I have backed off my light and worked on getting my CO2 and EI right first. Once I see healthy, but slow growth, then I am going to start upping the light levels again.


This another typical answer from EI-related problems. The canned answer is: "lower lights, higher CO2 and higher nutrients". IMO it is a nonsense that can very easily lead to more problems. Why more CO2 and nutrients, if you have less light? You don't want tones of nutrients in a tank if they won't be used. As Ardjuna mentions, algae (which are always in your tank, especially if you're having problems) will make use the nutrients. So you will have less plant growth and more nutrients for algae... definitely not the way to go.

Give enough light to the plants (at least "medium" light), ensure a stable CO2 supply, empty your tank and clean it (if you are under 100 liters it takes 2 hours, not more), plant a lot of cheap and easy plants (a lot means that you cannot see the substrate from above), perform weekly 50% WC, good tank husbandry (get rid of dead plants, leaves, infected parts, debris, clean the filter, the hoses, etc.), if you have an enriched substrate don't add macros just watch before if plants need it, if you have an inert substrate dose half of the EI dose and see how it works, adjust to the needs of your setup and don't follow other hobbyists "rules"... and it will work.

Jordi


----------



## 5678 (10 Jul 2015)

parotet said:


> This another typical answer from EI-related problems. The canned answer is: "lower lights, higher CO2 and higher nutrients". IMO it is a nonsense that can very easily lead to more problems. Why more CO2 and nutrients, if you have less light? You don't want tones of nutrients in a tank if they won't be used. As Ardjuna mentions, algae (which are always in your tank, especially if you're having problems) will make use the nutrients. So you will have less plant growth and more nutrients for algae... definitely not the way to go.
> 
> Give enough light to the plants (at least "medium" light), ensure a stable CO2 supply, empty your tank and clean it (if you are under 100 liters it takes 2 hours, not more), plant a lot of cheap and easy plants (a lot means that you cannot see the substrate from above), perform weekly 50% WC, good tank husbandry (get rid of dead plants, leaves, infected parts, debris, clean the filter, the hoses, etc.), if you have an enriched substrate don't add macros just watch before if plants need it, if you have an inert substrate dose half of the EI dose and see how it works, adjust to the needs of your setup and don't follow other hobbyists "rules"... and it will work.
> 
> Jordi



Hi Jordi, 

I would say I am still at "medium" light, I am running a TMC Mini 500 at 45% for 7 hours a day. I had pushed this up to 60% when I started seeing pale leaves on new growth. 
I am using JBL Manado, so not an enriched substrate, dosing EI and have a light green DC just above the substrate in the lowest flow area of the tank.
My plants are already starting to get colour back after just 5 days. When I do my w/c on Sunday I am going to up my light to 50% and repeat for a week. 

I have learnt that I cannot just copy what someone else prescribes and have it work. Too many variables. I am trying to make small, logical steps to establish what works for me. 

Thanks


----------



## ian_m (10 Jul 2015)

I assume you are alternate day macro micro dosing ? We have had people here with poor plant growth with CO2 & light acceptable and find out they are dosing macro and micro at the same time and plants suffering Fe deficiency. Dosing alternate days started to cure their issues.


----------



## Christos Ioannou (10 Jul 2015)

ian_m said:


> I assume you are alternate day macro micro dosing ? We have had people here with poor plant growth with CO2 & light acceptable and find out they are dosing macro and micro at the same time and plants suffering Fe deficiency. Dosing alternate days started to cure their issues.


Yes on alternative days.

Forgot to quote this thread from @Luis Batista. See results from upping macros. Amazing.


----------



## parotet (10 Jul 2015)

5678 said:


> Hi Jordi,
> 
> I would say I am still at "medium" light, I am running a TMC Mini 500 at 45% for 7 hours a day. I had pushed this up to 60% when I started seeing pale leaves on new growth.
> I am using JBL Manado, so not an enriched substrate, dosing EI and have a light green DC just above the substrate in the lowest flow area of the tank.
> ...


Yes, that's what I mean... you have to find your sweet point following very basic and consistent rules you understand and you are able to monitor. Even if it is a glass cube, a simplistic version of the real world, there are too many things to consider. It is another of the very common but realistic answer in forums: each tank is different.

Jordi


----------



## 5678 (10 Jul 2015)

ian_m said:


> I assume you are alternate day macro micro dosing ? We have had people here with poor plant growth with CO2 & light acceptable and find out they are dosing macro and micro at the same time and plants suffering Fe deficiency. Dosing alternate days started to cure their issues.



Yes, dosing alternate days. I also added a touch more chelated iron to my micro mix that I will remove once I am back to green leaves again. 

I think part of my problem was that everything else was OK, but I was dosing a "complete" fert and suffering from reactions meaning not everything could be absorbed.


----------



## EnderUK (10 Jul 2015)

I find trying to hard is the biggest cause of Algae. Once you don't really care about it then it goes away


----------



## MedicMan (10 Jul 2015)

EnderUK said:


> I find trying to hard is the biggest cause of Algae. Once you don't really care about it then it goes away


Very annoying, but so true. 

Please excuse grammar and spelling mistakes in this post. I'm posting from my phone/tablet.


----------



## Jose (10 Jul 2015)

If in doubt just dose double and find out. If youre not limitting too much to start with then you wont see a great change. EI can be affected by things like hard water.


----------



## sciencefiction (11 Jul 2015)

parotet said:


> Now I am step ahead: I only dose macros when I see any deficiency



I think that's one of the best advices here. I wrote a big paragraph but then I deleted it because I sound ridiculous repeating myself. I think we should not be robots when it comes to growing aquatic plants neither should we be relying on someone else to resolve our own problems, be it aquatic plants problems or not.




Jaap said:


> Is EI enough for good growth?


As Jose said above, maybe not in certain circumstances. You have to see what your plants are telling you. I certainly think EI is limiting depending on the water conditions.



Jaap said:


> we have a good light source, we have good circulation and good CO2 but the growth is low. Maybe the macros and micros are not enough!



And then again, how do your plants look like? Are you talking about lush looking plants growing slow or poor plants growing slow? If they are poor looking, describe them maybe or post a picture?



Jaap said:


> Maybe the macros and micros are not enough!


Maybe, maybe not. Why not experiment a bit changing one factor at a time and figure it out for yourself without relying on generalized answers from people that were brainwashed to repeat the same thing they read the previous day. That includes me. It's very easy being brainwashed. It's a whole new science. The most common term is called marketing.


----------



## Marcel G (11 Jul 2015)

ian_m said:


> We have had people here with poor plant growth with CO2 & light acceptable and find out they are dosing macro and micro at the same time and plants suffering Fe deficiency. Dosing alternate days started to cure their issues.





sciencefiction said:


> It's very easy being brainwashed. It's a whole new science.


Sometimes we are making wrong conclusions from what we see (or think we see) in our tanks. And this appears to be the case.
How did you come to the conclusion that adding trace elements the same day as macroelements causes problems with iron availability? What did you based this conclusion on? Any facts? Any scientific (= rigorous) experiments? Many scientists I know add trace elements with macroelements into their test tanks (in hydroponics) ... without any problems! So why are we advised to do otherwise? To back this advise up on our subjective observations is very poor reason. Why are we repeating this myths again and again, without making any effort to verify if it's true?

_*Some facts about (iron) chelates:
*_
Chelating agents (special organic compounds) "wrap" iron ions, thereby making them invisible for other anions in solution (with whom they would otherwise form a stable salts), and at the same time available to plants.
Chelates are composed of a negatively charged organic complex and a positively charged cation (such as Fe+2 or Fe+3). Chelate caughts iron "into claws."





As long as the cation (e.g. iron) is locked in the chelate, it resists the attacks of various anions (e.g. hydroxides or phosphates), which would otherwise (if it was outside the chelate) readily and promptly combine with it to form insoluble compounds (precipitates).

How much "invisible" the iron in the chelate is, depends primarily on the:
→ strength of a particular chelate
→ pH of the solution (typically associated with alkalinity)
→ temperature
→ irradiation (light intensity)




Types of chelates:





 Fe-gluconate → weakest chelating complex (able to maintain iron in a soluble form in the solution up to 1 day)





 Fe-EDTA → usable at pH 5 to 6.0, tend to have problems with high concentrations of calcium and magnesium





 Fe-DTPA → usable at pH 5.0 to 6.8, is probably the best choice





 Fe-HEEDTA → usable at pH 5.0 to 7.0





 Fe-EDDHA → usable at pH pH 5.0 to 9.0, despite the strong bond with iron in hydroponic solution it easily degrades





 Fe-EDDHMA → stable up to pH 11.0
_ → Fe-EDDHA and Fe-EDDHMA discolorate water to pink or brown at the concentrations as low as 0.2 ppm Fe! _

In each commercial mixture of microelements some of the above iron chelates are usually used.
Unfortunately, not all manufacturers state on the product labels what chelates are used in their stock solutions.





 Seachem uses exclusively the weak Fe-gluconate complex





 Easy-Life uses reportedly Fe+2, which would also indicate the use of Fe-gluconate





 Tropica uses Fe-DTPA and Fe-HEEDTA → best choice among the commertial products! 
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	








 Sera and Tetra use supposedly FeCl (i.e. no chelate?)





 In Plantex CSM+B mix there's Fe-EDTA





 In Tenso Cocktail mix there's Fe-EDTA and Fe-DTPA





 In MicroMix+ mixture there's Fe-gluconate, Fe-EDTA, Fe-DTPA and Fe-EDDHMA → best DIY choice! 
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	




As I mention above, usability (stability) of particular chelates depends not only on pH, but also on the temperature and light intensity (irradiation). For this reason the real usability of chelates is usually lower than commonly stated (e.g. Fe-DTPA should be theoretically stable up to pH 7.5, although under normal conditions it may start to degrade even at a lower pH). If we put the chelate solution into the refrigerator (where there is dark and very low temperature), the chelate may stay in the solution even for weeks or months. But as soon as we put the chelate into the tank, where there is higher temperature and relatively high intensity of light, it immediately begins to degrade and release the iron ions into the water, that without protection of chelates awaits they rapid oxidation and precipitation (see the picture). Therefore, one-time application of the chelated iron does not by itself guarantee continuous supply of iron, and logically it won't protect us against the formation of precipitates – a process which is essentially inevitable in the aquarium regardless of the chelate we use. 




_Picture: Concentrated stock solution of fertilizer with Fe-EDTA chelate irradiated with 500 µmol.m-2.s-1._





_Picture: Concentrated stock solution of fertilizer with Fe-DTPA chelate irradiated with 250 and 500 µmol.m-2.s-1._

Regarding the susceptibility of iron to bind to other anions in solution (e.g. PO4-- or OH-) forming insoluble precipitates (e.g. Fe2(PO4)3 or Fe(OH)3), this applies only to oxidized iron (Fe+3), that is freely available in water or is being released from the degrading chelate. As long as the iron is locked in the chelate, it won't bind to other compounds.

If thus iron precipitates in our water, it may be caused by:

gradual degradation of chelates by light, temperature and pH (or possibly other biotic factors)
the use of too weak chelates in solution with higher pH
How to (partially) avoid precipitation of iron:

by using as low pH as possible (which is not always possible in the aquarium)
by using a sufficiently strong chelates (ideally DTPA)
by continuous dosing regime (rather smaller amounts but more often)


----------



## parotet (11 Jul 2015)

Hi all

Just one doubt: why most of the DIY mixes and commercial micro fertilizers use the less effective iron forms instead of using for example Fe-DTPA which seems to be the optimum? Is a matter of price?
Only Tropica knew this??? Another thing: which micromix do you mean? I guess it is a concrete brand, isn't it?

Jordi


----------



## 5678 (11 Jul 2015)

That's going to need to be read a few times for me to understand it!!

Fwiw, I was using tnc complete. With stable co2 and medium/high light I was seeing signs of iron deficiency.
In the absence of knowing any better, and advice received in this thread... http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/using-up-tnc-complete-before-switching-to-ei.37417/

I assumed that the dosing of everything together may contribute towards this problem.

Am I incorrect?


----------



## xim (11 Jul 2015)

parotet said:


> Hi all
> 
> Just one doubt: why most of the DIY mixes and commercial micro fertilizers use the less effective iron forms instead of using for example Fe-DTPA which seems to be the optimum? Is a matter of price?
> Only Tropica knew this??? Another thing: which micromix do you mean? I guess it is a concrete brand, isn't it?
> ...



The so called DIY mixes are actually not DIY because you don't mix it yourself. They are off-the-shelf "ready-mix" products for terrestrial plants sold by vendors in planted aquarium business. Most of these products use EDTA iron, perhaps to keep price low or they are meant to use in foliar feeding.

The reason to use gluconate in some commercial "aquatic" brands are clearly not to keep price low because this chelator is more expensive than DTPA. Their reasons to use it are it's easier/faster for plant to uptake and the iron can stay in Fe+2 form instead of Fe+3 in other chelators.


----------



## Marcel G (11 Jul 2015)

parotet said:


> which micromix do you mean? I guess it is a concrete brand, isn't it?


It's a special mix prepared by one Czech vendor (http://akvarijni-hnojivo.cz/micromix-plus-koupit-39). BTW, this vendor offers different Fe-chelates, so in case you are interested (here in the Czech Republic) you can easily make whatever DIY version you like.


----------



## Marcel G (12 Jul 2015)

xim said:


> The reason to use gluconate in some commercial "aquatic" brands are clearly not to keep price low because this chelator is more expensive than DTPA. Their reasons to use it are it's easier/faster for plant to uptake and the iron can stay in Fe+2 form instead of Fe+3 in other chelators.


There was a discussion to this issue at krib some years ago:
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/gluconate.html
Seachem believes that Fe-gluconate is much better uptaken then other kinds of chelates, so they use solely this complex in their fertilizers. I don't think Fe-gluconate is that much better then other chelates, especially under the average conditions in our tanks (see my previous post about Fe-chelates). Fe-gluconate won't last more than 1 day in our tanks.


----------



## Victor (12 Jul 2015)

ardjuna said:


> As long as the cation (e.g. iron) is locked in the chelate, it resists the attacks of various anions (e.g. hydroxides or phosphates), which would otherwise (if it was outside the chelate) readily and promptly combine with it to form insoluble compounds (precipitates).
> 
> How much "invisible" the iron in the chelate is, depends primarily on the:
> → strength of a particular chelate
> ...



Hi, Ardjuna. I did my iron EDTA iron solution with tap water (very soft, less than 1 dkh). Do you know if the chelate will degrade before I use all solution content ? It lasts for about 20 days. Thank you.


----------



## Marcel G (13 Jul 2015)

Victor said:


> I did my iron EDTA iron solution with tap water (very soft, less than 1 dkh). Do you know if the chelate will degrade before I use all solution content ? It lasts for about 20 days.


Do you see any precipitate in the bottle? If so, then your iron had already degraded (break down) and is not in the chelate any more. If there is no precipitate in the stock solution then your iron is probably still in the chelate and is usable. From what I have said in my post about chelates, it's always a good idea to store the stock solution in the refrigerator (in cold and dark), as the higher the temperature and the stronger the light, the earlier the chelate will break down and precipitate. Also the higher the pH of the water you use for the preparation of your stock solution, the worse ... so try to use destilled water whenever possible (or add some acid into your water to lower the pH of your tap water).


----------



## Victor (13 Jul 2015)

ardjuna said:


> Do you see any precipitate in the bottle? If so, then your iron had already degraded (break down) and is not in the chelate any more. If there is no precipitate in the stock solution then your iron is probably still in the chelate and is usable. From what I have said in my post about chelates, it's always a good idea to store the stock solution in the refrigerator (in cold and dark), as the higher the temperature and the stronger the light, the earlier the chelate will break down and precipitate. Also the higher the pH of the water you use for the preparation of your stock solution, the worse ... so try to use destilled water whenever possible (or add some acid into your water to lower the pH of your tap water).



Alright. But I think my solution is good because there isn't any precipitate at the bottom. I use tap water because it's very soft (63 TDS) so it isn't so different than RO water. I had no idea about the solution ph. The iron EDTA tends to low the ph?


----------



## Jose (13 Jul 2015)

ardjuna said:


> Sometimes we are making wrong conclusions from what we see (or think we see) in our tanks. And this appears to be the case.
> How did you come to the conclusion that adding trace elements the same day as macroelements causes problems with iron availability? What did you based this conclusion on? Any facts? Any scientific (= rigorous) experiments? Many scientists I know add trace elements with macroelements into their test tanks (in hydroponics) ... without any problems! So why are we advised to do otherwise? To back this advise up on our subjective observations is very poor reason. Why are we repeating this myths again and again, without making any effort to verify if it's true?



I dont think this is just a myth or is not based in any evidence. Until proven otherwise its a good idea to advise people to dose on alternate days because its not hard to do at all. I myself dose in the same day everything without any bad effect but I dose a lot more than EI.


----------



## Victor (13 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> I myself dose in the same day everything without any bad effect but I dose a lot more than EI.



Hi, Jose. What's your iron and macronutrients weekly dosage in ppm?


----------



## Marcel G (13 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> I dont think this is just a myth or is not based in any evidence. Until proven otherwise its a good idea to advise people to dose on alternate days...


I thought it a bit differently (maybe I said it in a wrong way). I think that if someone doses macro and micro elements on the same day and gets precipitates, this does not prove that _*all *_iron chelates will behave the same way. There may be a couple of reasons why he/she gets precipitates when dosing macro and micro elements the same day. The most obvious one is the use of wrong Fe-chelate (i.e. too weak iron chelate used under high pH). When you use Fe-DTPA I'm quite sure you _*won't *_get any precipitates in your tank ... even under very high dosages (like 1 ppm Fe). On the other hand, when you use Fe-gluconate in your microelement mix, then I guarantee you _*will*_ have precipitates in your tank the next day after you apply your dose. If you apply small enough amount of iron, then you may not notice the precipitation, but if you apply high enough dose, the rusty precipitates will be just everywhere (mainly on plants and filter).
Look at this picture: http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/img/experimenty/test_fe_srovnani_3d_rostliny.png (35.7 MB !!!)
_Legend: 1st tank = Fe-gluconate, 2nd tank = Fe-EDTA, 3rd tank = Fe-DTPA, 4th tank = Fe-DTPA + Fe-EDDHMA, 5th tank = Fe-gluconate + Fe-EDTA + Fe-DTPA + Fe-EDDHMA (the dose divided into 7 smaller subdoses). I put 0.9 ppm Fe into each tank (in the 5th tank I dosed 1/7 each day instead). The picture is taken on the 3rd day after I applied the dose, although the same results were already seen on the second day, and did not change in the following days._
So my conclusion: If you dose macro and micro elements on the same day while experiencing problems with precipitation (or iron deficiency), then you do something wrong. It's not about the Fe, it's about wrong method! Either you use wrong Fe-chelate under your pH, or you do some other mistake. Fe-gluconate is not meant to be dosed just once a week, because this complex (it's not even a chelate!) won't last in your tank more than one day. Fe-EDTA and Fe-EDDHMA are also not as good choice under normal conditions, as most of it will precipitate in your tanks the next day after you add it. You would need to have a very low pH, low light and low temperature in your tank for these chelates to last more than one day. The best choice so far seems to be Fe-DTPA as this chelate seems to be the most stable one under our conditions. So if you use Fe-DTPA in our tank, then you can apply it just once a week. Other iron chelates are best to be added on daily basis ... if you want to get most (or at least something) of it.
So again, there is no reason why you should not to combine Fe with PO4 (or other macroelements) ... if your Fe is still in the chelate. Because if the iron is in the chelate it is in safe (no PO4 can cause it to precipitate!). Whenever the PO4 _*can *_react with Fe to form precipitates, is when the Fe _*gets out *_of the chelate. And this can happen only if the chelate _*breaks down *_by too high pH, too high light, or too high temperature. If you use Fe-DTPA then there is no way for PO4 (or other anions) to react with it even under very high concentrations (like 10 ppm PO4).


----------



## Marcel G (13 Jul 2015)

One more note:
Even if you dose Fe-gluconate (or other weak Fe-chelates) just once a week you may not experience any iron deficiency problems, because the iron is a trace elements, so our plants need just a little bit of it to grow well. Once I calculated than in a high-tech tank with very strong light, high CO2 levels + high other nutrient levels, the real Fe consumption is about 0.005 ppm per week. So even when you pump 1 ppm Fe weekly into your tank, your plants probably won't uptake more then 0.005 ppm. [But if you lower the iron dose to, say, 0.5 ppm per week, then they may uptake just 0.002 ppm per week. So the more iron you supply them, them more (small) part of it they will uptake.] So it depends on whether the iron complex (or iron chelate) is able to last in your tank at least until your plants will (up)take something of it. If the conditions in your tank are bad and your chelate will break down (degrade) very quickly after you add it into your tank, then your plants may begin to show some deficiency signs despite the fact you supply some iron into your tank.


----------



## Jose (13 Jul 2015)

Victor said:


> Hi, Jose. What's your iron and macronutrients weekly dosage in ppm?



I will have to measure but its like 1/4th of a teaspoon of micros and the same pretty much for everything else. This is every day on a 12 litre nano tank but no fish in it atm.


----------



## Victor (13 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> will have to measure but its like 1/4th of a teaspoon of micros and the same pretty much for everything else. This is every day on a 12 litre nano tank but no fish in it atm.


Do you dose the powder directly in the tank or dissolve it in a solution to store and use during the month?


----------



## sciencefiction (13 Jul 2015)

ardjuna said:


> So it depends on whether the iron complex (or iron chelate) is able to last in your tank at least until your plants will (up)take something of it. If the conditions in your tank are bad and your chelate will break down (degrade) very quickly after you add it into your tank, then your plants may begin to show some deficiency signs despite the fact you supply some iron into your tank.





ardjuna said:


> The best choice so far seems to be Fe-DTPA as this chelate seems to be the most stable one under our conditions.



Yes, that's my problem. The iron doesn't last in my tap water. And I dose the wrong type of iron for my hard water.  I dose 0.6ppm weekly in about 3 doses or so. If I dose once a 0.2ppm my plants start showing iron deficiency within a week. I don't dose phosphates so I don't happen to mix micros/macros. It's just my tap reacting with the iron.

This is a low tech with not much light and very few plants to compete for it. Red clay in the substrate though works perfectly. And also clay pebbles in the filters mitigate the problem somewhat too.
So I either need clay in the substrate or dose the right type of iron as you suggested, otherwise in my hard water the one I use doesn't cut it.


----------



## Victor (13 Jul 2015)

I'm thinking to dose all macronutrients weekly dosage at once (after water change). But I'll keep dosing micros in alternated days (because the most part of them are chalated). It's a good idea?


----------



## Jose (13 Jul 2015)

Victor said:


> Do you dose the powder directly in the tank or dissolve it in a solution to store and use during the month?


I like to dry dose. Its just simpler for me and i dont have to worry about micros deteriorating or measuring etc.


----------



## Jose (13 Jul 2015)

Victor said:


> I'm thinking to dose all macronutrients weekly dosage at once (after water change). But I'll keep dosing micros in alternated days (because the most part of them are chalated). It's a good idea?



I dont think its a great idea. You might get very good growth at the beginning of the week but not so much at the end, and concentrations will change a lot. If youre doing it for a reason then just try it and look at plants and fish.


----------



## Victor (13 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> I dont think its a great idea. You might get very good growth at the beginning of the week but not so much at the end, and concentrations will change a lot. If youre doing it for a reason then just try it and look at plants and fish.



It's more easy to dose all at once because I usually forget to dose some days during the week. I'll dose after after wc the following amount of macros, 60 ppm KNO3, 8 ppm PO4, 10 ppm Mg and 30 ppm Ca.


----------



## Christos Ioannou (13 Jul 2015)

Are we still talking about a hobby or rocket science?! 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jose (13 Jul 2015)

Victor said:


> It's more easy to dose all at once because I usually forget to dose some days during the week. I'll dose after after wc the following amount of macros, 60 ppm KNO3, 8 ppm PO4, 10 ppm Mg and 30 ppm Ca.



Give it a go and we'll see. Light will make the difference (if its low or high).


----------



## Victor (13 Jul 2015)

I think it's medium/high. I have 3 lines of T8 (6 x 30 w) over my tank (200 cm x 40 cm x 45 cm) and each bulb have a good reflector. This weekly dosing schedule works better with high light?


----------



## Jose (13 Jul 2015)

Victor said:


> I think it's medium/high. I have 3 lines of T8 (6 x 30 w) over my tank (200 cm x 40 cm x 45 cm) and each bulb have a good reflector. This weekly dosing schedule works better with high light?



No. The faster your plants will grow the more you have to stick to "EI" rules. So, the more light you have then the more stable the concentration should be so as not to run out of anything at any time.
Basically if you have high light then plants will grow faster, so they'll need more nutrients at all times. Also the faster they grow the more waste they produce so more water changes are needed. This has nothing to do with the method but all to do with plant growth.


----------



## Victor (13 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> No. The faster your plants will grow the more you have to stick to "EI" rules. So, the more light you have then the more stable the concentration should be so as not to run out of anything at any time.


So I think there will be no problems because I'll dose 2x the weekly EI macronutrients dosage at once. Sixty ppm KNO3, 8 ppm PO4, 10 ppm Mg and 30 ppm Ca is a lot, isn't it?


----------



## Marcel G (13 Jul 2015)

Christos Ioannou said:


> Are we still talking about a hobby or rocket science?!


As long as everything goes well, you don't need to know any science behind it. But as soon as things go wrong and you don't understand why, then it's time to go deeper. My posts are meant to help you understand why iron may precipitate in your tank (or why you can experience iron deficiencies in your plants). If you don't have any problems with iron, and are not interested in any knowledge about planted tank science, then just ignore it.


----------



## Marcel G (13 Jul 2015)

Victor said:


> I'm thinking to dose all macronutrients weekly dosage at once (after water change). But I'll keep dosing micros in alternated days (because the most part of them are chalated). It's a good idea?


As far as I know, the growth rate of plants and their uptake of nutrients depend on the external concentration of these nutrients in water and/or in substrate. What does this mean? This means that if you have, for example, 30 ppm NO3 in your water, your plants will produce about 1 gram of biomass per week. If you give them just 10 ppm NO3, your plants may produce only about 0.3 grams of biomass per week. So the higher the concentration of nutrients in water or substrate, the more biomass is produced (the higher the growth rate). Of course, each nutrient concentration has its upper limit.
So if you supply your plants 30 ppm NO3 in one weekly dose, the first day your plants will have 30 ppm NO3 available and from this amount they uptake, say, 10% each day:
1st day: 30 ppm NO3 available => 3 ppm uptaken (10%)
2nd day: 27 ppm NO3 available => 2.7 ppm uptaken (10%)
3rd day: 24.3 ppm NO3 available => 2.4 ppm uptaken  (10%)
4th day: 21.9 ppm NO3 available => 2.2 ppm uptaken (10%)
5th day: 19.7 ppm NO3 available => 2.0 ppm uptaken (10%)
6th day: 17.7 ppm NO3 available => 1.8 ppm uptaken (10%)
7th day: 15.9 ppm NO3 available => water change
Weekly consumption of NO3 by plants under one 30 ppm weekly dose = 14.1 ppm NO3

On the other hand, when you supply your plants the NO3 on daily basis => 4.3 ppm NO3 each day (7 x 4.3 = 30 ppm per week):
1st day: 4.3 ppm NO3 available => 0.4 ppm uptaken (10%)
2nd day: 8.2 ppm (3.9+4.3) NO3 available => 0.8 ppm uptaken (10%)
3rd day: 11.7 ppm (7.4+4.3) NO3 available => 1.2 ppm uptaken (10%)
4th day: 14.8 ppm (10.5+4.3) NO3 available => 1.5 ppm uptaken (10%)
5th day: 17.6 ppm (13.3+4.3) NO3 available => 1.8 ppm uptaken (10%)
6th day: 20.1 ppm (15.8+4.3) NO3 available => 2.0 ppm uptaken (10%)
7th day: 18.1 ppm NO3 available => water change
Weekly consumption of NO3 by plants under seven small daily doses = 7.7 ppm NO3

Now, in which case your plants will uptake more nutrients, thus producing more biomass and growing faster?
I would say that you plants will grow almost 2-times faster if you supply them 30 ppm NO3 once a week, rather then dividing them this amount into seven smaller daily doses.

With trace elements the situation is a little different. On the one hand, it works the same (i.e. if we can dose just one bigger dosage of micros our plants will gain much more of it and grow probably better), but on the other hand, iron chelates won't last too long in our tanks, so it's much wiser to dose them on daily basis, rather than just once a week.


----------



## Victor (13 Jul 2015)

ardjuna said:


> As far as I know, the growth rate of plants and their uptake of nutrients depend on the external concentration of these nutrients in water and/or in substrate. What does this mean? This means that if you have, for example, 30 ppm NO3 in your water, your plants will produce about 1 gram of biomass per week. If you give them just 10 ppm NO3, your plants may produce only about 0.3 grams of biomass per week. So the higher the concentration of nutrients in water or substrate, the more biomass is produced (the higher the growth rate). Of course, each nutrient concentration has its upper limit.
> So if you supply your plants 30 ppm NO3 in one weekly dose, the first day your plants will have 30 ppm NO3 available and from this amount they uptake, say, 10% each day:
> 1st day: 30 ppm NO3 available => 3 ppm uptaken (10%)
> 2nd day: 27 ppm NO3 available => 2.7 ppm uptaken (10%)
> ...


Excelent explanation, mate! Thank you.


----------



## Victor (13 Jul 2015)

Do you think 60 ppm KNO3, 8 ppm PO4, 10 ppm Mg and 30 ppm Ca once a week can provide the maximum daily uptake? Or I need more to reach the daily uptake limit by plants?


----------



## Jose (13 Jul 2015)

ardjuna said:


> 1st day: 30 ppm NO3 available => 3 ppm uptaken (10%)
> 2nd day: 27 ppm NO3 available => 2.7 ppm uptaken (10%)
> 3rd day: 24.3 ppm NO3 available => 2.4 ppm uptaken (10%)
> 4th day: 21.9 ppm NO3 available => 2.2 ppm uptaken (10%)
> ...




This is misleading. Nutrient uptake is not linear to concentration in the water. There is a relationship though: The more nutrients in water then the more uptake there is. But there is a non or near non limiting value after which a big change in nutrients doesnt mean an important change in growth.

EI is meant to maintain (supposedly and I havent done tests on this but most people have had great results) that near non limitting concentrations via dosing on alternate days.

Plus the idea behind dosing on alternate days also solves any problems you might have with precipitation or ion exchange processes.


----------



## Marcel G (13 Jul 2015)

Victor said:


> Do you think 60 ppm KNO3, 8 ppm PO4, 10 ppm Mg and 30 ppm Ca once a week can provide the maximum daily uptake? Or I need more to reach the daily uptake limit by plants?


Hardly anyone can answer this question. But for sure, each plant species has a different optimum concentration level. Still, I would say that the suggested concentration should be very close to the upper limit for most plants.


----------



## Marcel G (13 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> This is misleading. Nutrient uptake is not linear to concentration in the water. There is a relationship though: The more nutrients in water then the more uptake there is. But there is a non or near non limiting value after which a big change in nutrients doesnt mean an important change in growth.


Do you think my values (3 ppm, 2.7 ppm, 2.4 ppm, 2.2 ppm, 2.0 ppm, etc.) are linear?


----------



## Jose (13 Jul 2015)

ardjuna said:


> Do you think my values (3 ppm, 2.7 ppm, 2.4 ppm, 2.2 ppm, 2.0 ppm, etc.) are linear?



Not the values. The percentage uptake should also not be linear. Basically youve given an example where levels of nutrients are quite limitting. This levels are different for different plants and for some 10 ppm of NO3 might be non limitting whilst for others it might be 90. I understand you are just giving an example but people need to understand that this is not always this way. If we are over the non limitting levels for a given plant then uptake if we stay in that range will be quite similar in both cases.


----------



## Marcel G (13 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> Not the values. The percentage uptake should also not be linear. Basically youve given an example where levels of nutrients are quite limitting. This levels are different for different plants and for some 10 ppm of NO3 might be non limitting whilst for others it might be 90. I understand you are just giving an example but people need to understand that this is not always this way. If we are over the non limitting levels for a given plant then uptake if we stay in that range will be quite similar in both cases.


Yes, I agree with this, but I rely on people having a brain, that they can use. The values were really just an example. It's very hard to monitor the nutrient uptake on daily basis, because if you would like to know how much nutrients your plants uptake each day, you would have to do a lot of analysis each day. Most scientific studies monitor plant growth for some period of time (say, couple of weeks), and do all the analysis at the end of this period. Then they calculate the average uptake per day (or per week). So we, in fact, don't know if the uptake percentage is linear or not. I just wanted to show some general mechanism of nutrient uptake, i.e. that it really matters what external concentration you have in your tank, and that plants can uptake just a small part (a certain proportion or percentage) of what they have available in the water or substrate. So there will be a big difference in supplying them with 70 ppm once a week vs. 10 ppm each day. That's all. The exact numbers do not matter; what matters is the logic → the mechanism. But if we want to be clear in what is the optimum concentration of nutrients for different species, someone will finally have to do the experiments. Otherwise, we will be forever locked in the realm of speculations.
I myself am already doing some tests, which can help us to answer few of these questions:




The above chart shows two plants grown under 90 ppm NO3, 9 ppm PO4, 60 ppm K, 0.9 ppm Fe (all weekly doses), 35-44 ppm CO2, 25-28°C, 100-200 µmol/m2/s. It was just a sample. Right now I'm doing a complete experiment with growing five aquatic plant species under different concentrations of nutrients.




The first test is being done with _Pogostemon erectus_.


----------



## Christos Ioannou (13 Jul 2015)

Its about time that I added some pictures to get the most out of you people.

This is an FTS of my tank. Its 180L tank, running on a 2000LPH filter. Water is returned in the tank with a tank-long spraybar. Water spray will hit the front of the tank with a small arch. CO2 is fed via an inline DIY Rex Crigg style reactor that effortlessly sets the drop checker to lime green (or more likely light yellow). The liquid in the drop checker is from Aquasabi that is registering 30ppm with a green color. So its a definite > 30ppm @ substrate level. I don't bother counting BPS of CO2. Lifestock is doing ok due to surface rippling. I am also running a surface skimmer (addon to the filter intake)

Tank is running between 26/27 degrees celcius (hot summer has arrived, temperature outsite is about 38-40 degrees)



 




Substrate is Tesco's Kitty Litter (molar clay) and sand. 
Light is 2x54W T5 20cm above water line; 55cm above substrate. I was using CFL lights but switched to T5 about a month ago.

These are the plants and how they look:
*
MONTE CARLO. *Suffered from algae, treated with H2O2. This burned badly the MC (about a month ago). I think it is now recovering but its veeeery slow in doing so. 




*S. REPENS. *I was dosing lean on the MICROS so leafs turned a pale yellow. This was identified a couple of weeks back and fixed. Seems to be getting back on track. Older leafs suffer from some bba. Also some leafs appear torn.




*E.PARVULA*. Is doing quite alright after I switched from CFL light to T5. Its sitting below the spraybar at the back of the tank so I suppose it is getting very little flow in the tank.




*ALTERNANTHERA REINECKII sp mini. *(or a pathetic excuse of this) I had to trim it back since the leafs show a pale pink color. Lower leafs suffer from GSA(?) This is also at the back of the tank. When I initially changed to T5 the color was amazing! Now its like in the pictures...




*POGOSTEMON HELFERI* Sits on the back of the tank. Usually I trim tops and replant. Was growing out leggy before switching from CFL to T5.




Mosses are thriving (christmass moss and weeping moss). Those were trimmed back yesterday.
Hydrocotyle tripartita, hygrophila polysperma*, *crypts are doing ok as well.
BBA is greatly reduced after introduction of 5 Yamato shrimp (adding more next month)

*Dosing (EI)*
I am using the following:
MICRO: chelated trace elements from APF, 6g in 500ml solution, 50ml daily. (APF recommended dosage)

MACRO: KNO3, KH2PO4

KNO3: 25g in 500ml, dose 50ml 3 times / week giving 3*8.5ppm Nitrate (33,5ppm Nitrate weekly) and 5.38 ppm Potassium (16.05ppm K weekly)

KH2PO4: 7,5g in 500ml, dose 50ml 3 times / week giving 3*1.2ppm Potassium (3.6ppm K weekly) and 3*2.89 ppm Phosphate (8.7ppm Phosphate weekly)
(results using Jame's calculator)

*Weekly ppm*
N: 33,5ppm
P: 8.7ppm
K: 19.65 ppm

Stock solution is made with tap water.
I hope I am not doing something terribly wrong with the maths.

So, all of my cards are on the table. Do you see anything wrong here?


----------



## parotet (13 Jul 2015)

If I'm not wrong your tap water in Cyprus  is very hard... Thus making your micro stock solutions with it is a bad idea unless you use specific chelators.

Jordi


----------



## Marcel G (13 Jul 2015)

I doubt you need such a high concentration of phosphates in your tank which is not fully planted. If you have no critters in there, then you can experiment, but hardly anyone is using such a high PO4 (maybe except T.Barr). Also some plants may do better with nutrient-rich substrate. I would rather invest into some quality nutrient-rich substrate than trying to increase nutrient levels in water column (this is not good for critters, it's just good for algae).


----------



## ian_m (13 Jul 2015)

parotet said:


> Thus making your micro stock solutions with it is a bad idea unless you use specific chelators.


Or use cooled boiled water. Though not seen micro precipitate some people have with their hard water, mine is 22 degree hardness which is F'ing hard on hardness scale.

Where is your Mg coming from ? (don't tell me your tap water....wrong ). Some of these symptoms could be attributed to Mg deficiency, though generally mechanical damage points to CO2 issues.


----------



## parotet (13 Jul 2015)

I also agree with Marcel, too much phosphates for such a low plant biomass. I would say too much nutrients actually. My very hard tank water combined with hard EI dosing meant BBA. It improved dosing leaner (but had enriched substrate) and reducing hardness. With both changes TDS went from +1000 microS to max 500 microS. Now it's my reference value

Jordi


----------



## Christos Ioannou (13 Jul 2015)

parotet said:


> If I'm not wrong your tap water in Cyprus  is very hard... Thus making your micro stock solutions with it is a bad idea unless you use specific chelators.
> Jordi


Redone micro solution with DI water.



ardjuna said:


> I doubt you need such a high concentration of phosphates in your tank which is not fully planted. If you have no critters in there, then you can experiment, but hardly anyone is using such a high PO4 (maybe except T.Barr). Also some plants may do better with nutrient-rich substrate. I would rather invest into some quality nutrient-rich substrate than trying to increase nutrient levels in water column (this is not good for critters, it's just good for algae).


When something goes wrong you try to grasp from any advice you come across. This is why I doubled the KH2PO4 dosage. Next batch will be only be 3,5g in 700ml to dose 50ml = 1ppm (x3 = 3ppm per week).

About molar clay, well this was supposed to be indispensable given its characteristics (high cec, etc). I don't think I will be ever trying it again - its so hard to plant to begin with and apparently plants are way better off with nutrient rich substrate. I tried to use the enrich it with osmocote root tabs - no dramatic results.



ian_m said:


> Where is your Mg coming from ? (don't tell me your tap water....wrong ). Some of these symptoms could be attributed to Mg deficiency, though generally mechanical damage points to CO2 issues.


When I started out I was not dosing any Mg since hard water is supposed to contain that... Then, it was time to experiment and so I started adding Mg. Its been a while since I added any. I can alter my batch and add 85g Magnesium Sulphate 7H20 in 700ml solution. Each 50 ml dose will yeld 3.3ppm, summing up 10ppm of Mg / week

How about the pink A.Reinekkii leafs? Anything obvious here? Or is it the CO2 to blame? I have a spare powerhead I can use to improve circulation. Place it somewhere parallel to the spraybar jets. What do you think?


----------



## Jose (13 Jul 2015)

Dont rely on just a drop checker. Measure ph drop.


----------



## Christos Ioannou (13 Jul 2015)

Done that already. Got 1+ unit before lights on.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jose (13 Jul 2015)

Then look at the basics thoroughly cause there is smthing wrong. Look at light, ferts regime, water changes etc.


----------



## Christos Ioannou (13 Jul 2015)

All I am doing is already listed... I did not keep any secrets. 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jaap (14 Jul 2015)

A few questions:

1. Can there be lush healthy growth with inert substrate and no nutrient enriched under-soil, just with EI?

2. If it is better to add Macros at the beginning of the week once a week, what ppm should be added for each nutrient?

3. If adding all Macros at the beginning of the week, how will someone need to dose Micros?

4. If the substrate is not nutrient enriched, is it better to be clay based with a high CEC or plain inert? The reason for this question is because when adding nutrients through water column, the clay substrate will absorb some amount of nutrients, will this cause nutrient deprivation to the plants?

Thanks in advance



ardjuna said:


> Hardly anyone can answer this question. But for sure, each plant species has a different optimum concentration level. Still, I would say that the suggested concentration should be very close to the upper limit for most plants.


----------



## Marcel G (14 Jul 2015)

Jaap said:


> 1. Can there be lush healthy growth with inert substrate and no nutrient enriched under-soil, just with EI?


I think it will depend on the plant species used in the tank, as well as on other parameters also (light intensity, source water parameters, wood used [organics content], bacterial composition, etc.). For a number of plants the EI amounts should be quite enough to grow well.


> 2. If it is better to add Macros at the beginning of the week once a week, what ppm should be added for each nutrient?


Again, I'm not the right person to answer this question, as I don't believe in any universally valid, one-for-all recipe. Different people need different amount of nutrients to be healthy (there are also big differences between men, women, children). The same applies for aquatic plants. Unfortunately, this seems to be hard to understand for many people. If, for example, Pogostemon needs 50 ppm NO3 for optimal growth, and Anubias needs 10 ppm NO3 for optimal growth, then 30 ppm NO3 won't be optimal for neither of these plant species. For Pogostemon this concentration won't be enough, while for Anubias this concentration may be even toxic (it may hinder/block its full growth). The same logic applies for CO2 also (some plants may need 20 ppm for optimum growth, while for others 40 ppm may be already toxic). The only aquarist, I know of, who claims he did some growth experiments, is Mr. Barr. Unfortunately, he never published any findings from his experiments, so all we have are the "claims" and estimated data of EI method.
_Note: The above values are just fictional examples._


> 3. If adding all Macros at the beginning of the week, how will someone need to dose Micros?


I would say that for the iron (Fe) applies the same logic as for macro elements. [Other trace elements chelates, except iron chelates, are quite stable, and should not break down as easily as with iron, so this point applies mainly to iron.] This means, that it is best to dose it at the begining of the week (after the water change). The problem is that most of the iron chelates won't last for a whole week, and will break down (degrade) usually the next day after we add them to our tanks. The only exception seems to be Fe-DTPA (and maybe Fe-HEEDTA or some other stronger chelates). So because most iron chelates won't last long enough, we have no other choice but to dose them on daily basis (or every other day) ... if we want them to be available for our plants. If you dose Fe-gluconate just once a week, then you can be sure that for your plants it will be available for no more than 2 days (at most); for the rest of the week your plants won't have any iron available from Fe-gluconate. Still, some plants may be fine with this approach (they may be able to absorb the iron on the first day, and for the rest of the week they can draw from stocks).
PS: I may be wrong; it's just my opinion.


> 4. If the substrate is not nutrient enriched, is it better to be clay based with a high CEC or plain inert? The reason for this question is because when adding nutrients through water column, the clay substrate will absorb some amount of nutrients, will this cause nutrient deprivation to the plants?


This is a good question which I don't know the answer for.


----------



## Jaap (14 Jul 2015)

Thanks for the answer. 

Could you please explain how your schedule is for Macro and Micro dosing and in what ppm targets? 

Also do you use nutrient enriched substrate or not? 

Thanks 



ardjuna said:


> I think it will depend on the plant species used in the tank, as well as on other parameters also (light intensity, source water parameters, wood used [organics content], bacterial composition, etc.). For a number of plants the EI amounts should be quite enough to grow well.
> 
> Again, I'm not the right person to answer this question, as I don't believe in any universally valid, one-for-all recipe. Different people need different amount of nutrients to be healthy (there are also big differences between men, women, children). The same applies for aquatic plants. Unfortunately, this seems to be hard to understand for many people. If, for example, Pogostemon needs 50 ppm NO3 for optimal growth, and Anubias needs 10 ppm NO3 for optimal growth, then 30 ppm NO3 won't be optimal for neither of these plant species. For Pogostemon this concentration won't be enough, while for Anubias this concentration may be even toxic (it may hinder/block its full growth). The same logic applies for CO2 also (some plants may need 20 ppm for optimum growth, while for others 40 ppm may be already toxic). The only aquarist, I know of, who claims he did some growth experiments, is Mr. Barr. Unfortunately, he never published any findings from his experiments, so all we have are the "claims" and estimated data of EI method.
> _Note: The above values are just fictional examples._
> ...


----------



## Jose (14 Jul 2015)

You can grow any plant by using EI as long as the rest is good as Ardjuna says. If you think plant X is not having enough nutrients with EI then just dose double and find out. Now, a nutrient rich substrate is always a good idea because it provides a backup for people who are nutrient scared or lazy.


----------



## Marcel G (14 Jul 2015)

Although I don't believe that any one-for-all recipe can be optimal for all aquarium plants, still we have no other choice than to use just one fertilization method in our tanks. Right now I have just one 60L (15G) tank where I have ADA Aqua Soil Amazonia substrate, and I fertilize sporadically in there when I see any signs of deficiencies. This is the only tank where I have fish. I don't want nor need any fast growth there, so I don't add too much fertilizers. Then I have another 60L (15G) tank, which I use for cultivation of plants for my growth experiments. In this tank I use EI method of fertilization together with ADA Aqua Soil Amazonia substrate. Then I have 5 small tanks (each 16L = 4G), where I have different nutrient concentrations (weekly doses):
1.tank = 15 ppm NO3, 1.5 ppm PO4, 10 ppm K, 0.15 ppm Fe + other trace elements
2.tank = 30 ppm NO3, 3 ppm PO4, 20 ppm K, 0.3 ppm Fe
3.tank = 60 ppm NO3, 6 ppm PO4, 40 ppm K, 0.6 ppm Fe
4.tank = 90 ppm NO3, 9 ppm PO4, 61 ppm K, 0.9 ppm Fe
5.tank = 120 ppm NO3, 12 ppm PO4, 81 ppm K, 1.2 ppm Fe
I posted the picture of this experimental set already (see here).
In the last three tanks I have to divide the trace elements dose into 7 smaller sub-doses, because if I add the full dose once a week into the tank, the iron precipitates quite quickly. When I use smaller doses, the iron seems to be better uptaken and the precipitation seems to be not such a problem. Also, in the fifth tank I have quite bad oily film on the water surface (probably due to the extremely high concentration of nutrients).


----------



## Christos Ioannou (14 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> You can grow any plant by using EI as long as the rest is good as Ardjuna says.  If you think plant X is not having enough nutrients with EI then just dose double and find out. Now, a nutrient rich substrate is always a good idea because it provides a backup for people who are nutrient scared or lazy.


Hi Jose, I hear what you are saying. But my dosing is fully automated with dosing pumps so even if I am away the arduino controller will dose, on alternative days, for the volumes necessary. 

If I understand your post correctly, you imply that if I stick to dosing schedule, a nutrient rich substrate is not necessary and an inert (or high cec) substrate suffices.


----------



## Jose (14 Jul 2015)

Christos Ioannou said:


> If I understand your post correctly, you imply that if I stick to dosing schedule, a nutrient rich substrate is not necessary and an inert (or high cec) substrate suffices.



To be 100% honest I have always dosed a bit more than EI, around double and never really used a fertile substrate like ADA AS, although at first I used some garden soil but discarded it quite soon. I think that EI is sufficient for all plants we keep in the hobby. But then there might be precipitation issues with soil, hard water etc. So its hard to say for each person. But one thing is true, youre are going to make the best use of your time looking to your co2 and light levels if really dosing EI. I say this because EI works for most if they get this right.


----------



## xim (14 Jul 2015)

Jaap said:


> A few questions:
> 
> 1. Can there be lush healthy growth with inert substrate and no nutrient enriched under-soil, just with EI?



I use plain gravel, no root tabs and no under-soil. But honestly, growing small carpet plants such as hair grass mini (belem) is extremely slow. And I'm not doing EI because I limit my PO4 dosage to 0.1 PPM daily. Overall it looks quite lush and healthy for me.

But I think I should have started with ADA Amazonia. Ideally, newbies should use everything that could help archive the goal easier, such as a good proven substrate, if they can afford it. And start with a small tank first to get a feel at lower cost and for easy maintenance.

Examples of tanks with good growth using plain gravel:

(EI dosing)
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/low-maintenance-120cmx60x60-tank-new-photo-on-page-5.2538/page-4

(Using Tropica liquid fertiliser)
http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/iwagumi-scree-evolution-the-end.14467/


----------



## Iceagezzo (15 Jul 2015)

ardjuna said:


> How much "invisible" the iron in the chelate is, depends primarily on the:
> → strength of a particular chelate
> → pH of the solution (typically associated with alkalinity)
> → temperature
> *→ irradiation (light intensity)*



Hi all,

If light intensity is a major issue in breaking the chelates, could adding the daily dosage at the end of the day (after lights go off) be better for iron availability and plant uptake?

Thx!
Mihai


----------



## Christos Ioannou (28 Jul 2015)

Hi people, about the precipitation when dosing micros and macros on the same day. I had some left over solution of micro and macro, and mixed equal amounts in a glass.
No visible precipitation just a transparent solution (yellow tint from micro solution)
Micros: Chelated trace elements from APF
Macros: KNO3, MgSO4*7H20, KH2PO4


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Add light. It looks like the micro chelator is still active. You want it to go brown. Upping pH might help.


----------



## Christos Ioannou (28 Jul 2015)

So, I am setting up a new batch of the macro solution. Suggested ppm is as below.

Nitrate (NO3) 20ppm per week
Potassium (K) 30ppm per week
Phosphate (PO4) 3ppm per week
Magnesium (Mg) 10ppm per week

Using KNO3 and KH2PO4. I can get the NO3 ppm and the PO4 ppm but also get a lean K ppm (half the recommended ppm) as below:




Since too much PO4 is not good (from earlier replies in this thread) should I fiddle with KNO3 to get to the 30ppm of K? 
This will however give a rich NO3 solution...(double the recommended ppm)




I understand that it is very difficult to try and adjust my dosing based on observations, since 101% of the times, a deficiency is immediately linked to poor co2


----------



## Christos Ioannou (28 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> Add light. It looks like the micro chelator is still active. You want it to go brown. Upping pH might help.


Hi Jose, care to clarify what you mean? The solution was sitting there for more than 3hrs, on a window under indirect yet strong sunlight.


----------



## ian_m (28 Jul 2015)

Christos Ioannou said:


> No visible precipitation just a transparent solution (yellow tint from micro solution)


I did this and you won't get any precipitation as the acid & preservative present keeps it chelated and unreactive. In the tank the acid is neutralised allowing the iron to react. You need to ensure the pH is 7 or greater then it reacts and precipitates out iron phosphate.

http://uk.solufeed.com/knowledge/fully-chelated-the-devils-in-the-detail


----------



## Christos Ioannou (2 Aug 2015)

Christos Ioannou said:


> So, I am setting up a new batch of the macro solution. Suggested ppm is as below.
> 
> Nitrate (NO3) 20ppm per week
> Potassium (K) 30ppm per week
> ...


Bump(!?)


----------



## xim (2 Aug 2015)

Christos Ioannou said:


> Bump(!?)



I think you don't need more K.

I used to dose K2SO4 to supplement K to 30 PPM/week. But then I doubted I need that much. So I tried stopping  K2SO4 dosing 2 weeks ago. All the K now is from KNO3 and KH2PO4, no adverse effect seen.

Let's think about it. The amounts (numbers of PPM) of K and NO3 don't need to be similar. Because NO3 contains only 22.59% N. While the number for K here is only K, that means 100% K. So you dose a lot of excess K when following the number.

The theory for the excess K is to compensate for the N and P from fish waste.

But there are people who think it doesn't have to be that high.

Tropica's old Plant Nutrition+ didn't contain very high K (not sure about the current Specialised Fertilizer).

The EI dosing guide here doesn't include K2SO4.

Tom Barr often says you have more than enough K from KNO3 alone.
http://www.barrreport.com/forum/bar...rce-of-k-no-k2so4-kcl-needed-a-ratio-analysis

But when people say too much K is not good, he usually counters it because it's against the EI method and immediately raise examples of healthy tanks with high K..


----------



## roadmaster (3 Aug 2015)

To attempt to answer original question and title to this thread, I would submit that Estimative index is good place to start for most .
As per it's creator, it's not anything carved in stone.
I believe that one can easily increase/decrease amount's of fertz to suit their particular need's.
Problem lies I think with those who say you need more of this ,or you don't need as much of that when plant's may be trying to tell you something entirely different.
Then  folk's get caught up studying bout deficiencies and algae rather than measuring plant growth.
Truly,there are many variables that can/should be pondered but I think EI can help the plant's while we observe their growth and are able to adjust as needed.
This is hard to do when all plant's are failing initially,or transistioning from emmersed to completely submerged ,or where substrates have not matured,too much light,too little CO2,poor distribution of CO2,poor maint,etc.
EI to me,simply help's eliminate to a large degree, one part of the puzzle while hopefully ,,observing growth rather than battling algae,dying plant's.
Opinion's vary.
Plenty of time for tweaking fertz,light,CO2 but frustrating if plant's are stuggling for nutrient's,poor CO2 availability as demanded by lighting being used,and at same time,algae is proliferating.
Would not get too caught up with what other's might be doing/dosing when YOUR plant's may be trying to tell you something different.
Add a little of all nutrient's, and adjust down once plant's become established.
If while adjusting down,you notice plant's not performing well,then increase nutrient(s)back to previous amount's.


----------



## Marcel G (3 Aug 2015)

Although I'm inclined to believe that EI is not truly non-limiting in all cases and under all situations, I would agree that for most aquarium plants it can be such under standard conditions.

In my opinion, the problem is that we often look at different things in our tank out of context. Many times we advice others to add more CO2 or more nutrients, but we often don't realize other conditions and factors which may play a big role in the whole picture ... for example, temperature (to name just one). If you have 86°F in your tank, then even a relatively small amount of nutrients may cause your algae to grow like mad in just a couple of days. So if a hobbyist adds even more nutrients (incl. CO2) into his tank, the algae problem will be even worse. So the best solution IMO is a holistic approach. If you say A, you should say B (and even C, D, E ...) also.

In addition to this, I really like what *Troi *says in some of his posts here on ukaps.org about "energy flows and entropy". I would say that this is one of the most important things to consider with respect to our tanks. The main point behind this "energetic balance" is that you need to have a balanced system. In other words, the amount of energy flowing into your tank must be roughly the same as the amount of energy being consumed in there. If this basic law is not fulfilled, then you can expect different kinds of problems sooner or later. So you can add full EI dose into your tank (or even more nutrients) only if you have a corresponding amount of consumers there. On the other hand, if you have low amount of plants, low amount of microbes, bad substrate, high temperature, etc. ... then the input energy will cumulate in your tank causing different kinds of problems (algae blooms, bacterial blooms, fish dying, plants dying, water deterioration, etc.). So it's not about EI dosing or high CO2 level. It's all about the energetic balance in your system. You can add whatever you want into your tank ... if the provided energy will be consumed or utilized (or if its accumulation won't cause any problems or side-effects from the long-term perspective). Algae infestations are but manifestations of energetic imbalance when algae tries to consume up the excess energy in the system (the same applies for snails). Without algae or snails quickly multiplying to consume the excess energy the system will quickly collapse.


----------



## roadmaster (3 Aug 2015)

Will alway's be the light in my view that drives what energy may or may not be needed/utilized for majority of plant's.
Too much light energy is primary reason most suggest increasing CO2 as fix for many problem's.
The light energy they are providing, is not matched by amount of other factor's needed for growth. (CO2 Fertz)
Light's and fertz are easy to provide/adjust.
Even trouble with CO2 distribution could  be lessened greatly by reducing light energy.
I agree with temp  being driver of fish/plant metabolisim's and have alway's ran my tank's at cooler end of suggested temps for fishes and have found that the weed's seem to do better as well.


----------



## Marcel G (3 Aug 2015)

roadmaster said:


> Will alway's be the light in my view that drives what energy may or may not be needed/utilized for majority of plant's.


But planted tank it's not just about plants, so not only light plays a role in there. There are also hundreds of algae species and millions of bacteria and microbes, fish and shrimps, and other critters, and many more processes than just what concerns plants. So not only light puts energy into our tanks, but also nutrients, metabolic products, chemical and physical reaction products, etc. You can't separate plants from other processes taking place in our tanks. All is interdependent. Light may slow down many processes in our tanks, but it won't stop all of them. For example, if you have loads of nutrients and waste products in your tank, even under low light (or no light at all) it may become a big problem. So the energetic demands are driven not just by plants (although we often see but plants being blind to other players), but by other players also. Concentrating just on plants is the same mistake as concentrating just on algae or any other simple things. For plants to grow well they need not just light and nutrients, but microbes also, good water and substrate parameters, time, care, and many more things we may not even know of yet. Fortunately, most things are running without our invervention. Still, we should not overlook them when speaking of what is important for our plants. You can have enough light, enough nutrients, and enough CO2 in your tank, yet your plants may be not doing very well. With your simplistic view everything should be OK, although the opposite is often true.


----------



## roadmaster (3 Aug 2015)

Water changes each week will determine what microbes,nutrient's,waste,is laying about in the tank and with regular weekly water changes,chemical makeup of water should remain fairly consistent/stable unless taking measures to alter it and or maint is lacking .
Have run fish only tank's for year's along with outdoor bait tank's and the answer to pollution is truly ,dilution.
Large,regular water changes only have negative effect on fishes when they are few and far between.
EI also suggest's large weekly water changes and seem's to not have negative effect.
I cannot speak to the use of the gas very much for I do not use it, but I believe there are those out there that become fixated on trying to achieve a 30 to 35 ppm and perhap's the fishes simply won't tolerate more than they are currently being subjected to.
Folk's also become  fixated on the notion that more light mean's better health.faster growth when as mentioned,,other variables are not equal to the energy from the lighting.
Agree completely with biological activity in the tank as important to life therein.
one need only look at a sample of aquarium water from a mature tank under a microscope to fully appreciate the microbial activity/life.


----------

