• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
  • You can now follow UKAPS on Instagram.

Double checking full EI dosing as per calc

GreggZ

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2022
Messages
279
Location
Novi, MI 48374
I suspect that it’s a hang over from the now debunked belief that low KH could lead to pH crashes.
Yep and old myths die hard.

The thing is there is a subset of plants that simply won't do well without very low dKH. And to fair there is a VERY small subset that likes a bit more dKH. If you have very high dKH levels there's a pretty big subset that won't do well and your choices are more limited. But as a general rule the lower the dKH the easier it is to keep most plants.
 

Yugang

Member
Joined
13 Mar 2021
Messages
461
Location
Hong Kong
Yes 5kH is what full EI recommends,
As to dKH I know Tom Barr and he runs his tanks with very little to no carbonate hardnes

Here speaks a diligent Tom Barr student ....

In older postings (e.g. 18/3/2006 Barreport) Tom recommends kH 3 and gH 5, with gH always a couple of points above kH. Later, for example his posting 23/12/2010 any kH between 1-4 is good.

So here is the likely source, and also Tom Barr continues to learn and adapts his views.

EDIT SOURCES
#2
#17
 
Last edited:

Hanuman

Member
Joined
4 Jan 2019
Messages
1,557
Location
Thailand
Here speaks a diligent Tom Barr student ....

In older postings (e.g. 18/3/2006 Barreport) Tom recommends kH 3 and gH 5, with gH always a couple of points above kH. Later, for example his posting 23/12/2010 any kH between 1-4 is good.

So here is the likely source, and also Tom Barr continues to learn and adapts his views.
Please add the links so we have the source we can link to in 5 years when someone else asks or that we forget again 😂
 

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
14,248
Location
nr Bath
Hi all,
I suspect that it’s a hang over from the now debunked belief that low KH could lead to pH crashes.
Yep and old myths die hard.
I wish it was debunked. I've spent years trying to <"explain acidosis, buffering and pH to people"> on <"various forums">, apparently with relatively little success. This was the conclusion of the <"top google search result"> for the search "buffering pH drop aquarium stability" and looking through the subsequent links just repeated the same depressing read.
Conclusion

Though your aquarium fish may prefer a particularly pH in their native environment, it is much more important to have a stable pH than to have a specific value for your pH. Adjusting the pH in your aquarium can be dangerous to the fish as swings of just 0.3 in a day can be deadly. Therefore, unless you have a specific reason for doing so, it is better to acclimate the fish to your tap water’s pH than to adjust your pH to fit the preference of your fish.
I've recently read that a "pH drop of one unit is always fatal to your fish", and when I (politely) told the author about <"aquascapers and CO2"> their response was that both I, and the aquascapers, are "obviously liars".

I'm now thinking of giving up on both my day job and UKAPS and becoming a salesman of "aquarium grade bicarbonate of soda" and "aquarium salt" because apparently that is where people's tanks start to go wrong, they haven't added enough of either (or both) of these products.

cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
14,248
Location
nr Bath
Hi all,
I've recently read that a "pH drop of one unit is always fatal to your fish", and when I (politely) told the author about <"aquascapers and CO2"> their response was that both I, and the aquascapers, are "obviously liars".
At some point I'm going to compile a <"list of these">. In fact scrub list, I'm going to <"write a whole book"> I'm pretty sure <"I have enough"> to rival "War and Peace" in book length, the only problem is that it will be a bit repetitive (although that hasn't hurt Dan Brown).

cheers Darrel
 

GreggZ

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2022
Messages
279
Location
Novi, MI 48374
More seriously though these are pre-set regimes which are basically "standard" all rounded regimes. More like a reference point. It could be 7 dKH or 1dKH that it wouldn't matter. But nowdays we are in the era of "sensitive" plants (or sensitive people) and low dKH tunnel vision (to employ a term that has been trending for some time) where if you are above a certain dKH all hell brakes lose. In all reality unless one is growing some specific sensitive plants, even 5dKH will be no issues. Here is a quote from Dennis at 2hrAquarist:
Yep I agree. Even though I run a very low/no dKH tank, I do believe in general it has been overblown. You can have a fantastic tank at 5 dKH, or even 10 dKH. It just makes things a bit easier at the lower levels, and also opens the door to a wider variety of plants.

I will say that at very high dKH levels, say 15 plus, there is a noticeable difference. I once had source water from a well that we very high in dKH, and things were a bit of a struggle and the number of plants that would thrive at that level was limited.

As to "EI" levels there has never been any "official" EI levels. It is more of a concept than a strict regiment. It also morphs a bit over time. You may remember years ago that EI recommended 5 ppm Fe from micros weekly. A group of us discussed this with Barr years ago and agreed to lower it to 2 ppm Fe on the on line calculators. Then later that was reduced to under 1 ppm. So these things evolve over time.
 

Zeus.

Fertz Calc Meister
Joined
1 Oct 2016
Messages
4,619
Location
Yorkshire,UK
Not 100% sure what source I used and a little busy renovating house ATM. But will keep thinking and doing the occasional search. Probably on an old thread :rolleyes:.

As to "EI" levels there has never been any "official" EI levels. It is more of a concept than a strict regiment.

Agree 100%.

On reflection a 5.0kH does seem a little high IMO also. Nobody has ever call us on it, so its @Wookii to blame/thank 👊/😚.

We could also revise the kH figure on the next release if we can have a general consensus what would be suitable
maybe
1656085254723.png
 

Zeus.

Fertz Calc Meister
Joined
1 Oct 2016
Messages
4,619
Location
Yorkshire,UK
Was just thinking about kH and EI dosing and any modification to kH levels should really be done at WC only ie as a Remineralising Agent.
As if it is dosed three times a week the kH will change over the week and so will the tanks pH which if using a pH controller for CO2 levels will results in an unstable [CO2] over the week !!!
So
1656086221111.png

would be better IMO
 

GreggZ

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2022
Messages
279
Location
Novi, MI 48374
Agree 100%.

On reflection a 5.0kH does seem a little high IMO also. Nobody has ever call us on it, so its @Wookii to blame/thank 👊/😚.

We could also revise the kH figure on the next release if we can have a general consensus what would be suitable
I can only speak for myself but I don't think dKH needs to be addressed in the EI calculator. Most people will do fine with whatever their source water is unless it's extremely high. And then it's not a matter of dosing but perhaps going to RO.

For those blessed with nice soft low dKH soft water there is really no need to bump it up. They should enjoy their good fortune.

Funny thing is that is was a discussion exactly like this that resulted in my leaving (kicked out!) of Plantedtank.net. The mod there is of the old mindset that low dKH tanks will all suffer from a pH crash and speaking of low/no dKH tanks is strictly verboten!

Things do change over time. The Dupla method was once state of the art. I don't know of too many people with heating cables in their substrate these days.
 

GreggZ

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2022
Messages
279
Location
Novi, MI 48374
Was just thinking about kH and EI dosing and any modification to kH levels should really be done at WC only ie as a Remineralising Agent.
As if it is dosed three times a week the kH will change over the week and so will the tanks pH which if using a pH controller for CO2 levels will results in an unstable [CO2] over the week !!!
So
View attachment 190301
would be better IMO
This is a very good point. Whatever your dKH level is it's better to have it stable. As you said particularly with the use of a pH controller.

Another point is that if you are adding K2CO3 or KHCO3 it's best to dose that into a holding tank if possible. When you dose those compounds into a tank there is a temporary large pH spike. I've seen pH rise to 11 or 12 immediately after a dose. It takes 12 to 24 hours for that to stabilize. Some sensitive livestock could be adversely affected with such a sudden rise.
 
Last edited:

Hanuman

Member
Joined
4 Jan 2019
Messages
1,557
Location
Thailand
On reflection a 5.0kH does seem a little high IMO also. Nobody has ever call us on it, so its @Wookii to blame/thank 👊/😚.
Was just thinking about kH and EI dosing and any modification to kH levels should really be done at WC only ie as a Remineralising Agent.
As if it is dosed three times a week the kH will change over the week and so will the tanks pH which if using a pH controller for CO2 levels will results in an unstable [CO2] over the week !!!
can only speak for myself but I don't think dKH needs to be addressed in the EI calculator.
We could also argue that Ca and Mg have no business being part of EI. They are remineralizers, perhaps more Ca than Mg. But I think that removing dKH wouldn't be a bad idea though.
 

Yugang

Member
Joined
13 Mar 2021
Messages
461
Location
Hong Kong
We could also argue that Ca and Mg have no business being part of EI. They are remineralizers, perhaps more Ca than Mg. But I think that removing dKH wouldn't be a bad idea though.
My two cents...

I believe kH is less relevant because it is thought that the exact value is less important, as long as it is stable and not too high.

I don't see really the difference between a remineraliser and a nutrient. I have lost a lot of time as I had a blind spot for Mg in the past, and did not realise my tank was deficient. Ca seems less important than Mg according to current insights.

So I do see the value of at least Mg in the calculator, and it does not hurt.
 

Hanuman

Member
Joined
4 Jan 2019
Messages
1,557
Location
Thailand
My two cents...

I believe kH is less relevant because it is thought that the exact value is less important, as long as it is stable and not too high.

I don't see really the difference between a remineraliser and a nutrient. I have lost a lot of time as I had a blind spot for Mg in the past, and did not realise my tank was deficient. Ca seems less important than Mg according to current insights.

So I do see the value of at least Mg in the calculator, and it does not hurt.
That Mg and Ca are nutrients is not the question. That they are part of EI is. But obviously you need them, my point being that Mg and Ca values are not intrinsically linked to the EI principal as far as I am aware but they obviously need to be there, more so Mg than Ca simply because most, if not all aquarium centric ferts do not incorporate Ca in their mixture for obvious reasons. You will also notice that most ferts have very little Mg and it's up to the user to properly remineralize the water with the desired dGH (Ca:Mg). This said these are preset regime and it's preferable to have both Ca and Mg shown.
 

_Maq_

Member
Joined
23 Jun 2022
Messages
578
Location
Czech Republic
...the now debunked belief that low KH could lead to pH crashes.
A debunked belief? I still believe water with low KH is prone to pH volatility.:angelic: Well, "believe" is not the correct word. I just experience it routinely. Is there anything I'm missing here?
 

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
14,248
Location
nr Bath

_Maq_

Member
Joined
23 Jun 2022
Messages
578
Location
Czech Republic
Guys, I don't want to disturb your - obviously dedicated - EI party, however there are also different worlds around.
Firstly, dosing 30 ppm NO3 is insane in itself. But IF I ever had that much nitrate in my tank (and no ammonia), I would dose 4.7 ppm K, 14.7 ppm Mg, and 48.5 ppm Ca. There's way too much potassium there. I don't know what CO2 injection can do, but I'd expect a serious case of Mg and Ca deficiency. Plants prefer potassium to magnesium and calcium because in natural waters, potassium is usually in short supply.
 
Top