EI calculators

[ceg4048]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

 

[sciencefiction]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Martin cape]

Interesting thread this.

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

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

My CO2 level, in my mind is ideal, this is the colour when the CO2 stops and there is 3 hours of light left: pH being 6.3 from lights on to an hour before lights off where it goes to 6.4.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again guys.

 

[ceg4048]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Cheers,

 

[ceg4048]

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

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

My CO2 level, in my mind is ideal..

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

Cheers,

 

[Martin cape]

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

 

[ceg4048]

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

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

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

Cheers,

 

[Martin cape]

Hi Clive,

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

 

[ceg4048]

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

Cheers,

 

[Martin cape]

Thanks Clive.

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

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

Thanks again pal. It's appreciated.

 

[ceg4048]

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

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

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

Cheers,

 

[Martin cape]

Thanks again.

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

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

 

[sciencefiction]

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

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



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



Here is a closer shot


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

 

[ceg4048]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Cheers,

 

[sciencefiction]

Hi ceg. Thanks very much.

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

 

[ceg4048]

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

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

Cheers,

 

[sciencefiction]

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

 

[sciencefiction]

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