EI daily methods or PMDD + PO4

[ceg4048]

The answer is I'm not sure that 10-20ppm is the most one would ever need. I am taking that from what I have read from others on here and other forums that we all use. I have no idea. I add 2ppm nitrate a day and it works for me. How much is in the tap water? I don't know. How much of that ppm do the plants use? I don't know. How much is left over after my 10% water change? I don't know. What is my current ppm? I don't know. The shrimp are still alive so I guess its less than Tom's suggestion of 150ppm.
From the way you write are you saying you have 30-60ppm present or you add 30-60ppm weekly or 3x a week therefore allowing build up if it isn't used?

What I mean to say is that I dose anywhere from 40 to 60 ppm NO3 per week and so that is on top of whatever the tap water value is, which like you, I have no idea whatsoever what the that value actually is because neither of us test it or pay attention to the municipal water report NO3 data.

Do you not worry that if (for example) 30ppm was left over pre water change then 15ppm would be carried forward to the next week. Then the week after you end up with 22.5 after the water change and so on? Would that not equal incredible amounts after a year? Its a simple equation I am using and obviously doesn't include any other happenings within the tank. Is there something scientific that reduces/breaks down the nitrate over time?
Surely if someone were to keep dosing 30ppm more than their plants needed each week (and I understand that to know this we would need to know the plants uptake) then the left overs coupled with the next week's dosing would accumulate.

Andy check the arithmetic exercise I gave in my post on the previous page. A 50% weekly water change means that it is impossible to have a total NO3 value greater than the sum of the tap water value + the dosage level. Actually, in practical terms, there are two things that help me avoid toxic buildup. The first is that I do much higher volumes of water changes than 50%. My water changes are in the neighborhood of 70%-90% (although the more water I remove the more KNO3/KH2PO4 I'll add back.) Huge biomass means huge organic waste production. I get as much detritus out of the tank as I can and so that I'm removing a lot of water to maximize the detritus removal, stirring up the sediment, siphoning out whatever is suspended etc. Secondly I often do business trips for a few days so the buildup is consumed because I'm not there to dose for a couple of days. So in truth I have a real mania about cleanliness and so the things I do to satisfy that obsession in effect serves to mitigate the buildup even though I'm dosing massive quantities. I reckon if we focus more on cleanliness we'd have less algae, and healthier fauna. Toxic buildup wouldn't even be an issue. Dirty tanks kill more fish than nitrate buildup can ever dream of doing.

Yes I am quite happy to accept the rates of growth I have. Any faster and there would be no room for water 😉 I am not quite happy to accept certain levels of algae though. I am not happy to accept any (or at least not any amount that is visible) thus I battle with CO2 diffusion techniques and circulation issues time to time caused by the 'slow' rate of growth that I am quite happy with

Exactly. I totally agree with this and I'm not slamming your particular objectives or suggesting that my objectives are more noble than yours. What I'm saying is that I've discovered that breeching the standard dosing limits can not only produce higher yields but that if executed properly (i,e commensurate CO2 levels) it actually produces occasional prettier foliage and often more unusual forms/colors than can be achieved with the standard dosages alone. Look at the evidence for yourself. These are life forms found only in the Delta quadrant of the mega-dosing galaxy and you're not likely to see these anomalies while fretting about PO4 or worrying about exceeding 10-20ppm NO3:

Cheers,

 

[plantbrain]

Tom you misundestand us I think 😉

We are not saying excess nutrients are bad nor cause algae. more a case of why dose 3 x what is already excess if it can get close to the levels that 'could' be harmful wether that had level was know or not. If 10-20ppm per week is EI then why dose 30-60ppm?

Good I was not mistunderstanding🙂
We agree!
10-20ppm will be plenty for some tanks, whereas some might require more.

Without looking at biomass, CO2, light, % cover etc, we cannot compare and say that we "need" 10-20ppm vs 30-60ppm.
I think 30ppm is about as non limiting as we can really get at most any light level, I'm not sure about really high CO2+ really high light. But it's unlikely certainly.

At lower light, then 10-20ppm is a more suitable dose range, that's the first part of the advice/comments I mention above. EI/daily or otherwise, is not about just adding more and more, you can and should likely dail it down if you use lower light, have ADA AS etc.

Surely 10-20ppm should be the MOST that needs to be dosed and the decision to be made would be how much to reduce if necessary rather than to increase by 2x 3x increments.

Well, I suggest 20-30ppm as a target, then reduce, but if you have low biomass, low light etc, then 5-10ppm might be okay, as the tank fills in more, then maybe 10-15ppm etc.

Another higher light tank with weeds a plenty, then 20-30ppm is good.
Etc.

A little common sense applied to EI is good and less wasteful. Still, no need to cut to the bone either.
Likewise, adding more than you need, even 2x as much, does no harm, many claim and argue otherwise but I've just never seen it and have not be able to test and repeat such claims. Each time I do that, it falsifies such claims further.
Still, folks do have a logic behind using less than the 30ppm etc range say...........but some common sense needs applied.

Otherwise you get the same blind use, and folks apply 10ppm instead of say 30ppm to all cases, while 10ppm is fine for some, it's not for all. 30ppm is for all, but wasteful for lower light tanks.
This can be reduced using the method described above.

If you start too low, you might be running the tank too lean and stunt plants etc. This period of reduction does not waste much for long.

That is the main point.
I'm not suggesting that anyone needs to use 30ppm all the time for all cases, only that doing so shold not harm fish/plants, induce algae etc.

I guess on a highlight tank then the starting point is higher but then does that mean dose 2, 3x? Surely the ppm within the tank is still reduced accordingly anyway?

AC

Yes, I think you, Clivel, myself all handidly agree on all points.
If we got together in person and sat down, had a drink, we'd all be preaching to the choir 😀
So with that, let me toss a bone out for this stew🙂

http://nospam.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_44/issue_8/1993.pdf

This discusses NO3 and NH4 in relation to the sediment and denitrification(NO3 loss).
Some interesting findings indeed.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[plantbrain]

In the end James discontinued that scheme because there were clear and present dangers, but there was also a lot learned. I've tried it myself and I saw no advantages but came to the same conclusion that there are plenty of risks. I'm sure that there are those who accept the risk and continue to dose urea. I would never normally advocate it's use except in special cases, and even then I would warn of the dangers. Since I've not experienced any dangers in the 30-60ppm nitrate range, whether that be in hard or RO water, there is no reason for me to conclude that it "...could be harmful..".

Cheers,

I think James went about things correctly, he made me proud. Sometimes you have to learn things through experience, I did, so did he and we came up with fairly similar conclusions about it. I'd like to do the pdf experiement above but ask a different uestion: how much NH4 are the various species of plants getting, and how much NO3.Not what os removed from the water, rather, what is taken up into the plant tissue.

Same for algae.

Measuring biomass of each over time as well.
That would be a great test to do.

But alas, it will not be done anytime soon by me
Darnit

Tom Barr

 

[tennis4you]

A fair few of us have been using a PMDD+PO4 daily recipe for quite a while albeit a leaner version with lower water changes.

AC

I see the dosing for the EI above, but what about for PMDD and PO4? I have a 125 gallon tank that is fairly well planted but I am not sure I am dosing enough. Plus I do not know how often to hit it with water changes.

 

[GreenNeedle]

If you follow EI then you 'should' be dosing enough. As Ceg points out above I have no experience really with larger tanks so I think someone else would be better pointing you there. I personally am too lazy for 50% water changes even on my 125Ltr. I think with a tank the size of yours I would be pondering giving up plants if EI were the way 😉

The PMDD + PO4 recipe I use is a much lower dosing than EI so if you are using EI already then you almost certainly have enough dosing.

Someone else will point you in the right direction here.

AC

 

[ceg4048]

A fair few of us have been using a PMDD+PO4 daily recipe for quite a while albeit a leaner version with lower water changes.

AC

I see the dosing for the EI above, but what about for PMDD and PO4? I have a 125 gallon tank that is fairly well planted but I am not sure I am dosing enough. Plus I do not know how often to hit it with water changes.

I guess it's not clear to me what you mean by not dosing enough. Enough for what? If you are below the minimum threshold for required nutrient levels then the tank would exhibit some symptoms of malnutrition such as poor growth or nutrient-starved related algae. If the tank is algae free but you want higher growth rates then you'd need to increase the dosage levels and CO2 to achieve that, but you should also look at better distribution/flow. However, if you have algae related to some other factor such as organic waste buildup or poor CO2 then increasing the nutrient levels alone will have dire consequences, so really we'd need a better idea of why you think the tank needs more...

Cheers,

 

[tennis4you]

Organic waste build up could be an issue for me. Can bba be caused (or triggered) by that was well?

I now have 2 canister filters so I can clean one once per month and the other the following month, and so on. I probably need to be trimming dying leaves faster too. I also have no snails or shrimp to help break up the bigger stuff. I have also been afraid to really dig at the substrate since there are roots below.

 

[aaronnorth]

Organic waste build up could be an issue for me. Can bba be caused (or triggered) by that was well?

I now have 2 canister filters so I can clean one once per month and the other the following month, and so on. I probably need to be trimming dying leaves faster too. I also have no snails or shrimp to help break up the bigger stuff. I have also been afraid to really dig at the substrate since there are roots below.

organic waste when it rots produces ammonia which causes algae so in effect yes it does.

 

[tennis4you]

I need to keep up on the water changes, getting into the substrate and maybe look into some snails to help. I also think I need to prune more. My center swords are at the top of the tank. I assume by trimming it will force others to grow and the more growth the less algae?

Ugh, algae...

 

[ceg4048]

BBA is primarily CO2 related. Fix your CO2/flow distribution and you will fix your BBA.

Cheers,

 

[plantbrain]

Planted tanks require long term care and work. No real way around some of it.
You can get crafy and plan well and use lower light, good CO2 etc, and ADA AS etc, then have a good sized fish load and feed them good, then dose a little each time you feed the fish etc.

Certain species of plants require less work than others..............same for fish..........

Most of the issues folks have tend to be social/human, not methods related :idea:
I tend to focus folks there rather than the method.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[keymaker]

I updated the dosing calculator from the first page of this topic. Now it includes Trace Elements Mix dosage calculation and a "How Much To Order" box to determine the quantities of powders needed for a certain period of time. Thanks to Henrik for the new ideas and to James (again!) for helping me with the dosage of the traces.

Please let me know what other additions you'd like to see. Cheers.

 

[John Starkey]

Hi All,this thread is the best read ive had in ages,respect to all you clever people 😀 ,regards john.

 

[dazcoops]

Hello

Is the dosing calculator still on file factory? i cant seem to download it.

cheers
Darren

 

[keymaker]

Is the dosing calculator still on file factory? i cant seem to download it.

I moved it to our server. The new link should work fine.

(update 05.09.2009 - there was a typo, the EI top range for the Fe was 5 instead of 0,5 - mistake corrected.)

 

[grayceworks]

I'm a little confused with the calculator -- there's a few spots where if you enter your numbers, it is not set up to actually calculate them... one just has ml in the space, and another has ??? in the space, and a couple others just don't do anything... Do I have an old version? Or am I doing something wrong? Thanks...

 

[keymaker]

I'm a little confused with the calculator -- there's a few spots where if you enter your numbers, it is not set up to actually calculate them... one just has ml in the space, and another has ??? in the space, and a couple others just don't do anything... Do I have an old version? Or am I doing something wrong? Thanks...

Yepp, it seems to be some Excel version number problem... Messing with just the orange bkgd cells would result in problem-free calculation. This is verified by many.

 

[plantbrain]

BTW, add some DTPA Fe in with CMS + B, say 5mls to each 15 mls of volume when you make the solution, this will enhance the life of the Fe in solution(more like Tropica 's trace mix).

Sequestrene 330 might be sold over there, a 1-2.5 kg bag will lats a lifetime and a few freind's as well.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[B4M]

Yepp, it seems to be some Excel version number problem... Messing with just the orange bkgd cells would result in problem-free calculation. This is verified by many.

Keymaker- The calculator looks great. However I don't understand a few of the columns. G12 -22 Dose amount; is this volume of all in one mix per dose added to tank? i.e. if I add 25ml per day I just put 25 in each?

I assume I12 -22 is a reference to DIY TPN+ (3) from James' site. Out of interest what are the two grey columns either side?

Thanks,

B4M

 

[keymaker]

Keymaker- The calculator looks great.

Thanks!

However I don't understand a few of the columns. G12 -22 Dose amount; is this volume of all in one mix per dose added to tank? i.e. if I add 25ml per day I just put 25 in each?

Yepp, exactly. If you do it all-in-one, than all the values should be the same. If you mix separate solutions, you can add separate quantities from each. Some would like to make different solutions for all the macro powders separately.

I assume I12 -22 is a reference to DIY TPN+ (3) from James' site. Out of interest what are the two grey columns either side?

James has acutally more than one mix - he has one for ammonia dosing too. This is the left grey column. The grey column from the right can be used to store some other benchmark you prefered at one point. I just came out with something and I like to keep that in view when experimenting with values in column G.