• 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

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

Graeme Edwards

Founder
Joined
21 Jun 2007
Messages
1,158
Location
Wirral/Chester Cheshire.
paul.in.kendal said:
Unfortunately the resulting ammonia spike and sudden reduction in plant mass has clearly upset the tank's balance, and I'm now awash with BBA and other algae, and plants have gone into decline - the collapse of the frogbit is fascinatingly horrible.

So - I've learned yet more from my 'learning' tank, and I'm now thinking about how to re-scape. If you can advise, perhaps you'll look at my post on 'How to re-scape' in the General Discussion thread.

I'll post some pictures of the mess in a while.

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

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

:wave:


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

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

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

Cheers for the sound advice Graeme. I'll be following it - unless anyone else cares to suggest an alternative course of action! :wideyed:
 
Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"

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

Cheers for the sound advice Graeme. I'll be following it - unless anyone else cares to suggest an alternative course of action! :wideyed:
Hey Paul,
I reckon there is one fundamental error you made after you returned from vacation; you turned the lights back up. You should have just turned the CO2 and nutrients up, fattened the plants up and then slowly introduced more light.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to agree with Ceg that all of the problems we have with our tanks are due to our laziness :). Good advice, you can post it and stick it as an article :).
 
Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"

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

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

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

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

Nice post Clive. :thumbup:
 
Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW great thread guys :thumbup:
 
Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"

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

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

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

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

Nice post Clive. :thumbup:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it must be included.

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

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

This allows them to make much more clear conclusions.

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

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

Can any of you guess what we discussed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No secret.

Still wanna know what Ole and I discussed??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts on the matter.
Cheers.
 
Re: Paul's 200L, "Punishment of Luxury"

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

In both cases the algae has the same access to nutrients. So that was not it.
Would doing a large water change and then not adding ferts back prevent this algae bloom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We'll never completely starve out algae, we'll never completely get rid of evey algae spore and we'll never get true "0" ammonia, cant be done.
 
Well for me, EI has always been about good light/co2/fert balance, regular maintenance, and great plant health. I don't recall anyone saying EI was flawless.
 
Back
Top