Is EI enough?

[roadmaster]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.