• 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

Estimative Index, is it still relevant?

Tim Harrison

Administrator
UKAPS Team
Joined
5 Nov 2011
Messages
10,496
Location
Leicestershire
In 2005 Tom Barr and a handful of other aquarists developed a eutrophic fertiliser dosing method know as Estimative Index (EI). They contended that inorganic nutrients do not cause algae therefore it is safe to dose ferts in excess.

It initially met with a lot of resistance from the old guard, but in time it caused a paradigm shift and became the standard way of fertilizing a planted tank. The advantages are, plants always have enough nutrients, so there are no limits to growth, and there is no testing involved, just a weekly water change.

But recently EI appears to have fallen out of favour with some aquarists. I thought it might be worth investigating further to find out if this is actually the case, and if so why.

1. Is EI still the most popular method of fertz dosing?
2. Does dosing inorganic fertz in excess cause algae?
3. Is EI potentially harmful, or the cause of some problems?
4. What specific dosing methods are preferable to EI, and why?
 
In 2005 Tom Barr and a handful of other aquarists developed a eutrophic fertiliser dosing method know as Estimative Index (EI). They contended that inorganic nutrients do not cause algae therefore it is safe to dose ferts in excess.

It initially met with a lot of resistance from the old guard, but in time it caused a paradigm shift and became the standard way of fertilizing a planted tank. The advantages are that plants always have enough nutrients, so there are no limits to growth, and there is no testing involved, just a weekly water change.

1. Is EI still the most popular method of fertz dosing?
2. Does dosing inorganic fertz in excess cause algae?
3. Is EI potentially harmful, or the cause of some problems?
4. What specific dosing methods are preferable to EI, and why?
I don't know all the answers to these questions but here's my understanding.

I dose EI in one of my tanks. It has a mix of slow-growing epiphyte plants & moss, medium growing plants like monte carlo and hygrophilia and fast growers like Vallisneria and floating plants as well as the additional terrestrial plants as well.

I can safely say my algae is at a minimum. The only algae I deal with is brown algae that grows on my anubias and glass. That's it. No other types and all the plants I've mentioned are showing green health. Do note my light is medium and co2 injection is high and I make sure to have good flow in the tank as well.

Alot of Europeans are on the assumption that high nutrients cause algae issues so they favour the lean dosing method more.

I plant to use this method in my second tank but only because I want to try and achieve red plants else I would go EI again.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
 
I think the main reason people get algae issues using EI Method is primarily because they blast too much light in the tank or have a long photoperiod while not planting heavily in the beginning. After that is mismanagement of co2 and build up of waste organics.


Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I personally does EI, front loading macros and about .2 Fe of micros. The rest of the week I daily dose .1 Fe mixture of gluconate and DTPA. My water change schedule is unpredictable and I can’t guarantee I’ll get it done each week so EI gives me wiggle room to not starve my plants. Algae only appears for me when I’m lacking with maintenance or have some unexpected increase in waste due to fish loss or the like.
 
Hi all,
We have a thread: <"Lean dosing pros and cons">.

I'd have to start by saying I've never been an EI user, but I have borrowed from the EI concept in the <"Hybrid Duckweed Index">.
Does dosing inorganic fertz in excess cause algae?
I was, initially, very much an <"Estimative Index sceptic">, but <"I'm convinced it can work">, but I still <"don't know how"> or why.
What specific dosing methods are preferable to EI, and why?
If I wanted to grow <"Tomatoes"> I'd use EI.

Personally I don't and I'd suggest for people who don't want <"turbo-charged growth"> that the <"Duckweed Index"> is a better approach in the <"longer term">.

cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:
1. Is EI still the most popular method of fertz dosing?
2. Does dosing inorganic fertz in excess cause algae?
3. Is EI potentially harmful, or the cause of some problems?
4. What specific dosing methods are preferable to EI, and why?
1: in Europe I'd say it isn't.
2: I've dosed nutrients in excess and had algae problems, switched to lean dosing and had algae problems. Take home lesson... nutrients alone don't cause algae problems.
3: Tough one to answer.
High levels of nutrients may or may not cause harm, High levels of Co2 do. Regular 50% water changes certainly benefit fauna, Ei methodology of maintaining a pristine tank helps the fauna.
I guess the perfect answer for this question lies somewhere between the Devil and the deep blue sea.
4: Are you trying to re ignite the toxicity wars 😀
 
Everything l read around when l joined UKAPS was about CO2 and EI, articles by George Farmer, Tom Barr , ceg4048 and others, bought myself a cheap CO2kit and bought EI salts kit from APFUK ,dosing to John Whelans recipe,got a 2000ltr/hrs filter for turnover x10 as recommended braced myself for loads of maintenance and 50% weekly W/C and plants ,some in "medium "diffulty category, Plants went ballistic.
So IME you have to put the extra time etc into it, but did have issues such as algae but agree with John not probably the system itself, plenty of fish, possibly inaccurate fish feeding and l had generous photoperiod 4 tubes, probably too much,so EI in itself is not the culprit in my experience
 
I am not an expert but as they say "student of the game" and learned alot from this fourm and few youtubers specially green aqua and late Filipe Olivera.

I have stopped doing semi EI levels mainly because of few reasons, one I was sick and tired to trimming stems every other week.

2nd - rotala hra started to turn green , stopped TNC complete started only dosing floragrow (it has no nitrates or phosphate) some KH2PO4 and some api fert for DTPA iron which brought the red colour back.

3rd - BBA and I am not saying EI levels caused BBA it could have been anything, I did alot of changes in a panic but mainly I think it's the wood I have its leaching organics. I do 50% water change without fail , now with RO water and things have started to be better GSA is undercontrol , green dust alge is just gone so in my mind lean fertilization makes sense and if people like Amano and D Wong follow that philosophy then I guess it must have some merit.
 
Last edited:
I dosed EI for quite a few years in three different aquariums when I was wanting rapid plant growth, never had an algae problem. I have now become a more relaxed aquarist and as such lean dose (to keep the TDS down for the fish and restrict plant growth), run 15 mg/l CO2 approx, run medium lighting and get perfect plant growth for what I want in my Crypt and Buce only tank. In tank maintenance now consists of removing the odd dying leaf, having a waft around during water changes and very occasionally have a small trim, and that now suits me fine.
 
1: in Europe I'd say it isn't.
Dennis Wong had trouble selling his EI product in Asia too. During his talk at AGA this year he said the initial feedback he got from there was that it was "unusable" and it was a bit of a disaster.

I have never used CO2, so I'm not the target audience for EI. I add very small amounts of nutrients in conjunction with large weekly water changes for cleanliness and stability. And I never test unless something unusual is going on. Are nutrients "in excess"? I mean, I certainly hope I'm not bottoming out of anything during the week, so does any amount over what is needed become excess? I feel like I still apply the conceptual framework of EI and yet dose lean, though it's a question of semantics I suppose. This has been brought up before in the lean dosing thread iirc with no consensus.

As for alternate methods, I dose the column lean, use tap water, have fish, and an active substrate. I have no idea what that adds up to in the tank, but it does the job. If I had a high energy tank with lots of fast growers it probably wouldn't work and I'd do something else.

What was the paradigm before ei?
 
Dennis Wong had trouble selling his EI product in Asia too. During his talk at AGA this year he said the initial feedback he got from there was that it was "unusable" and it was a bit of a disaster.

I have never used CO2, so I'm not the target audience for EI. I add very small amounts of nutrients in conjunction with large weekly water changes for cleanliness and stability. And I never test unless something unusual is going on. Are nutrients "in excess"? I mean, I certainly hope I'm not bottoming out of anything during the week, so does any amount over what is needed become excess? I feel like I still apply the conceptual framework of EI and yet dose lean, though it's a question of semantics I suppose. This has been brought up before in the lean dosing thread iirc with no consensus.

As for alternate methods, I dose the column lean, use tap water, have fish, and an active substrate. I have no idea what that adds up to in the tank, but it does the job. If I had a high energy tank with lots of fast growers it probably wouldn't work and I'd do something else.

What was the paradigm before ei?
It must have been the ADA style ,what ever they were doing in the start after all Amano is the morden day nature style aquascaping father IMHO.
 
I dose EI in CO2 injected tank and 1/3 EI in a not-CO2-injected tank. I don't have problems with algae in either tank. I like EI because it takes the guesswork out. No disrespect to the duckweed index, but I'd rather prevent inorganic fert problems than have to identify them after they have occurred. I suspect algae is a result of a combination of problems.
 
In 2005 Tom Barr and a handful of other aquarists developed a eutrophic fertiliser dosing method know as Estimative Index (EI). They contended that inorganic nutrients do not cause algae therefore it is safe to dose ferts in excess.

It initially met with a lot of resistance from the old guard, but in time it caused a paradigm shift and became the standard way of fertilizing a planted tank. The advantages are, plants always have enough nutrients, so there are no limits to growth, and there is no testing involved, just a weekly water change.

But recently EI appears to have fallen out of favour with some aquarists. I thought it might be worth investigating further to find out if this is actually the case, and if so why.

I think fertilization among some might just have evolved to take specific conditions into account as well as the interaction between the various compounds we dose - none of this is ever mentioned by the originators or mentioned when people discuss EI - to me EI is more of a throw the-kitchen-sink-at-it approach. Its been working for many over the years of course. We all dose nutrients with the purpose of giving our plants enough nutrients to be healthy and flourish regardless of dosing regime. As it turns out we can get away with far less fertilizers than suggested by the oft quoted amounts that the EI method suggest and in turn we can potentially get away with far less water changes as we don't have to "reset" anything due to unnecessary fertilization. Of course, water changes should be conducted on a regular basis depending on bio load etc. but WC's for the sake of getting rid of surplus fertilizers just seems like a completely unnecessary if not mindless approach and burden on the hobbyist.

1. Is EI still the most popular method of fertz dosing?
Outside the bubble of online discussion forums it probably never was... relative to the amount of planted aquariums in existence I would say it's probably a small fraction of hobbyists that goes beyond just using a run of the mill AIO - which is often sufficient.

2. Does dosing inorganic fertz in excess cause algae?
Indirectly it might. Some compounds in excess relative to others may have a negative impact plant physiology, causing stunted growth or weakening of the plants which in turn will pave the way for algae. But fertilizer is most often the least of concerns when it comes to algae - excess light, poor maintenance (excess bio waste), lack of nutrient distribution etc. is probably the biggest culprits.

3. Is EI potentially harmful, or the cause of some problems?
See comments above. If applied in a mindful way, I don't think so, but of course anything in gross excess is harmful to plants and livestock I figure. Potentially harmful to livestock yes, due to an inordinate amount of dissolved solids which in turn could interfere with osmoregulation for the soft water fish we mostly keep in our planted tanks. Not to mention, that many traces are harmful to livestock if dosed in excess.
4. What specific dosing methods are preferable to EI, and why?
My own take is a mindful amount of NPK and traces relative to the tech and light levels, substrate type, water conditions (hardness/pH in particular), plant mass etc.. Dose nothing beyond what is necessary for the plants to thrive, make the necessary adjustments along the way, change water as appropriate, but not for the sake of getting rid of excess fertilizers you add to the water column - if you need to do that you are following a dosing regime best suited for growing lettuce or tomatoes.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
Hi all,
I like EI because it takes the guesswork out. No disrespect to the duckweed index, but I'd rather prevent inorganic fert problems than have to identify them after they have occurred.
It definitely isn't disrespectful, and I don't actually see them as mutually exclusive approaches. They had some initial similarities, particularly in that both were developed partially due to the difficulties in getting <"accurate values for some water parameters">, but after that they had a very different rationale.
That is an approach a lot of people will take, <"and it works">.

Tom Barr (@plantbrain) was interested in optimal plant growth, I was interested in using the principles behind phytoremediation to achieve high water quality and plant growth was a factor in that, but not the <"be all and end all.">
.... I started all this because I was interested in simple robust techniques that every-one could use to increase their probability of being a successful fish keeper. Because I had experience of working on the bio-remediation of landfill leachate, I knew that you could use plant/microbe filtration and high levels of dissolved oxygen to improve the quality of grossly polluted water and I was pretty sure the same approach would work with less polluted water. When I started looking at aquarium literature I found that <"Diana Walstad and Horst & Kipper"> had already been down the same route. ...

cheers Darrel
 
Is that based on the oft quoted 30 ppm of NO3 being "full EI" weekly? Still, 10 ppm of NO3 or about 2.25 ppm of N weekly... that is probably about twice the amount of what I dose in both my densely planted low-tech tanks every 2-3 weeks :) sure, I don't doubt it works for you.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
In 2005 Tom Barr and a handful of other aquarists developed a eutrophic fertiliser dosing method know as Estimative Index (EI). They contended that inorganic nutrients do not cause algae therefore it is safe to dose ferts in excess.
am not quite sure how they came to that conclusion because algae almost require the same nutrients that plant needs. neither plant or algae would care weather the N is from Organic source or Inorganic source. the most common algae found under the EI regime is GSA and GDA, both present under inorganic fertilization. at the same time 50% water changes weekly are recommended to lower the nutrients/organic buildup to avoid algae. on the contrary most people do not change 50% water weekly and some go on without water changes and yet get no algae while dosing less nutrients in the water. we would have expected the organics to buildup to very high levels along with massive algae issues in those lean dosed aquariums.
It initially met with a lot of resistance from the old guard, but in time it caused a paradigm shift and became the standard way of fertilizing a planted tank. The advantages are, plants always have enough nutrients, so there are no limits to growth, and there is no testing involved, just a weekly water change.
but despite having plenty of unlimited nutrients, majority of people are having Nutrients deficiencies.
But recently EI appears to have fallen out of favour with some aquarists. I thought it might be worth investigating further to find out if this is actually the case, and if so why.
I do not believe that EI has lost its mojo, at least not in the USA. the primary reason is that people want cheap and hassle free dosing, somehow they believe otherwise it would be difficult. but, since DIY your own fertilizers are becoming easy and more affordable, the shift in that direction is happening. people are also looking into less maintenance, less water changes as well and they are looking for methods that could help in those areas and they find that lean dosing is one of them.

Algae is another factor, more and more people are looking for a way to get rid of algae and they find lean dosing approach to help in that area. if someone dose lean and still have algae issues, there are several factors that can influence the algae which might be beyond their control. for example many members use this recommendation which is viewed as lean to most users but it could potentially cause some algae, because you do not have full control over all the nutrients.

majority of people are also switching over to ADA (lean) like approach as well. where they rely on rich substrate. It make no sense to dose EI with rich substrate like many people do. they can dose lean and continue to provide nutrients to the plants as well as recharging their substrate.

1. Is EI still the most popular method of fertz dosing?
2. Does dosing inorganic fertz in excess cause algae?
3. Is EI potentially harmful, or the cause of some problems?
4. What specific dosing methods are preferable to EI, and why?

1. don't know, it would be hard to determine weather EI is most popular. But, its popular here in the USA because people prefer dosing random things in their aquarium, by random I meant using scoops or spoons.

2. I guess people can just buy one of these kits and find out, so far all the listed nutrients are inorganic salts. but, the simple answer to the question is "Yes" and in general, excessive dosing will always contribute to algae.

3. answering this would cause never ending debate just like this one.

4. answering this would cause never ending debate just like this one.

also nicely covered by @MichaelJ #14
 
Is that based on the oft quoted 30 ppm of NO3 being "full EI" weekly? Still, 10 ppm of NO3 or about 2.25 ppm of N weekly... that is probably about twice the amount of what I dose in both my densely planted low-tech tanks every 2-3 weeks :) sure, I don't doubt it works for you.

Cheers,
Michael
No, it's based on the "without CO2 plants will need less ferts, so instead of dosing 3x per week, I'll just do that once a week" principle. 😁
 
No, it's based on the "without CO2 plants will need less ferts, so instead of dosing 3x per week, I'll just do that once a week" principle. 😁
Haha Andy… so what will 1/3rd the amount in terms of ppm’s of NO3 or N amount to per week then ?

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
Hi all,
conclusion because algae almost require the same nutrients that plant needs. neither plant or algae would care weather the N is from Organic source or Inorganic source
Good post.

That is something I've said a lot, it is the <"all plants"> and that there aren't any <"special ADA etc. potassium (K+) (or nitrate (NO3-)) ions"> arguments.

I would make a slight exception for nitrate, it is not that the ions are any different, but that <"their method of formation may have been">.

cheers Darrel
 
Back
Top