Estimative Index, is it still relevant?

[John q]

What was the paradigm before ei?

That would be PMDD. Tom Barr is quite open to the fact that EI was mainly based on PMDD, he simply added Po4 and increased the overall nutrient levels, removed the need for testing and upped the amount of water changed.
Greg Watson explains a little about the system.

PMDD Strategy

In March of 1996, Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin published a research paper titled “Control of Algae in Planted Aquaria.” In their research paper, they put forth the hypothesis that growth of cyanobacteria, green algae, and red algae are suppressed in environments in which phosphate is limited, and light, CO2, nitrate, potassium, and micro nutrients are present in slight excess.

In their studies, they performed experiments where each case study limited a different nutrient. Of all of the tests performed, tanks that were phosphate limited showed the least amount of algae growth. As a result, they theorized that phosphates contributed to algae growth and that a tank with limited phosphate was the best practice to control algae.
Two elements grew out of the Sears/Conlin research. First, a PMDD Philosophy of the importance of feeding our plants a well-balanced diet was born; and for the first time in our hobby, best practices were created that resulted in a disciplined habit of feeding our plants a well-balanced diet. Second, a PMDD Dosing Strategy developed that was focused around a “pmdd recipe” of both macro and micro nutrients that we would dose on a daily basis.

The PMDD recipe was specified as a starting place only, with instructions to:
Measure nitrate levels regularly, and adjust the amount of KNO3 in the mix to maintain 3 - 5ppm (this step is fairly important). Those concerned about adding nitrates to their aquarium can dose the KNO3 separately, omitting it initially and adding it later as required to obtain the desired concentration.

The PMDD strategy was the forerunner of all modern popular aquarium hobby dosing strategies.

More information can be obtained below.

Practical PMDD Information

 

[Scaperinc]

So phosphate is cause of alge? I dont get it , when i was struggling with GSA and BBA i started dosing KH2PO4 on top of traces and my alge issues got better.
There must be other factors which I am not considering.

 

[PARAGUAY]

I think algae issues,( not talking minimal algae which we all have?) arise from Phosphate when especially with EI when overall plants are not in active growth due to neglecting waterchange 50%, flow not correct and generally not putting a shift in with maintenance ,other factors of course lighting and so on -

 

[Tim Harrison]

I don't think I've ever dosed sufficient fertz for it to be considered true EI. And I've always used all in one ready mixed products like TNC Complete. Instead I watch my plants closely for signs of deficiency and just up the entire dose when I feel it's necessary, or add TNC Lite if I think it's a K deficiency etc. Not very sophisticated, but it works for me and I'm not really interested in the minutia of fertz dosing.

From a point of view of advising newbies I think EI is probably a good place to start. It's tried and tested and is fairly simple to master, leaving those new to the hobby to concentrate on more difficult aspects, like getting the CO2 right. EI can always be tailored later so the nutrient load isn't so excessive. The necessary water changes perhaps help to establish good husbandry and maintenance habits. I guess it all contributes to initial success and hobbyist retention.

I'm pretty sure excess nutrients don't cause algae in a well balanced system. But if something is out of kilter then I suspect it can sometimes exacerbate existing problems.

Back in the day I kept low-energy dirt tanks and didn't dose the water column. Aside from nutrients contributed by fish food and organic waste, most were locked up in the substrate. This allowed me to use relatively high light intensity and a 12hr or so photoperiod, without encouraging too much algae. I might well go back to doing things that way and dose a lot leaner.

This jungle scape from 2011 was high light, 2 T5 HO bulbs over 60x30x30cm aquarium. Photo period 12 hrs/day. No CO2, and no water column fertz for the first several months and densely planted. Growth rate was relatively fast. It was my first scape after returning to the hobby after a 20 year hiatus.

 

[ElleDee]

From a point of view of advising newbies I think EI is probably a good place to start. It's tried and tested and is fairly simple to master, leaving those new to the hobby to concentrate on more difficult aspects, like getting the CO2 right. EI can always be tailored later so the nutrient load isn't so excessive. The necessary water changes perhaps help to establish good husbandry and maintenance habits. I guess it all contributes to initial success and hobbyist retention.

I'm pretty sure excess nutrients don't cause algae in a well balanced system. But if something is out of kilter then I suspect it can sometimes exacerbate existing problems.

You know, I feel like fewer newbies in the US are starting with high energy systems, and are more likely to be trying an Aquarium Co-op-style planted tank (easy plants, no CO2, low light, inert substrate, AIO liquid fertilizer and/or root tabs) and I don't see the point of full EI when there's hardly any nutrient demand and like you said, it's liable to exacerbate problems in an unbalanced tank.

(Of course there are tons of high tech aquariums here, but you have to do a lot more legwork (and spend more $) to get started. I am in a proper city and I don't think I can buy a CO2 system from a shop locally. It's not beginner friendly.)

 

[richardcunliffe]

most were locked up in the substrate. This allowed me to use relatively high light intensity and a 12hr or so photoperiod, without encouraging too much algae

This is interesting (or a typo?). I was under the impression that you need low light for this low tech approach

 

[Scaperinc]

This is interesting (or a typo?). I was under the impression that you need low light for this low tech approach

I think there is a school of thought in which at low intensity lights you should have longer lighting period , that's what he means I think

 

[Tim Harrison]

This is interesting (or a typo?). I was under the impression that you need low light for this low tech approach

Not necessarily. It is possible but perhaps not a technique that’s suitable for folk just starting out. I think its success hinges on a nutrient rich substrate sealed off from the water column and dense planting.

It also requires good surface agitation to equilibrate dissolved CO2 with atmospheric CO2. And in addition increase dissolved O2, which in turn increases decomposition and produces more CO2.

Obviously, plant choice is also important. There is no sense choosing plants that require 30ppm of CO2 for instance. And in hard water areas a good choice are plants that can metabolise bicarbonates as a source of carbon for photosynthesis. For example, vallis, crypts, anubias, aponogeton, elodea, myrophyllium to name a few genus.

Also, I think relatively high light intensity compensates for lack of CO2 to some extent so still allows for reasonably compact growth.

 

[foxfish]

Tom Barr ran a low tech high light tank, it is featured somewhere on this forum!

 

[Happi]

Hi all,

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

all I know is that if one can control the N, P, Fe level and their ratio's in the water, they can Hinder the growth of the algae. in order for the algae to grow properly it will require all the same nutrient that the plant will require, if you were to reduce P and Fe in the water Colum and leave the N alone, you will significantly Reduce/Hinder the Algae. if all three N, P and Fe are reduce to the level where plant can still Flourish, then algae have very little room to grow. The only time this rule will be affected is if there are other interference from leaching substrates/soil, root tabs, overstocked live stock etc. You can also cheat with some of the algae by using the UV sterilizer. You can also cheat with some of the algae by adding little additional heavy metals such as Cu in your trace mixes. But one have to be very careful with Cu due to its toxicity.

In some cases if both excessive nutrients and toxic level of nutrients such as heavy metals are present in the water, it will Hinder the Algae growth regardless of excessive nutrients presence.

 

[richardcunliffe]

more CO2.

So, Tim, are you saying that there is a possibility for high light and increased CO2 without ferts if the substrate is rich enough but well capped? You talk about low tech CO2 introduction, but I assume the method doesn't matter if the level is similar? This sounds like a sweet spot I want to be in because I'm all for keeping water changes small.
And if you remove strict algae control as a requirement, presumably the 'well capped' aspect can also be relaxed? Maybe avoiding too much disturbance at an uncapped substrate level would suffice? And dense planting presumably helps with that.
Can I both have and eat my cake?

 

[Tim Harrison]

are you saying that there is a possibility for high light and increased CO2?

It is possible to max CO2 in a low-energy aquarium and keep it relatively stable throughout the photoperiod by increasing surface agitation.

Decomposition of organic matter also releases CO2. It's sometimes why natural waters have higher CO2 conc. than can be accounted for by atmospheric diffusion alone. Surface agitation is key to increasing O2 saturation and meeting BOD as microbes metabolise organics. A byproduct of this is CO2. It's an advantage of using non mineralised soil as a substrate.

And if you remove strict algae control as a requirement, presumably the 'well capped' aspect can also be relaxed

Maybe, but the risk is that nutrients will leach into the water column if the capping material isn't fine enough. A cap of fine sand, for instance, isn't really too much of a problem even if it drastically reduces the possibility of gas exchange. Plant roots are very leaky structures and will oxygen the rhizosphere over time. Soil microbes such as bacteria and fungi will then be able make nutrients available for plants.

without ferts if the substrate is rich enough

Eventually fertz will be needed since the soil will become depleted of nutrients after 6-12 months.

This sounds like a sweet spot I want to be in because I'm all for keeping water changes small.

This is an advantage of low-energy, but observation is also key to ensure the health of both plants and animals, and prevent algae outbreaks through the build up of organics.

And dense planting presumably helps with that.

Use a soil retainer, mesh between soil and capping substrate, to keep soil in place. Other than that dense planting provides a great deal of stability and robustness. Not entirely sure why but perhaps, It provides a greater surface area for beneficial microbial communities, greater uptake of excess nutrients, mutual shading excluding algae, allelopathy and algae inhibition.

Can I both have and eat my cake?

Probably not. That would be the Holy Grail

 

[nijat11]

From my point of view, it is very popular in The Netherlands, because there is company planted-box, they send salts and instructions how many spoons of what to use to make your own solutions. Personally I also use EI, quite happy for now, but grow rate just crazy.

 

[DeadFish]

Up until my most recent build I had run EI on every single tank - I had come into the hobby about the same time that Tom Barr started with EI and I kind of latched onto it. I did also try PPS for a short while and found it cumbersome.

To me, there are very few cons to EI, and maybe only one big one - plant growth. If you are looking to grow the biggest plants the fastest, that's the way. I even liked that for a short while. As life got busier, it almost drove me away. Trimming 500 stems a week loses its luster. However, I never had an algae issue with EI that wasn't due to CO2 or light. If chasing color is the goal, lean approaches are likely better. However, Tom had some of the most colorful plants I've ever seen. His dig was always that color is more a carbon thing than a nutrient one. Not sure I entirely agree with this, but I see some plausible explanations along those lines especially for species outside of Rotala.

Honestly, I would continue to use EI in smaller amounts if APT wasn't so easy (and pretty cheap). Now that I use a doser, it's too easy to fill up the container with APT 3 and call it a day.

 

[nijat11]

Up until my most recent build I had run EI on every single tank - I had come into the hobby about the same time that Tom Barr started with EI and I kind of latched onto it. I did also try PPS for a short while and found it cumbersome.

To me, there are very few cons to EI, and maybe only one big one - plant growth. If you are looking to grow the biggest plants the fastest, that's the way. I even liked that for a short while. As life got busier, it almost drove me away. Trimming 500 stems a week loses its luster. However, I never had an algae issue with EI that wasn't due to CO2 or light. If chasing color is the goal, lean approaches are likely better. However, Tom had some of the most colorful plants I've ever seen. His dig was always that color is more a carbon thing than a nutrient one. Not sure I entirely agree with this, but I see some plausible explanations along those lines especially for species outside of Rotala.

Honestly, I would continue to use EI in smaller amounts if APT wasn't so easy (and pretty cheap). Now that I use a doser, it's too easy to fill up the container with APT 3 and call it a day.

APT Cheap? Maybe for small tanks. As example I have 800 liters tank, and 1 liter of apt 3 will last for me only 5 weeks. And price for a liter is 50 euro. For 50 euro I can get dry salts for 24 weeks at least.

 

[PeerUnk]

@Happy:

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.

Well, even to answer "excessive dosing will always contribute to algae" leads to a never ending debate . But hey, what is excessive? In my current belief, suffering plants leaking sugars and excess food waste contributes to algae. Enough healthy plants, ample nutrients like EI, enough carbon resources for the amount of light and abundant ramshorn snails keeps algae away for me.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

and abundant ramshorn snails keeps algae away for me

I'm a <"Ramshorn snail fan">. I think a lot of people underestimate the importance of <"tank janitors"> in tank maintenance, they are <"working for you 24 / 7">.

cheers Darrel

 

[Aqua Hero]

Hi all,

I'm a /www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/inverts-available.73097/#post-736632']Ramshorn snail fan[/URL]">. I think a lot of people underestimate the importance of /www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/bba-on-high-tech-tank.72143/#post-724677']tank janitors[/URL]"> in tank maintenance, they are /www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/bba-on-high-tech-tank.72143/#post-724670']working for you 24 / 7[/URL]">.

cheers Darrel

I completely agree with Maintenance Team in our aquariums. I'm prefer MTS. Love their design and they are great at eating brown alage and leftover food

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[PeerUnk]

My old belief was that more light is better. And nitrate and/or phosphate caused algae and should be as low as possible. Big algae blooms in my tank were not uncommon and that's an understatement... these outbreaks are not healthy for the ecosystem and it's fish. And a lot of effort was put in eliminated these blooms, not helping the joy of aquarium keeping. But perseverance, research and having an open mind/view on things can help.

My first read in 2008 about 'Estimative Index' (the initial barrreport.com sticky post of Tom about it) caused a shift in my thinking; all nutrients/elements are needed in some amounts for a thriving ecosystem in which plants are a part of. I could use (cheap) fertilizers in some prescribed amounts in the water column to experience that myself. And resetting the water column is easy by water changes. And I don't need test kits. So I gave it a shot.

Well, plant growth shifted from weak to healthy and more important, remained that way. So something in the approach worked and I liked it. Big algae blooms were not common anymore. Big thumbs up!

But as all ways, a straightforward approach (EI included) doesn't cover the entire realm of an aquarium. So still had to learn by experience other stuff about:

• plants needing stable source of carbon,
• the need for water flow in a (high tech) tank,
• some plant species just won't grow healthy in my tap water,
• ramshorn snails and shrimp are awesome tank janitors.
• hi tech and low tech both having their own pros and cons,
• high tech EI style heavy pruning is too labour intensive for me,
• less live stock and less feeding has it's own benefits,
• plants can benefit from nutrients in substrate as well.
• an aquarium is a complex system. Changes in maintenance can cause effects weeks/months later or none visible at all.
• etcetera.

Moving onwards, step by step I've thrown out most of my tech out of the house, like CO2 injection, mechanical filtering, UVC and heaters.
But still I am daily dosing micros, mostly to keep Fe availability stable. Water changes every couple of month or so, bringing in 50% new tap water with added macros, so the 50% contains NO3=20, K=20, Po4=3, Mg=10, Ca=50 and SO4=40 ppm. Still EI influenced.

The last three years, this works for me and my main display tank. Taking it slow and easy.

I try to keep an open mind and try out new stuff if it makes sense to me. Still learning in the process. And I'm glad reading about EI when I needed a shift in thinking about nutrients.