• 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

Unlimited nutrients using E.I.

Reuben

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2013
Messages
179
Here is a question I'm not totally sure about.

If using Co2 and dosing EI is there any reason to bother working out PPM or other concentration levels in the tank.

I've recently started dosing 2x the standard sort of recipe and if anything the effect seems positive, I'm wondering if the tank water is eutrophic and if it is not yet, would it matter if it was?

Is it okay to aim to dose at unlimiting levels and if so why is anyone bothering to figure out ppm?

Just for comment here is my current recipe which I use in a 125 L tank:

6 tsp of MsSo4 + 3 tsp of Kh2POH + 6 tsp of Kno3 - this mixed into 500ml of water then I dose 100ml at a time.

2 tsp of trace into 300ml of water then I dose 50ml at a time.

I dose every day alternating NPK and Trace and do one weekly 80% water change and usually at least one or two %20 water changes during the week.

Thanks
 
Dosing @2x the EI range will not increase plant growth in any species I'm aware of.

I would rather dose the normal amount and add more fish etc if this were the case.
The NH4 from fish waste slowly "dosed" would be of some benefit perhaps.
 
Okay, I'm not really trying to 'increase' growth, just make sure I have more nutrients than the plants need. But perhaps what you are saying is that standard dosing EI will already provide more than plants can use? Which would render adding yet more nutrients fairly pointless?

I'm still a little unsure as to why people bother to work out the exact level in ppm though? Why not just dose over the plants level of demand and forget about it? Does it matter is there are 20% unused 'extra' quantity of nutrients in the water?
 
Anyone?

I know this subject has been covered before to some degree, but having read those threads I still haven't gleaned what 'harm' there is in having a high nutrient load, as long as that load was not caused by a peak in the nitrogen cycle ie High Ammonia > Nitrite > High Nitrate, but was added via salts?
 
There is no harm in dosing twice or 3 times the recommended levels of ei, ive done it before now but the aim of ei anyway is to ensure there is a slight excess of nutrients in the water column. I kept at 2 times the recommended ei dosing on my old 100 gallon but didn't see anything in the way of vastly improved growth compared to using just the norm. Plus your just wasting ferts if your going to add unlimited amounts. Its not all going to get taken up by the plants and will be taken out when doing water change.

Im not sure if using far more than recommended would have any impact on shrimp though.



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2
 
Reverse the question: Why do you want to add more than unlimited. EI is the max plants can use. By adding EI, you are sure you add enough, why do you want to add more? Does it harm to add more? Yes and no! A little more no problem for fish or plants, 10x EI, no problem for PO4, K, but 10 NO3 will not be benificial to your livestock (depending on the species). No problems for plants I guess. Wild discus do not fare well even with normal EI, might be the high NO3 or more likely high TDS but it shows it really depends on the species. In reality, most people already add 2x unlimited for their tank with normal EI. But EI is not written in stone, it is a starting point, you can go your own way as soon as you acquired some feeling (or test kits:p)
 
Yes, well the main reason I'm dosing heavy is that I'm using an inert substrate (pea gravel) which I wish I wasn't but there we go! I have seen example of people (Paulo) doing well with pea gravel anyway, so I'm not to worried, I have added root tabs (seachem flourite) not sure how much they achieve though.

Just wanting to get a grasp on why people try and work out there levels in ppm, as fertz are cheap enough to not worry too much anyway?
 
I think it is mostly a mindset. I don't want my aquarium to become a fertilizer pool. If I was just keeping plants, no livestock, no problem, I would go double EI just to make sure everything is sufficient. But I want my fish to feel good as well. Most fish come from low TDS waters and although they adapt to higher salt contents in the water, I prefer to keep it as low as possible for my fish. At the same time I understand plants need these nutrients/salts so I do measure NO3, PO4 and TDS. Just to now sure they never run zero, but never get too high as well. I did use full EI some time ago and it worked great plants wise, and all fish survived. But no breeding from my dwarf cichlids and little from my shrimps.
In my ADA based tank (little nutrients in the water, al lot in the substrate, low TDS) I noticed all animals did better and plants almost equally.
Since I lowered NO3 and PO4 and kept all other things the same, I've way more shrimps. And most important for me, suddenly my Nannacara and Apisto eggs hatched. I never tried higher EI except for 40 ppm PO4 so can't comment on that but as Tom says:

Dosing @2x the EI range will not increase plant growth in any species I'm aware of.

EI is based on inert gravel, so no need to go higher IMO. Just make sure everything else is right (no overfeeding, no rotting objects, enough CO2)
 
Hi all,
But I want my fish to feel good as well. Most fish come from low TDS waters and although they adapt to higher salt contents in the water, I prefer to keep it as low as possible for my fish. At the same time I understand plants need these nutrients/salts so I do measure NO3, PO4 and TDS.
I use a similar approach to Yohan, with the exception that I don't attempt to measure PO4--- or NO3-, I just use plant health (via the Duckweed Index) and conductivity measurement as an indicator of nutrient status. <Duckweed(amazon frogbit) dead. Nutritient deficiency? Which one? | UK Aquatic Plant Society>.

For me that means if the plants are green and growing (how ever slowly) and the conductivity is around 100microS. water conditions should be about right for Apistogramma, Pencils etc.

All I need is to then is ignore the fish, maintain a complex weedy environment, feed lots of live food and spawns will follow.

cheers Darrel
 
On the other hand I use multiple EI all the time and my tank raised discus have been fine, while other low TDS fish bred like rabbits. So that indicates the problem has not much to do with NO3 or PO4. TDS is always an issue but high nutrient loading causes a TDS rise not only directly but also causes high organic waste expulsion. If you add more nutrients then you need to do higher water changes.

To answer the OP's question, the issue is very similar to CO2 availability. If flow and distribution are poor, and if the tank has a large volume, and if the lighting is absurdly high, it can easily be that uptake rates are not as expected. Increasing the dosage increases the partial pressure of the nutrients in the water column and can make up for the poor flow and distribution shortfalls.

As Tom points out, there are no plants that show increased growth performance at dosages higher than EI, but this assumes the plant is actually seeing that value via excellent flow and distribution, which very few people have.

Cheers,
 
Okay, thanks for all the responses. I think I'm getting a grasp on it!

When folks say that the fish prefer low TDS what harm does the high TDS actually do? Is 'it' poisonous to them in a way that can be measured? Sorry if this is a daft question! Though at one point I though (had read in books) correct PH was essential to fish health and spent a while fretting about keeping it stable at 6.8, only to since learn that it seems not to matter at all to fish health -or do I have this wrong too:facepalm: Co2 causes PH movement anyway so not sure how Discus keepers with plants (as an example) get around that.

Anyway I think what I have learnt is that people try and determine their level of EI added nutrients, because excess is believed to be in some way toxic to fish health?
 
pH is important as a rough guideline, but fresh water fish can adapt quite well. Lowering your pH with CO2 is not the kind of pH mentioned in the books, so that is why you often see pH is not important. Fish don't carry a pH meter. But as you know, pH mainly depends on KH. Fish don't notice pH but do notice TDS and in nature this mainly consists of KH and GH (no high PO4, NO3 etc). Their bodies are build to maintain salts and flush water out of their system. (Salt water fish do the opposite) When TDS rises, this system changes, so they notice this. This is often considered good during illness, the fish saves energy by the smaller difference in osmotic pressure. But breeding usually happens in the rainy season when TDS is lowest. Before TDS gets poisonous I don't know, I think it mainly depends on what makes the TDS.

Anyway I think what I have learnt is that people try and determine their level of EI added nutrients, because excess is believed to be in some way toxic to fish health?

Yes, that is what I think at least. The Dutch Aquarium Contest does not judge pictures, but visits your tank in real life and takes measurements of your water etc. High NO3 and PO4 are negative point on your report because they still consider it a pollution. Most people run EI or a similar method and do large water changes before the judges come and dose NO3 and PO4 when the judge leaves, but you can get where these kind of rumours come from. At the same time, I don't want mine to be too high as well, just based on my observations which might as well be because of something else but maybe not? Don't have the scientific articles to back it up unfortunately.
 
I see. Though i'm not totally sure I understand why the fish -

don't notice pH

Though I do understand that you are saying the pH I read about, may have been more referring to the TDS part of the water chemistry.


breeding usually happens in the rainy season when TDS is lowest.

I might of guessed the rain would increase TDS (through terrestrial runoff) but fair enough. I wonder if the fish breeding/high rainfall/low TDS just happen to coincide. Could it be that the increased river levels from the rain are more a trigger to spawn than the 'incidental' low TDS that occurs at that point in the season? Perhaps the low TDS are just a coincidental factor rather than the main driver?

If the fish are able to adapt to a range of TDS/pH levels encountered throughout the yearly seasonal changes, might it be that in captivity the tanks with low TDS also happen to be those with less organic pollution in them? Because the fish keepers change more water in their effort to maintain low TDS, but in doing that they also create a tank with low pollution levels?

Maybe this has all been figured out already? I'm just looking to learn a bit more, not be awkward with these questions:lol:

I like the idea that freshwater fish are more adaptable, as I used to keep marine inverts at one time and I always felt it was near impossible to match the water chemistry/stability of the Indian ocean in a 250L glass box in the UK! Because the ocean is so large and stable many marine organisms are not very able to adapt to fluctuations in water chemistry, or at least don't thrive.

The idea that the freshwater critters we keep are more adaptable to variable water parameters - which makes sense when you thing about how dynamic rivers are- makes them more appealing to me, as I think they are a better match to the sort of conditions that most people can provide in an aquarium.

Hence my interest in understanding the situation with EI levels.
 
There is only one pH, so any pH you read about is the same as any other. The problem is not that there are different kinds of pH, but instead that people really don't understand what pH is and under what conditions pH is relevant. The same can be said of the water's mineral content.

The best way to think about pH is as a ratio of positive electrical charges due to ionized Hydrogen (H+) versus the negative electrical charges due to an ion called Hydroxyl (OH-). When the two charged particles combine, we have HOH...otherwise written as H2O. If there are exactly the same amount of (H+) and (OH-) then all the positive charges are balanced by all the negative charges.

Here are some schematics:
Normally, when we describe a Hydrogen atom it exists as a single positively (+) charged proton in the middle. This (+) charge has the power to hold a single negatively charged electron (-) within a certain space surrounding the proton. As an assembly, this combination has a net neutral charge. The (+) and the (-) cancel each other but the electric fields made by each are still present.
hydrogen-atom.jpg


The electron is trapped in this "orbit" because of the positive electric field of the proton and there are only two ways to escape this area. One way is to acquire more kinetic energy to enable it to fly away, and the second way is to have a stronger (+) field nearby to pull it away. All of chemistry and all of life is about the movement and energy state of that little orange ball depicted in the image above. When the electron is in the orbit the material that is Hydrogen is a completely different material than when the electron leaves that orbit. When it leaves, the Hydrogen atom becomes a simple proton with a (+) charge.
Here is a scematic of a Hydrogen atom becoming a Hydrogen ion:
ionization.jpg


This (H+) charged particle is now capable of attracting other electrons and pulling them from their current orbit back into an orbit around itself. In so doing the material of the Hydrogen changes it's properties AND the material that the electron came from also changes it's properties.

The material that the new electron came from is said to have been "Oxidized". The (H+) is said to have been "Reduced". This is what acids do. They Oxidize other materials by ripping off the electrons that those materials have.

The more (H+) that are in the water the more damage they can do because the total strength of their combined (+) charges is powerful enough to break down other substances.

On the opposite side of the fence, there is the Hydroxide ion. This is a little more complicated because it's composed of two atoms; an Oxygen atom that holds a Hydrogen atom firmly in it's grasp. There is an extra electron in this assembly. Count the number of (-) red = 10 and compare with the total number of P (+) = 9 so the net charge of this assembly is -1. The Hydroxide ion repels electrons and is attracted to positively charged ions.
24110610.jpg


If there are more of these ions in the water than (H+) ions, then the solution is said to be alkaline.

In the water, because of these balance of charges there is a continual merger of the (H+) and the (OH-) and immediately they separate. If the pH of the water is neutral (7) then there is an equal number of these ions, and they merge and disassociate at an equal rate.

Now when we start adding things to the water the balance is upset. The pH calculation is a mathematical computation of the number of (H+) in relation to the number of (OH-). Here is a simplified schematic:
hydrogen+vs+hydroxide.jpg



The difference in acids is that weak acids such as citrus, vinegar and carbonic when we add CO2 is that they only add a small amount of (H+) to the water, so when you calculate the pH, the number can be driven very low, but the amount of extra (H+) relative to the current amount of (OH-) is really not that much. Weak acids dissolved in water can dramatically change the pH, but the electrolytic effect against other substances is not that great because there are still plenty of (OH-) in the water to pull the (H+) away.

Strong acids however are highly toxic because they add huge amounts of (H+) to the water and overwhelm the number of (OH-). Now, there is real danger to fish, plants, bacteria and everything else because the (H+) protons will rip through their materials, will pull electrons away due to the strong positive charge, and in so doing, will change the nature and properties of the living material.

So when you approach the analysis of your tanks pH, you need to understand WHY the pH is high or low, because the number is just a calculation. If the number is low due to strong acid release, this is a major problem, but if the number is low due to a weak acid addition then it's meaningless.

That's why we can add CO2 and change the acidity by a factor of 10 without any problems, because the total number of damaging H+ charges relative to the balancing OH- charges is minor. People don't realize this very important difference and they add strong acids like "pH Down" to their tank, trying to control pH to some mythical perfect value, which is actually highly toxic because it's a strong acid.

Your tank produces tiny amounts of strong acids. Nitrate is metabolized into Nitric acid, Phosphate to Phosphoric acid as well as some other organic acids. Again, these are very small amounts so they do have an effect on the pH but their total contribution of H+ is not that much because the quantity is small.

Without a clear understanding of the fundamental principles, there is no hope of making rational decisions regarding the water's chemistry. The same is true for conductivity and nutrient levels. People have no idea what effects there are on fish, so they just guess because they "feel" that something is right or wrong. While it seems a certainty that soft water fish are happier in soft water, it is also true that they can adapt to higher conductivity and mineral levels. If that were not true then there would be no way discus would breed in hard tap water, and clearly, they have. So the fish have mechanisms to deal with all sorts of things such as CO2, conductivity, calcium and so forth. When people have a problem they immediately blame nitrates and phosphates without having any evidence. There is plenty of evidence that keeping your tank clean and free of organic pollution goes a lot further to maintaining top health than stressing over nitrates, phosphates and TDS.

Again, to approach rationally, there should not be a need to use multiple EI dosing, but doing so does no harm. If growth performance using standard EI dosages do not achieve the expected performance then this tells you that you have a flow or distribution problem and that is where the most logical corrections should be made. But if that is not possible due to other constraints then a dosing increase can be of benefit without risk.

Cheers,
 
I think the no# or ratio of actual H2CO3[aq] to CO2[aq] is about 1:400. So only 0.25% is actually as H2CO3.
Which is not enough to have any influence of the carbonates when you inject CO2 gas into the water.

It'd be cool if you could add CO2 gas and remove the carbonate by destroying it into CO2 and H2O, soften the water, but obviously, no one does this. Because it does not work.
If you added vinegar, it will destroy KH and release CO2 and H2O. Or strong acids etc. Pour some onto limestone, baking soda etc and you'll see this effect.
 
Okay, so I am clear that, dosing over standard EI might not achieve anything 'extra' -so is a bit pointless. Though it could be useful in some cases where distribution of flow isn't so good to allow plants access to nutrients. It is not thought to do any 'harm' to livestock. ?

Thanks for the explanations of pH, to be honest I had no idea that is how the relationship worked. But from what has been said I think I understand that there is no 'know way' in which differing pH levels harm fish kept outside of the pH of the river they occupy in the wild. Changing the pH in a way that causes the electrons to re-balance (by jumping to or from hydroxide ions) is known to damage cells/harm fish. Is that right?

I think Tom's point is that it's a shame that adding Co2 does not soften the water (and at the same time unlock more Co2) but it does not have that effect. Correct?

It has helped me understand that the Co2 induced pH swing is different to a fundamental pH change -which I did not realize before. What the drop checker is registering is an increase in H+ (from Co2 addition) which once the Co2 stops the extra H+ is no longer present and the water chemistry returns to the 'base' pH. If a strong acid or alkaline were added a huge number of H+ or OH- would be added which would fundamentally alter the water pH by causing a 'migration' of electrons one way or the other. Have i got that right?!

Hope this hasn't wandered too off topic, though I think I have the answer to my original question about EI now:). It is handy to learn a bit more about pH and water hardness as I don't know much about that area and it's relevance in aquariums.
Thanks.
 
Yes I reckon you have a pretty good grasp of the fundamental principles. As we've mentioned many times, it's the sum total of all the things we do to the tank that determines results. I keep high nutrient loading and even intentionally raise the TDS using products like GH Booster just to see what happens. As long as the tank is kept free of organic waste the fish don't really have trouble adjusting to the conditions. When people add high nutrient levels and don't keep the tank clean they encounter problems - but that's because the water becomes polluted with organic waste, which lowers Oxygen (due to bacterial interaction) and also drives up TDS.

At 3X Ei dosing here is a Ram guarding eggs hidden within the P. stelleta on the left.
8394082679_00b443600e_z.jpg


And this is the male, again 3X EI dosing and 800 microseimens conductivity. And the cards are all stacked against these fish, such as high CO2, yet there was no difficulty getting them to breed in a community tank. The penalty? Lots of water changes and maintenance. This is the contribution that healthy plants offer. So as you surmised, there is no point wasting powder, but neither do you have to freak out about nutrients in the water column.
8395170302_ac9c1f3ddb_z.jpg


Cheers,
 
I came up with EI dosing more because I had much more light, but then I knew I needed more CO2 as a result of more demand.
But it's just adding more PMDD and some PO4 basically, then doing a bit larger consistent water changes.

Fear, more than innovation/common sense held most folks back.
It was what we were taught and told to believe.

The utility with EI is really this: it rules out limitation of the ferts. Thus makes ferts INDEPENDENT, so....you can focus on adjusting light, or CO2, which i much more fruitful for growing plants, gardening, dealing with algae and controlling/managing rates of weedy growth.
That's a huge headache that folks do not have to fret over. Then they can master CO2 well and use moderate light etc.

Folks in the EU and Japan tend to not go for the nuke powered lighting that many in the USA do. Which is good.
 
Back
Top