EI is not really designed for non CO2, that involved little to no water changes(non CO2).
See here for more details on a Non CO2 method and with Excel dosing, you can do a modified EI, about 1/3 the dosing and then water changes maybe 1-2x a month.
http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/2817-Non-CO2-methods
Alternatively,. you can use sediments more as the primary source of ferts, this also applies to CO2 enriched systems also. Then you are not required to dose as much but doing so does no harm either.
BTW, test strips stink:thumbsdown:
For No3 and PO4,m bets to make some reference calibration solutions, then see how bad your test kit is, I use/suggest Lamotte for NO3 test, have for the last 15 years on record.
They have held up to the reference known standards unlike the cheapo hobby grade test kits, they sometimes are close, many times are not, only way to be sure, run against a known standard.
I'm curious, why run EI/add ferts etc and then not add CO2?
You suggest that you want to increase the rates of growth/health of the plants by adding things, if you add anything, it should be CO2, since this is the more limiting factor, nutrients are often the last thing to add after good low light, then CO2, sediment ferts are good ........then water column ferts to top off that.
No one method will meet every person's goal. There are some trade offs and better ways to manage it.
Folks(newer) avoid CO2 like the plague without realizing it's one of the bets tools to increase growth/health, it's not like terretrial plants, and yes, there's some CO2 in a non CO2 tank and there is some growth, but it's much less than many want.
This is a good article that addresses light and CO2 at 3 different levels, low, med and high for each:
http://www.tropica.com/advising/technical-articles/biology-of-aquatic-plants/co2-and-light.aspx
No, but you do not need that much either.
Not sure, I do not ever give specific ppm's, I do give a range, 10-30ppm is the most common range I suggest as a target. It's sort of the point, the range, not a specific set point is the goal, I little high, a little low etc is fine, nutrients can be pretty wide rangign without issues, as logn as the other Bigger two issues: CO2 and light are manged wisely and correctly.
Best folks get those 2 correct first...... then nutrients are much easier.
I do not think it's the source, it might a little but not as much as light/CO2 are.
A plant is 40-50% carbon from cO2, a plant is also about 1-1.5% N from Nitrogen, which do you think will have the largest effect if you change it by 10x?
Regards,
Tom Barr
