This thread has probably moved off topic, but I think its a worthwhile discussion. So...
I'm far from an expert but I have been kicking around for awhile and I believe I understand the premise of the EI (previously known as Dose and Dump).
More accurately it is a non limiting method to add fertilizers, eg Hoalgland's solution. Hoagland's is too rich really and has NH4, so it was cut to 1/5th and then the Nh4 was removed. This about what Paul K suggested back in the 1960's. It's also about the same target levels I suggest for EI.
The concept is nothing new, nor the target levels.
The prevailing myths and methods suggested in the hobby where/are the issue/s.
EI is about 95% PMDD, just adds more and adds PO4.
PMDD also suggests about 25% water change weekly etc, and has the same infinites series equation at the bottom on the link on the Krib.
Just add a bit more, and then you can do away with the test kits altogether.
That(no test kits idea) was not very welcomed and is still not by many aquarist even today. So they try everything to rationalize why test kits for nutrients are so so important, sort of losing battle as few want to do any real research and the rest of the folks really do not want to test if they can avoid it and often just stop after awhile anyhow, human habits need factored in.
We do not like to test.
I don't, but I will if I can answer a question I might have. Not for a matter of habit and for monitoring forever on........that's not a method, that's torture and a waste. I can automate a water change fairly easily, cannot do that for test kits.
Again, none of these are my ideas, they are basic human nature and things ALL AQUARIST know and think about, discuss etc.
How it is applied by many on this board is not consistent with the original philosophy of the method. (I'm not saying anyones wrong.) EI's central premise is that you cannot overfertilize your tank (unless your poisoning your fish). The balance component was only originally intended to reduce costs of over-fertilizing.
Yes, and a simple function of waste, there's no need to lard it on,
start high at a known non limiting levels, then reduce it step wise, observing plants, and making sure you have excellent CO2.
Based on some analysis if a planted tank needed 10 ppm of NO3 then it also needed 1 ppm of PO4 and 20 ppm of K because this was supposed to be an approximation of how plants consumed nutrients.
Yep. I'd say more about 20ppm NO3, 2-3ppm of PO4, 20-25 ppm K+.
Traces are weird, there's evdence as high as 6-8ppm of Fe does well and increases growth rates in some species, I think .5-.7ppm is likely the max ranges for us.
In 15 years I've never seen Tom suggest to anyone they should reduce a nutrient.
Hope this didn't sound preachy, just trying to explain my understanding of the system.
You did quite well :thm:
haha
As someone who does agriculture, it's rare that we have issues with excess nutrients, perhaps one is so high we do not need to add it. Most of the issues folks have are with algae, fear and web myths.
Sometimes weird plant growth at the tips(classic CO2 issue).
But by and large, folks do not focus very well on growing plants and taking care of their needs. Likewise, those that claim to know beans about algae are generally way off base, because, like the plants, they have not focused specifically on growing algae.
If you want to learn about algae, you need to learn how to grow and culture it. If your focus is plants, then focus there.
Folks often cross these two together and make it much more compilcated and harder to tease the issues apart and have confounding factors they can never hope to isolate. Then they complain the advice they got was wrong, then run from one to the next till someone says something they want to hear.
You do not get far that way.
You understand and learn much mor eisolating the issue down.
EI is ajust a simple tool that does this only..........for nutrients.
It does not do this for light or CO2, which are much much larger factors and really poorly understood by hobbyists. CO2 particularly......it's much more complicated than most assume. Light, few bother to test this curiously, even though it is where all plant and algae growth starts.
Most get high light and avoid CO2 like the plague, a perfect recipe for algae.
And so it goes, more experienced folks need to back off the high light advice, stick with low light and good VERY careful CO2 and focus on current, CO2 losses, evaporation changes that affect current, CO2 loss etc, high flow thur rates with CO2 diffusion equipment etc, good horticulture etc.
CO2 kills more fish than any other thing in the planted hobby and causes the 95% of all algae issues.
I've never heard of a single documented case of fish death due to any fertilizer.
So........I generally suggest CO2 focus.
It provides the most gain for your efforts.
Regards,
Tom Barr
