Example: High Fish Load 2.5 Year Old Tank Using Strict Ei

[john starkey]

Hello Tom some very nice shots there, I am now totally taken with EI and will use this method when i get set up. I also agree with others that what more proof does anyone need to see this method is simple, and not time consuming,now that i can see that you dont have to worry too much about testing this and that this is the way to go .

 

[plantbrain]

Well, simply testing people, I worked in a LFS for awhile before we had all these gadgets, I know they will not test consistently, only after something has already occurred.

They get lazy and think, "Why test if things are fine?"

People testing.............

So using a simple weekly routine helped address that issue.
Of course this removal of test kits was blasphemy to those so called experts in the hobby.
As was adding PO4.

Yet here we are.
You may note, I do tend to question everything. Myself included.
Linking human habits to a method is a key process.

I also applied this method to Marine systems, and it's very useful for smaller systems. Skimmers/refugiums can reduce large water changes on large tanks, so it's less practical, but then I use refugims for those tanks: see below another client's reef tank using marine plants to filter the tank:

See if those planted experts can do both reefs and nice planted tanks or breed discus and other Rift fish etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[plantbrain]

Hello Tom some very nice shots there, I am now totally taken with EI and will use this method when i get set up. I also agree with others that what more proof does anyone need to see this method is simple, and not time consuming,now that i can see that you dont have to worry too much about testing this and that this is the way to go .

Well, I'm not suggesting that there are not other methods etc and that they do not work, the reverse is often not the case however. That's the rub.

Looking at methods and their trade offs, cost, ease of use etc makes for a better discussion rather than "my way is best" approach. Most experts try to come off that way. That irritates me and is not good for the hobby to have such attitudes. It's their right, but they cannot say much about things they have not tested nor tried out themselves.

Some folks are just clueless and think they stumbled on to some great unknown mystery about how plants can grow without any nutrient sources or water changes etc, often suggesting there is a lot we do not know about growing plants..........well duhhhhh..............
Saying that does not help, doing something to see what occurs does .
All talk and no "do".
We do know what makes plants grow, every method has that same element.
No mystery there.

Some plants can adapt well to less nutrients/light/CO2 just fine and others not so much. Why?
But they all use the same things to grow. Reducing light and CO2 slows growth down, poor test methods also cause issues for these folks claiming there's so much we do not know.............they question etc, (mis)place doubt everywhere, but offer little to understanding the big picture.

Questioning that confuses the topic with ignorance.

I really like non CO2 methods personally and low light systems with CO2.
But I also realize that my testing is more troublesome at such slow growth rates, the plant demand is very low, thus much harder to test for(but far from impossible with good equipment/methods).

Look at each method and try to figure out what is driving growth, how fast it's going and how easy is it to use/cost etc.
Then you gain a better understanding and can use that information to make the method you chose easier for you.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[john starkey]

Thank you Tom your replys are always so intersting and very indepth.

regards John.

 

[nry]

Tom, do you aim for a specific lighting level with EI, or do you just go for a 'decent' level? How do you feel yeast-based CO2 addition fits in with EI dosing, and how much of an advantage/necessity is injected CO2 in comparison?

 

[plantbrain]

EI is specific for CO2 and Excel based fertilization.

It is not for non Carbon enrichment methods.
I clearly state that.

Lighting can be high or low, you do not need to waste the ferts at lower lighting, but adding them will also not do any harm to fish or plants however(as is often assumed).

I generally like 2-3w/gal generally MH HQI.
T5's are nice as well.

I'll cut EI dosing by about 1/2 in a 1.5w/gal T5 tank for example and have a decent fish load and large filter, good current etc.

DIY yeast CO2 is what I use to use for about 10 years actually.
It was a lot of work, a constant challenge to keep up with it and make sure it maintained things correctly. Things worked well when I did that.........when I did not..........then I would algae.
So I reduced CO2 on purpose and saw I could specifically induce various algae species, BBA in particular.

I think gas tank CO2 is the best investment a planted aquarist can make if they arer serious and want to use CO2. DIY is okay for a small 20 gal tank and to see if CO2 works or not, but otherwise, go gas tanks.




Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[mlawson]

Tom, Can you use Flourish excel as a source of carbon for EI?

Cheers,
Mike

 

[2pods]

amazing pictures, I have a quick question about the fully planted tanks that are seen here. I run a eheim filter with a spray bar that's just below water surface pointing down. In a fully planted tank how do people position there spraybars or nozzels... because if i put plants in the middleo f my tank my spraybar would just put current from back to from and my plants would get caught in the current... just a werid question.

Truly amazing tanks

However nicklfire's question applys to me too
What's the answer ?

 

[SuperColey1]

Not an expert at all and also running an internal filter, the CO2 goes in the side of the filter and my spray bar point forward but down a degree or 2

This means that the water flow pushes all the poop from the front (where my bare sand is) to the sides and back where the plants are.

Purely for aesthetic reasons but it works for me.

Andy

 

[plantbrain]

Tom, Can you use Flourish excel as a source of carbon for EI?

Cheers,
Mike

Yes, but you only need about 1/2 to 1/3 the nutrients as that is about the reduction in plant growth using Excel.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[nry]

This is going right off topic but I am assuming that pearling has a dependency not only on CO2 levels but also nutrient levels? i.e. even if CO2 is at 30ppm and lights are in the region of 2-3wpg, if the nutrients required by the plants are not present in enough quantity then the plants will be less likely to pearl?

 

[George Farmer]

This is going right off topic but I am assuming that pearling has a dependency not only on CO2 levels but also nutrient levels? i.e. even if CO2 is at 30ppm and lights are in the region of 2-3wpg, if the nutrients required by the plants are not present in enough quantity then the plants will be less likely to pearl?

Yes. Plants need light and a host of nutrients to grow and therefore pearl. If any one nutrient is deficient then growth will suffer and pearling will likely cease.

This is why EI is great. It ensures there are no deficiencies, providing light and CO2 are good. Simple eh?

 

[plantbrain]

Well, we can easily be strict on our dosing and making sure there's always a non limiting condition for nutrients. That allows us to explore other things, like CO2 or lighting variations without confounding nutrient influences.

Such isolating methods allows a much better understanding of what roles each nutrient and parameter plays in the health of plants and algae.

You can delete a single nutrient from EI also and use various salts that lack one nutrients(eg. use Ca(NO3)2 in place of KNO3 for low K+ studies) to see what occurs and how they influence growth and uptake of other nutrients.

You still do not need a test kit for that either................which is cool. Less work. After you see the patterns, you may go back and test carefully with good methods to see if you chose.
Same deal for Traces.

You are using the plants and their health in an isolated system to address a single parameter at the biological level, not so much the quantitative chemical level.
We want to know how plants are affected and algae based on our dosing, not what our ppms are. Ppm are simply used as guideline for correlation for good growth.


CO2 is the most pesky of all parameters to measure and watch.
It is ephemeral, it can change dramatically in 1 hour, it can be difficult to measure accurately, it can easily kill fish, it can easily cause algae.

Yet for all the banter over nutrients, few of the same folks give CO2 hardly more than mere lip service. To properly address CO2, you need to have an idea of what the light is and also provide non limiting nutrients, then you can fairly judge CO2 and have a basic standard to go by for comparison.

None of these other folks ever seemed to realize that and I really have serious and grave doubts as to their logic when they misses such an obvious issue with the methods to analyze plant growth, nutrients, CO2 etc.

If you cannot provide a standard control, then how can you test anything? You need some sort of baseline. I still get clowns trying to make the case that their algae ridden tanks are some sort of test model. It's really ridiculous to read their protestations about how I am wrong and they know it all, but cannot even produce a control tank that's doing well to test against.

I point it out but most are too stubborn and want to be right in a public form to fess up to the obvious. I end up wasting my time on them, but others read it and get it.

That's the difference between mere observation/correlation and causation.
It's not some complicated concept either, even a newbie can see that the hypothesis about adding PO4 to 2-3ppm does not cause algae and therefore must be rejected as a cause for algae blooms.

A lot of folks still carry on about PO4/NO3 etc causing algae also, but they do not test anythign themselves.

Too lazy?
Did not check their own advice?

I mean it's not a hard test to do, but you do need to have control and thus a good understanding of methods to grow the plants.

I do not know, maybe I am just mythed that so many so called experts in this hobby missed the boat on this. It's one thing if it was new or something, but it's been well known for a decade on the web.

I have hard time trusting advice from folks that do not check their own advice at least somewhat carefully. Why should I trust them if they cannot at least do that? Heck, these folks did not even bother to check at all........even the basic stuff.

If you want authority about a subject, you have to earn and learn it.
It's not just given.
There's no easy path there.
It does take time and work and lots of testing, with or without a test kit.
I'll kid no one there , but the info gained is worthwhile

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[jimbooo]

Hi Tom,

great thread here. i have one question which maybe a bit stupid but i'm no chemist.

i am using KNO3 and trace but not dosing phosphate in my 40G (high fish load and big pooing plec and angel). all's well apart from my anubias nana. the tanks full of it but every leaf has dark green veins and light green leaves. obviously a nutrient deficiency of a kind.

it's definatly not FE or K as i have been adding tonnes of the stuff. the trouble is with the slow growth rate i cant really tell whats going on. any ideas?

tanks 2.5WPG, pressurised CO2, laterite/gravel


also i am dosing 1 tsp of KNO3 twice a week and trace on the other days. i have no idea what effect 1tsp KNO3 has on the water as i don't test (and dont trust them anyway). is all KNO2 the same? as in 1tsp of any KNO3 will always up the nitrate level by the same amount regardless of where you bought it from etc...

i think it is i would just like clarification.

thanks, Jimbooo

 

[lljdma06]

This tank fits in my hand and is a non CO2 tank

Yeah!!!! I was wondering where this little beauty went. My favorite personally. I setup my 2.5g after I saw this little tank. Figures, you flash about these gorgeous tanks, and I like the little one best.

This is a great thread that really shows the results of EI, a method that I have used effectively in the past (Thanks George and Zig for teaching it to me and putting up with PMs! ). I don't really use it anymore (Not really necessary with the systems I currently have), but if I ever setup a high-tech again, I like EI for it, and I do recommend it as an option for other setups.

Although deep reds can be accomplished without EI too.

In relation to the ideas expressed in this thread, Tom, you've commented in this thread below.

http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...p;#entry1560240

What do yo think about the ideas in the initial post of the above thread? Making a series of pros and cons to the various methods of keeping planted aquariums? I think it would be useful for those new to the hobby, especially if the various methods were explained in an objective manner. I had to dig to find that thread.

By all means, however, answer Jimbooo's question first.

llj