# Help me understand EI Dosing!



## Akwar-e'um (Jan 16, 2009)

I am gonna start by saying hello to everyone. 

HELLO! Nice meeting you all!

OK, now, I am new to planted tanks and I am still reading up on the subject before starting the venture. I have read many a thread on EI Dosing. Everything seems quite simple enough. I shouldn't have a problem building and fallowing a set regime. The plan (as I understand it) is that you give excess (word used loosely) nutrients, keep the CO2 at 30ppm and give the amount of light depending on your total wattage. Simply put, the plants have it all.

Now for what I don't understand - to keep your tank algae free, your plants need to outcompete the algae, that's simple enough and straight forward.
But where does the competition take place? I mean the nutrients are all there in excess, the CO2 is stable and the light, well, it's whatever you have under the hood.

Maybe I am missed reading something fundamental or maybe I am just nuts and shouldn't worry about the inner workings of it all. Yet, I would still like to understand what I am doing before doing it.

Any input would be great.

Akwar-e'um


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Sometimes problems arrive when one or more nutrients bottoms out. This lets the algae that likes these kind of conditions to grow and the plants can't grow because of the missing nutrient(s). EI doesn't allow nutrients to bottom out. Also, the lights and CO2 play a vital part of the system.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Plants and algae don't compete in our tanks for nutrients. They do compete for light. When algae grows on a plant leaf, it is taking light away from that leaf. When plants grow to the top of the tank and cover the water surface, they are taking light away from algae.

Algae exist as spores in the tank, on or in the substrate and on plants and hardscape, even when we see no algae. Those spores will be dormant unless something about the conditions in the tank triggers the spores to start growing. Two of the things that seem to do that are ammonia and fluctuating CO2 concentration or a drop in CO2 concentration. Once the spores start to grow, giving you algae, you have to get rid of most of the algae by removing it from the tank, or killing it where it is, then you can reestablish the conditions in the tank that keep more spores from starting to grow.

This is how I understand it, but I'm sure some of those details are at least partially wrong.


----------



## Akwar-e'um (Jan 16, 2009)

OK, yes, I see.



Hoppy said:


> This is how I understand it, but I'm sure some of those details are at least partially wrong.


Partially wrong or not, I am satisfied. I can understand it like so myself. It gives me something to work with.

Thanks for the replies.

If anyone has anything to add, don't be shy!

Akwar-e'um


----------



## manofmanyfish (Mar 31, 2008)

Hoppy said:


> Algae exist as spores in the tank.


Correction. Algae exist to drive me insane. :icon_cry:

Don't worry this is a piece of cake. There is only one test. If you can balance an egg on a toothpick, you'll do just fine. (Stipulation, egg must be in shell, and you can't stab the egg with the toothpick).


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

manofmanyfish said:


> Correction. Algae exist to drive me insane. :icon_cry:
> 
> Don't worry this is a piece of cake. There is only one test. If you can balance an egg on a toothpick, you'll do just fine. (Stipulation, egg must be in shell, and you can't stab the egg with the toothpick).


That is utter nonsense! You can do fine if you can use two toothpicks to balance it.:thumbsup:


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

...or a spot of super glue. :biggrin:


----------



## Akwar-e'um (Jan 16, 2009)

I should be able to balance a egg on a toothpick, I'll just wait till my cories spawn and I'll have a crack at it!


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

Agree with what everyone says. And this may also better help you to understand.

Light is something that can cause you grief or aid you in having a successful planted tank. With higher light levels, the balancing act becomes more challenging. The plant's demands for c02 and nutrients is governed by how much light you blast the plants with. Maintaining stable adequate c02 levels, via pressurized c02, and sufficient circulation coupled with fertilization(i.e., EI) at full throttle and 50% weekly water changes helps maintain the balance. But one slip up, and algae will rear its ugly head. There is less wiggle room to screw up with such setups so you really need to committ yourself from day 1.

With less light(2 watts/gallon or less), plants grow slower so nutrient demand and uptake is less and c02 is not as critical, but if you do inject c02, you do not need to hit that magical 30 PPM for the plants to benefit and to prevent algae. There is insufficient light to spark algae, so even if you got an ammonia spike from a decaying fish and did not notice it, it will not trigger algae growth.

The key is really, giving your plants sufficient light so that they can grow but not so much that you are forced into the daunting task of agressively trying to ensure appropriate c02 levels and nutrients so algae will not force you into a long drawn out, time consuming war. It is much easier to do things to prevent algae than to battle it head on for months once you get it.


----------



## Akwar-e'um (Jan 16, 2009)

Homer_Simpson said:


> It is much easier to do things to prevent algae than to battle it head on for months once you get it.


Mmmm, yes, point taken.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Our goal is more horticulture, to grow and garden aquatic plants.
So we focus on providing good conditions for plant growth.

Plants, not nutrients define the system and their ability to grow and flourish.
Ever seen a tank with algae and flourishing plants?

I haven't.

In tanks where the plants are flourishing and doing very well we see little if any algae. These tanks can seemingly have little or a great deal of nutrients, both are seen and there is a wide range observed. Why is that? Well, light and CO2 paly a rule also. Less light, less nutrients, also sediment sources can make up for seemingly low water column ppm's and poor testing can also lead to poor conclusions, as is often the case.

So sediment sources + water column dosing are synergistic, they make both methods easier.

As long as the sediment is not messy and you are not making a mess as well, then this is a good method to add to any water column dosing routine.

Less light = less CO2 demand = less nutrient demand.
Fish load also can and does add some variation as well and load of nutrients.

Plant biomass differences between tanks also play roles, and often tanks are nutrient limited which causes issues for CO2 demand(reduces the CO2 demand often several times), so if you add non limiting amounts of nutrients, then you have much more CO2 demand as result, if the CO2 is not adjusted for this, then you end up with algae, not from nutrients, rather, lack of enough CO2.

Such indirect relationships cause many to assume algae is limited by nutrients, without considering what and how the plants are affected and without regard or measure of the CO2 and light critically.

This was common decades or so ago, not so much today, but many "*still cling to the past*". Ironically referring to themselves as new, more evolved methods that dose less than EI etc. If you have low light, then it's not an issue, the tank is not limited by nutrients or CO2. If you have a PO4 limited tank, *then you are not limiting algae, you are limiting CO2 demand from the plants.*

Very poor conclusions and even worst test method/s.
You can find tanks with no PO4 measured and low limited PO4 and algae ridden. Likewise, where's my algae bloom if limited PO4 works as claimed? If this is true then I should be able to induce algae and run and high risk or a bloom if this theory is correct.

So both cases do not explain the results and observations.
Yet they still believe it:icon_roll
I guess the world is flat:redface:

Easily shown to be false but they still cling to the past and what they want to believe, not the evidence/observations/confirmation.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Akwar-e'um (Jan 16, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> I guess the world is flat:redface:


Huh? World, not flat? What? And here I thought it was rectangular and enclosed in 5 panes of glass.... Might have to rethink my position on the matter.


Thanks for the replies. 

Maybe, I am trying to see things in overly concrete terms. 1+1 doesn't always equal 2....



plantbrain said:


> Such indirect relationships cause many to assume algae is limited by nutrients, without considering what and how the plants are affected and without regard or measure of the CO2 and light critically.


Bottom line, in EI, CO2 and light are the determining factors... hmm. Still doesn't fit with my specific type of reasonning, but then again, since I do not know all the possible relationships in this equation, I can't really argue any points. Besides if my point of view is wrong, my questions on the matter might be the wrong ones to ask.

I will be leaving this simmer and hopefully, if there is a *real need* to understand, experience will deliver.

Akwar-e'um


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I'm a bit of a matter of fact type of person, I observe first, then see about testing some idea. Then see what I might be able to conclude.

EI is simple, it's suppose to be, it's the most reduced type of dosing method.
Water change: removes any excess build up, dosing, frequently: prevents anything from running out.

Some math can be used to estimate what % error you have, for 50% weekly water changes, 2x the dose for the week.

Teaspoons are accurate for our purposes and easy to use.
DIY chemicals are very cheap and also standard, so anyone anywhere uses the same stuff.

This is simple. There's not a whole lot to it. Folks ask a dozen questions about it still, no matter how simple I explain it.

They worry something will go wrong, that it will cause algae, harm their fish or any several dozen myths that have been said and are still being claimed even after 15 years of it's use and a decade of wide spread use.

LFS's and vendors do not like EI and other DIY methods, they cannot make $ off them like ADA, and other brands.

So they will scare and warn folks about such methods and further the myth simply to make some sales...................
There is no other reason other than ignorance, I'm not sure which is worse.

=>>>> In the reasoning you state, EI simply rules out nutrients as dependent factors. So the other dependent factors are light and CO2. Now we only have 2 things to deal with instead of three.

Light is fairly stable and if you had been able to grow things in less than optimal nutrients, now you should be even better off.

Now you are down to one thing: CO2.

You can reduce light also, this will reduce CO2 demand and also thereby.......nutrient demand.

This will make targeting a good non limiting CO2 level fairly easy.

This gives you an easy to manage system where no testing is needed, low occurrence of algae, good healthy growth with good color.

It's just using common sense to isolate things to one main variable, CO2.

CO2 is the trickiest of the parameters to measure, the largest % of plant biomass and the most limiting factor for growth, the one that can change the most in a few minutes/hours etc.

If you want to induce algae, try turning off the CO2 for awhile and see how long it takes to get bad algae.

Nothing does this like poor CO2..............

If you cannot knowingly rule out CO2 and test the other parameters, you are in a lot of trouble experimentally. You have no confirmation and I do not trust the pH/KH test one bit, nor Drop checkers etc. I've measured CO2 very critically and it varies more than most aquarist realize.

The issue is really about EI dosing here, it adds a nice non limiting concentration to plants. That's all it does.

A few simple test falisfy these other myths/claims against it and are and have been repeated many times for over a decade.

This is not anything "new".

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## manofmanyfish (Mar 31, 2008)

plantbrain said:


> CO2 is the trickiest of the parameters to measure, the largest % of plant biomass and the most limiting factor for growth, the one that can change the most in a few minutes/hours etc.
> 
> If you want to induce algae, try turning off the CO2 for awhile and see how long it takes to get bad algae.
> 
> ...


Question #1 (1a, 1b, 1c) - OK, low CO2 is bad. With respect to the plants (disregarding effects on fish), are there negatives to "too much" CO2? Can we "overdose" CO2 easily...is there a narrow threshold or a broad tolerance level (for plants)? As with EI, do we simply make sure there is more than what's needed, or is too much just as bad as too little? The 50% wc at the end of the week rebalances the CO2 as well, doesn't it?

Question #2 - No test kit and no Drop Checker....how do you measure CO2 concentration? How do you know you are where you need to be? Are you saying we should all be using a pH monitor, solenoidie thingy, whatever?


----------



## kid creole (Dec 25, 2008)

I think I am just dumb, but I don't understand how you supply all of the nutrients needed for plant growth, including those that grow algae, and you don't get algae.

I see the results, and I'm not arguing that. I don't use EI yet, but I have a tank full of fairly healthy plants (with a little algae), and I don't understand why algae isn't having as much of a field day as the plants are. What is the algae lacking?

I just don't understand it.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

There is no reachable top limit on CO2 for the plants. If there are no fish/shrimp/other "animals" in the tank, you can dose as much CO2 as you want. The water change at the end of the week resets the tank for nutrients, but not for CO2. Every night when the CO2 is off, the tank is reset on CO2, because it escapes from the tank so easily that much of it is gone by the next morning.

Once you see what it takes to get in the right ballpark on CO2, which is what a drop checker can show you, you then need to watch for pearling plants, indicating good CO2 concentration, and fish gathered at the top of the tank, trying to gulp air, indicating that you have too much CO2. Some fish will have their colors fade with too much CO2, some may lay on the substrate unmoving, with too much CO2, but most will head for the surface where the CO2 concentration is the lowest.

Algae require very little in the way of nutrients, so there is always enough in the tank for them. But, they have evolved to start their growth, from the spore stage, only if the water conditions are such that they have a good chance to grow to the reproductive stage. If those conditions don't exist, the algae remain as spores, invisible to our eyes. Some of the conditions that seem to be triggers for the spores to start growing are: high light, fluctuating CO2 concentration from day to day, ammonia in the water, a drop in CO2 concentration during the photoperiod, and very likely,other conditions.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Good read in this thread. Exactly why I've been gathering a pressurized CO2 system to replace my DIY bottles.


----------



## manofmanyfish (Mar 31, 2008)

Hoppy said:


> The water change at the end of the week resets the tank for nutrients, but not for CO2. Every night when the CO2 is off, the tank is reset on CO2, because it escapes from the tank so easily that much of it is gone by the next morning.


I only know that when I do my 50% wc, that the drop checker is reset to dark blueish-green as I put fresh water (w/o CO2) from my well. By the next day, I'm getting back to the yellow-green color. But I agree, CO2 levels change more rapidly depending on the rate of delivery (bpm) being offset by the amount that escapes and the amount consumed.

But anyway, you've answered question 1, too much CO2 is relevant only to the fish, but will not be a factor that creates an imbalance resulting in an algae outbreak. Too little CO2 will! Put your Hoppy Seal of Approval on that, and I'll slap it in the "fact" bank.


----------



## Akwar-e'um (Jan 16, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> I'm a bit of a matter of fact type of person


:thumbsup:





Thanks everyone.

Akwar-e'um


----------



## manofmanyfish (Mar 31, 2008)

You're welcome. Ask whatever you want, we're here most days, from 4:00 am til 4:00 am. An answer is guaranteed, results are not.


----------



## cjp999 (Nov 18, 2008)

Hoppy said:


> Algae require very little in the way of nutrients, so there is always enough in the tank for them. But, they have evolved to start their growth, from the spore stage, only if the water conditions are such that they have a good chance to grow to the reproductive stage. If those conditions don't exist, the algae remain as spores, invisible to our eyes. Some of the conditions that seem to be triggers for the spores to start growing are: high light, fluctuating CO2 concentration from day to day, ammonia in the water, a drop in CO2 concentration during the photoperiod, and very likely,other conditions.


Thanks for this response. I've heard the "out compete" response so many times, and like the OP, it never did make sense to me.

I've seen fluctuating CO2 mentioned frequently as a common algae trigger. What are the risks of this with the weekly 50% water changes? I have a low light tank with Excel dosing and med/high light tank with DIY CO2 + Excel. Water changes induce pearling in both, so clearly they are getting a temp CO2 boost from the water change. Are these the types of fluctuations that can induce algae?


----------



## herns (May 6, 2008)

Does MgSo4 (Epsom Salt) part of EI dosing? If so, how much dosing is needed?

Thanks.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

herns said:


> Does MgSo4 (Epsom Salt) part of EI dosing? If so, how much dosing is needed?
> 
> Thanks.


Included in Gh booster as well as CaSO4 and plenty of K2SO4.

So no, GH booster, KNO3, KH2PO4 and traces.

That's pretty much it.

As far as algae, start another thread for that, there's no competition for nutrients as far as algae are concerned. The only competition occurring is with respect to light with algae/aquatic plants.

Not nutrients.

Still, algae has nothing to do with EI.

The concept of why non limiting nutrients needs applied not to just EI, but to any and every dosing method for aquatic plants. Why? Because none limit algae, if they directly did, we'd have the golden goose and no algae, but clearly, every dosing method can have algae issues.

For nutrients to limiting for algae, they must be 2-4 orders of magnitude lower than they are for plants. Clearly we will have nutrient limited plants long before algae. If you limit say PO4 strongly, then this reduces the amount of CO2 demand. This can indirectly stabilize CO2, in otherwords, your CO2 is dependent on plant limited PO4 levels.

The stable, now........non limiting CO2 leads to less algae, not anything to do with competition for nutrients. If you add PO4 back, then the system goes from PO4 limited, to CO2 limited and algae comes right back, unless you adjust the CO2 correctly and wait for the plants to recover.

This led to many myths.

I often wonder why so many apply competition to algae and plants, and not plant-plant(same species intraspecific) or different plant species for nutrients/CO2/light etc(interspecific competition).

Why not that since they are much more similar and all are clonal vegetative reproduction. Sort of like comparing large Trees vs some weedy annual plants that go to seed every year and sprout only when specific conditions allow it.

Algae spores are much like "seeds" as far as germination.
They wait for just the right conditions.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## mattycakesclark (Jun 11, 2010)

This newbie's experience with EI, and how it changed my thinking of "plant-algae competition":

I was using a very lean method of dosing, PPS-Pro thinking I was some slick cat saving money on ferts that only cost me a few dollars. . . But quickly my plants started to fade, algae set in, and I got very frustrated. 
Working in the water treatment field I decided to use some equipment to accurately measure my water parameters in terms of nutrients (PPS-Pro, from my understanding, required no testing...) I had a PO4 off the charts, and Nitrates bottomed out right at zero! I was starving my plants of NO3! My dosing was NOT working in my high light, pressurized CO2 environment. 

I made a mental shift at that point, reading something Mr. Barr wrote once, basically concentrate on growing healthy plants, not killing algae.
Started up EI dosing on my 20 gallon, using plain old measuring spoons, and wham! Two weeks and DHG that never grew choked out with BBA, exploded! My ferns started growing plantlets! My tank looked greener and greener, and algae became less of a component.

When I saw this, I began to think that the algae took advantage of unhealthy plants! Just like a person in poor health, it provides great conditions for sickness, in my tanks case it was algae.
I disobeyed what I teach many treatment plant operators, "focus on curing the cause, not cleaning up the symptoms".

In the end all the chemicals, goofy equipment, hours of time controling algae was the real wasteful method.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

mattycakesclark said:


> This newbie's experience with EI, and how it changed my thinking of "plant-algae competition":
> 
> I made a mental shift at that point, reading something Mr. Barr wrote once, basically concentrate on growing healthy plants, not killing algae. Just like a person in poor health, it provides great conditions for sickness, in my tanks case it was algae. I disobeyed what I teach many treatment plant operators, "focus on curing the cause, not cleaning up the symptoms".
> 
> In the end all the chemicals, goofy equipment, hours of time controling algae was the real wasteful method.


Well, in WT, you do a lot of preventative work, that and safety.
In horticulture, it's not much different.

Focus on good growth of the plants, the algae and other things are rarely pest if folks do this. Fish aquarist also come to this hobby with knowledge of the simple water change. So that's already there, teaspoons? Easy to use for anyone. 

That's it.

Not real complex.
Folks want to make it more complex for some reason.
Never really understood why, *but mostly to quell their myths they have spent a lot of time learning.*

If you like to play with modeling projections, wet's modeling for dosing EI works pretty well.

http://wet.biggiantnerds.com/ei/con_v_time.pl

Just plug A FEW NO#'S IN THERE AND SEE THE RESULTS.



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------

