# What is EI's Kryptonite?



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

Well I use EI with great success!!! I read lots of other people having great success with EI. But what are the short comings of EI?

What type of tank would not lend itself to success with EI? Lets say I had a 29 gallon with one 65 watt bulb on top. Would this tank be successful with EI? Would I have to get my CO2 to 30ppms?

Where does EI cross the line of become exactly what it professes not to be....."difficult". I hope this turns into a cool discussion.

I am not trying to diss the method at all. I totally believe in it!!!, but where does it not apply? I would just like to hear what some of the EI folks say about it.

Thanks....I am looking forward to reading and learning.
jB


----------



## stcyrwm (Apr 20, 2005)

Jason Baliban said:


> What type of tank would not lend itself to success with EI? Lets say I had a 29 gallon with one 65 watt bulb on top. Would this tank be successful with EI? Would I have to get my CO2 to 30ppms?
> 
> jB


Jason,
That would be just over 2 wpg and so would be on the high side of Tom's article about non CO2 tanks. I personally think this might be the most fun way to do EI and I'm trying a tank this way. I am cutting back to 1 water change a month and no DIY CO2. I am going to use Seachem Excel. I haven't calculated fert dosing yet because the tank is still working off existing nitrates etc.

My own experience with EI has been pretty positive and I think it'll encourage more people to take the aquatic plant plunge. I do think it'd be a little simpler for newbie's if some of the dosing was laid out a little more clearly.

I'm curious if anyone has had shrimp problems with EI as it is said they are more sensitive to high ferts. My own shrimps have done fine - they even survived an overdosing of Plantex.

I also read something recently that said some plants won't turn red with higher nitrate levels but my Rotala Rotundafolia is turning pink as it grows closer to the lights even though my nitrates got pretty high under EI.

See ya, Bill


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

"...What type of tank would not lend itself to success with EI?..."

My opinion maybe a bit offtopic:

A downside of EI that I can point out is the need for big water changes. 

If you have a big tank it takes quite some time to change the water. The best solution is to have some sort of permanent plumbing in place that allows draining and filling without having to set up temporary hoses.

If you have several tanks (I have 5 at the moment) only a few days of the week are free from water changes. On the other hand it is true that tanks that are 55 gals or less take but 10 min to do a water change so that's not that bad.

Other than the water changes there isn't much to complain about EI.

--Nikolay


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

I have had great success using EI methods on up to four tanks for the past 2 years. Water changes may be the only "Kryptonite" I know of for EI, though Kryptonite may be too harsh of a word 

With that said, I have personally gone 2 and even 3 weeks without a water change in my 75g while following EI with no noticeable increase in algae or decreae in plant health. Pearling seemed to decline a bit during the 3 week stretch but this could have been due to lower CO2 levels.

Keeping that in mind, I think the 50% WC could be stretched out to every other week or even a 25% change weekly for larger tanks. 

I think newer tanks may do better with the larger water changes but once a tank is established the water changes can be stretched out. This will vary from tank to tank though.

I think the only real Kryptonite concerning high light tanks, whether they use EI or not, is CO2 or lack of CO2 in most cases


----------



## Avalon (Mar 7, 2005)

I personally don't think there is any drawback to the EI method. I've used it for years with great success (i.e., lot's of freebies at the LFS for my plant clippings!). However, I will elaborate on some cautions:

Sometimes the recommended levels can be too much. Fish loads, plant biomass, light levels, and CO2 levels all must be taken into account. For example, if you are starting a tank without high plant biomass, you may need to lower the dosing quantities. Same for high fish loads and feeding habits. Lower light and/or CO2 levels may require less ferts as well. Testing throughout the week can give you baseline to work with until you can establish a trend. No biggie. If you have a lot of experience and can simply watch the plants, then you may not even need to do this. The excess ferts are not harmful, but why waste it?

I have a heavily planted tank with large fish, a Midas, Green Terror, 3 Severums, and a pleco, and I only dose nitrates once per week, after a water change. The rest they produce. As they continue to grow, I will stop dosing nitrates altogether. This is where fish load would be an example of varying the "recommended" dosing.

Lower light lowers the demand of nutrients, particularly with lower plant biomass. Lower then adequate CO2 will also lower the demand.

Also, scaling the dosings with plant growth/biomass would be a smart idea as well.

Aside from that, I don't really see why the EI method isn't a fine a dosing regimine as any other, like the PPS. I prefer the PPS for low tech tanks, and the EI for high tech tanks. Letting your nutrients bottom out in a high tech tank is not a good idea, so the extra the EI provides allows you a buffer if you happen to forget to dose, change water, go on vacation, etc.

As for water changes, in my case anyway, I welcome them. I have large tanks--75g is the smallest, and it gives me time to prune, clean filters, eat lunch, email, etc. while I drain them with a water hose. If you need to do it faster, simply create your own "python" using large diameter hosing from Home Depot.


----------



## James.......... (Feb 8, 2004)

*Kryptonite*

I always thought that Kryptonite was that radioactive mineral which gave Superman such problems???

I always figured that it was the cause of his blue hair!

James Ourchase
Toronto


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Iinitially it was never meant to be a method per se. Just a re set.

You can go 2-4 weeks *without a change*. Perhaps longer(I know folks that have). But you need to work on **getting to know** the tank and the plants better.

That takes time.

When you see a lull in growth or a trace of algae, you respond by pruning, trimming etc and do the water change and re set.

PPS appears to be no different, you go as long as you can till something builds up, you either can or cannot test for.
PPS does not test for all the possibilies, I don't care to as a method either. I'd rather get to know one thing very well at a time with more controls in place and build on that.

But EI does not require anyone do weekly changes, it's just a starting point and good simple consistent routine for folks.

Consistency means a lot in the hobby.

I've always suggested to start with an assumed max rate.
From there you can lower a nutrient one at a time step wise.
When you see a negative plant response, bump the dosing back up one notch. That's the minmum nutrient demand(MND).

You can figure out each nutrient this way, CO2 and light also.

What you do not know is the max amount before we see negative repsonses.
I know 120ppm of NO3 is bad, for shrimp and plants.
I have no clue nor would I think anyone would add more than that or more than 10mls of Flourish in a 4 gal tank daily, 5-10ppm of PO4, 100ppm K+, GH over 450ppm(25 degrees) etc.

Non CO2 tanks should work from the minimum prespective.
Leave the max experimenting to the CO2 folks(they will see the rates of uptake and decline much easier and have far less organic influences and cycling issues).

Weekly doses work well for non CO2.
Every 2-3 days for the CO2.

This gets into a number of issues...........frequency as well as amount dosed.

But in each case..............you still can do a great deal of experimenting without using a test kit and these test will more accurate since there is no test claibration involved or related error.

Your "test" as were, ARE the plants.

I think wasting traces, having to do more water changes than some care to are the main issues and also...........some people like to play with test kits and feel like it's more scientific somehow in their approach.

They might not want to fess, but they do.
I realized a long time ago that testing for a method stunk. I knew I could do it for a while, but for years?

Hence a movement for indicator plants.......
I suggested this for PPS as opposed to testing as the folks got better at spotting the deficiencies and excess signs.

No good reason why that cannot be done either.
Same with non CO2.

If you seek balance and reduced water changes, go non CO2.
If you seek more growth, and some water changes, go CO2.

You do not get both, although some like to think they somehow should be able to. They want an Amano tank with no work.

Amano work's his tail off to get the tanks in good shape.
He also does large water changes, adds MND, adds his ferts frequently.

I've done some truly beautiful non CO2 tanks. They are really neat and nicer than my CO2 tanks on any given day. By tweaking a little and dosing a few things weekly, it allows you to go further with many more species.

It's fairly easy to hit the non CO2 tank demands.
Maybe 3-5x less than CO2 with Excel and about 8-10X less rates for non CO2.

But I also estimate the dosing on those and seem to hit things well very consistently, I can simply not dose for a few weeks to pruge the tank of nutrient build up.

That's the equivalent of a water change for the non CO2 method.
BNut like the CO2 methiod where we go a month without a water change, you can easily go 2 without one on a non CO2 tank also.

I just have not had to yet

That's why it's good to have a little less than your nutrients needs coming from the fish. It allows you to top off the nutrients to the MND.

This also tailors any dosing routine to any tank without ever using any test kits.

Do not think so rigidly.........look for slight modifications to solve the issues you have.

You can learn a lot more without much less work. I sughgested PPs use the plant's hwealth more and less on the test kits, some balked suggesting it was too tough. Test kits are good for many things.........but........
Tools are only good if you know how to use them properly.
The same applies to EI.

The focus is always the weeds. They are the best test kit.
We call it the "bioassay". Algae works well for that also.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------

