# Practical application of lean fertilizer dosing



## MichaelJ

Hello,

The premise of this thread is to explore the in's and out's of the practical application of_ lean dosing_ as devised by @Happi and others. The focus of this thread is to engage hobbyists who have a genuine interest in this approach - to learn about it, build upon it and possibly apply it to their own planted aquariums and share their practical experiences with the lean approach. This is *NOT* a _*pro and con *_discussion or a discussion that encourage comparisons with other fertilizer approaches - please defer posts with that connotation to the related thread here on UKAPS. Thank you in advance for your understanding! 

NOTE: Lean dosing is by some hobbyists considered to be somewhat experimental and possibly comes with several prerequisites that _may_ make it unsuitable for beginners or casual hobbyists. For those who are not interested in experimental approaches UKAPS offers information on plenty of well-tested mainstream fertilizer methods. Also keep in mind that your choice of fertilization method, while important, is only _one_ piece of the vast puzzle that makes a planted aquarium successful! 

Topics and questions that we need to address over time includes:

What do we mean by lean dosing overall... ?

What targets should we dose in terms of NPK and Micros?

What off-the-shelf products are suitable for lean dosing?

How do we DIY lean dosing?

What are the prerequisites in terms of water parameters?

Do we need to make changes to our lean approach depending on the water parameters ?

What are the considerations for our precious livestock?

What plants are particular suitable for lean dosing and which are not?

How lean dosing differs in a low-tech vs. a high-tech environment?

How might our maintenance regime change when we apply the lean dosing approach?

How do we go about migrating from another/existing dosing regime to lean to ensure we maximize the chance of success?

What corrective actions do we take if thing starts to _go south_ - such as the appearance of algae, deficiency symptoms etc.

.... I am sure there are many other questions we need ask and understand!

All right, let the flow of relevant information commence!


----------



## MichaelJ

Something I am wondering about at the moment is my water parameters.  Currently I am running my _lean-tank _at less at 1 KH and GH around 4,  6.2-6.4 pH.  should I aim at lowering my GH and perhaps pH even further (if so why?), in order to promote easier uptake by the plants?    Oh btw. I finally got some of the stem plants in after floating them for almost a week - I'll take a picture later and post.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## KirstyF

I’ll second this question with: can this lean dosing approach work in hard water (and I mean GH/KH at 10plus) and/or are there adjustments that can be made to accommodate?


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Something I am wondering about at the moment is my water parameters. Currently I am running my _lean-tank _at less at 1 KH and GH around 4, 6.2-6.4 pH. should I aim at lowering my GH and perhaps pH even further (if so why?), in order to promote easier uptake by the plants? Oh btw. I finally got some of the stem plants in after floating them for almost a week - I'll take a picture later and post.


in this post Dosing and “hard” water I have explained the effect of gh and kh on plant growth. the weekly uptake is quite minimal for these nutrients. 10ppm Ca and 4ppm Mg is more than plenty for weekly growth, in reality weekly uptake is probably something like 1, 2ppm.
in relation to other nutrients, about this much may be absorbed. so, for every 4ppm No3 you will get 0.33ppm Ca uptake, this is just an aproximate.
N 1
K 0.6666
Ca 0.3332
Mg 0.1332
P 0.1332
S 0.066666
Cl 0.006666
Fe 0.006666
B 0.001332
Mn 0.003332
Zn 0.001332
Cu 0.0004
Mo 0.0000066
Ni 0.0000066

your 4gh is fine and will give you some more leeway for micros and the 1dkh is good, if you can lower this to 0 that would be even better. Happi ran his tank under 1gh and I have mine at 6dgh, the exact number doesn't matter too much.


----------



## JoshP12

MichaelJ said:


> Something I am wondering about at the moment is my water parameters.  Currently I am running my _lean-tank _at less at 1 KH and GH around 4,  6.2-6.4 pH.  should I aim at lowering my GH and perhaps pH even further (if so why?), in order to promote easier uptake by the plants?    Oh btw. I finally got some of the stem plants in after floating them for almost a week - I'll take a picture later and post.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I think it’s Goldilocks principle. 

If you go real bare in the column, you need to put more in soil. Any change in an empty column can wreak havoc on the balance at leaf.


----------



## JoshP12

Here is my 2c


MichaelJ said:


> Topics and questions that we need to address over time includes:
> 
> What do we mean by lean dosing overall... ?


We mean little (like 1/10 EI) going in water column.

There is no lean system — either it’s all in the substrate with some in water or lots in water OR none in substrate and the perfect parameters for your species selection in water.


MichaelJ said:


> What targets should we dose in terms of NPK and Micros?


Depends on your source water.


MichaelJ said:


> What off-the-shelf products are suitable for lean dosing?


We never buy things off the shelf! DIY ferts and green army men and scrubby pads and pumice stones!


MichaelJ said:


> How do we DIY lean dosing?


Same way we DIY EI. Pick targets and dose (front loaded, daily, weekly et ).

But if you use CSM, be sure to make super concentrated solution then dilute it. Otherwise ratios be off. 


MichaelJ said:


> What are the prerequisites in terms of water parameters?


There are none. With good substrate you. Can compensate light dosing for a non-zero amount of time until substrate is finished then you replace … assume you feed fish.


MichaelJ said:


> Do we need to make changes to our lean approach depending on the water parameters ?


I mean … plant will adapt given enough time and good substrate with potassium availability (whether in soil or in column).


MichaelJ said:


> What are the considerations for our precious livestock?


GH/KH should be set for livestock. Then we pick plants that work in those parameters or we are forced to overcompensate for our greed with more co2… hurting our fish.


MichaelJ said:


> What plants are particular suitable for lean dosing and which are not?


All. Again have to remember substrate. Pogostemon erectus will be fine in both but root system will adapts based on availability - just example.


MichaelJ said:


> How lean dosing differs in a low-tech vs. a high-tech environment?


With lots of aerial advantage, low tech can use more nutrients than high tech.


MichaelJ said:


> How might our maintenance regime change when we apply the lean dosing approach?


Less substrate disturbance imo since the co2 won’t be set for maximum N … as such any fluctuation in demand will flux co2 … algaes!!!


MichaelJ said:


> How do we go about migrating from another/existing dosing regime to lean to ensure we maximize the chance of success?


Cold turkey (watch your co2 will be in Excess on fish)!  Lean to rich … that’s another story.


MichaelJ said:


> What corrective actions do we take if thing starts to _go south_ - such as the appearance of algae, deficiency symptoms etc.


Classic - daily waters, check diffuser, purigen, turn up co2, id turn up light (see the system move faster and clean column faster), look at flow, maybe add root tabs.

DONT PANIC - the algae is a clue into the instability root.


MichaelJ said:


> .... I am sure there are many other questions we need ask and understand!
> 
> All right, let the flow of relevant information commence!


Thanks for these great questions - hope I at least start some discussion!


----------



## JoshP12

KirstyF said:


> I’ll second this question with: can this lean dosing approach work in hard water (and I mean GH/KH at 10plus) and/or are there adjustments that can be made to accommodate?


with fresh substrate - 100%. 

My gut says you’d prolly get cyano before you saw deficiencies …. Then we are back in the increase ferts argument. 

you need to feed fish heavy too <— this is dosing N and P. 

Also depends plant choice … if all crypt then it can use carbonates and massive root system ….


----------



## aquanoobie

JoshP12 said:


> We mean little (like 1/10 EI) going in water column.
> 
> There is no lean system — either it’s all in the substrate with some in water or lots in water OR none in substrate and the perfect parameters for your species selection in water.


How can it be? When plants, for the conditions, need x ppm of nutrients and we supply them with x + 50% just to make sure they are good, cannot have the same outcome as giving them x ppm + 200%. 

What I mean is in order not to become deficient we have to overdose because there is no way to know the exact nutrients required quantity. This overdose is necessary but the rate of this overdose is what the "lean nutrient method" is about.


----------



## JoshP12

aquanoobie said:


> How can it be? When plants, for the conditions, need x ppm of nutrients and we supply them with x + 50% just to make sure they are good, cannot have the same outcome as giving them x ppm + 200%.


sure it can … compensate with the other 100 factors in a tank. Case and point - I can get lean plant forms using APT in my water … I can also get those forms with EI by doubling my light … I can also get those with ADA by using better substrate.


aquanoobie said:


> What I mean is in order not to become deficient we have to overdose because there is no way to know the exact nutrients required quantity. This overdose is necessary but the rate of this overdose is what the "lean nutrient method" is about.


Overdose where?

All lean dosers use rich substrate - never met a lean a doser with inert - and as such their lean water is compensated by a rich substrate.

We aren’t going to hijack this beautiful thread in an argument. If the argument that lean dosing is dosing less than EI and closer to PPS I mean the conversation is moot.

The questions posed in this thread are decades ahead of EI vs lean … hard water and lean vs soft water and lean now that’s a question. What is the interplay of substrate and roots and leaves and water - that’s a question.

How can we mimic plant forms using rich dosing and then using lean dosing.

I feel like you’re picking a fight with me on words. Go ahead and call lean whatever you want but that doesn’t help the hobbyist - they need to think about nutrition as a system.


----------



## MichaelJ

JoshP12 said:


> All lean dosers use rich substrate - never met a lean a doser with inert - and as such their lean water is compensated by a rich substrate.


Well, I don't. But I do consider my substrate to be very "mature" (+2 years) - if that is even a thing.... I mean what happens when/if the substrate gets depleted?   When you look at  river beds of natural habitats it seems they are pretty low on nutrients as well.



JoshP12 said:


> The questions posed in this thread are decades ahead of EI vs lean


Someone wise said _posing the right questions is half the solution... _now we just need provide those forward looking answers - if they exist - that can take us there.




JoshP12 said:


> … hard water and lean vs soft water and lean now that’s a question. What is the interplay of substrate and roots and leaves and water - that’s a question.



Yes, that is one of the great questions. Again, natural habitats; water column is low or incredibly low on everything including mineral contents.



JoshP12 said:


> they need to think about nutrition as a system.


Right on!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

JoshP12 said:


> Here is my 2c
> 
> We mean little (like 1/10 EI) going in water column.
> 
> There is no lean system — either it’s all in the substrate with some in water or lots in water OR none in substrate and the perfect parameters for your species selection in water.



Yes, there is a system or an approach there that is something different. Whatever @Sudipta, @Happi and others are doing differently is at least working beautifully for them.





Sudipta mythical lean tanks
I am going to keep posting this picture to remind us that this is an ultra _lean_, no/low CO2, high-light tank thats been running for a while  ...  How can we replicate this... step by step!?




JoshP12 said:


> Depends on your source water.
> 
> We never buy things off the shelf! DIY ferts and green army men and scrubby pads and pumice stones!
> 
> Same way we DIY EI. Pick targets and dose (front loaded, daily, weekly et ).
> 
> But if you use CSM, be sure to make super concentrated solution then dilute it. Otherwise ratios be off.
> 
> There are none. With good substrate you. Can compensate light dosing for a non-zero amount of time until substrate is finished then you replace … assume you feed fish.
> 
> I mean … plant will adapt given enough time and good substrate with potassium availability (whether in soil or in column).
> 
> GH/KH should be set for livestock. Then we pick plants that work in those parameters or we are forced to overcompensate for our greed with more co2… hurting our fish.
> 
> All. Again have to remember substrate. Pogostemon erectus will be fine in both but root system will adapts based on availability - just example.
> 
> With lots of aerial advantage, low tech can use more nutrients than high tech.
> 
> Less substrate disturbance imo since the co2 won’t be set for maximum N … as such any fluctuation in demand will flux co2 … algaes!!!
> 
> Cold turkey (watch your co2 will be in Excess on fish)!  Lean to rich … that’s another story.
> 
> Classic - daily waters, check diffuser, purigen, turn up co2, id turn up light (see the system move faster and clean column faster), look at flow, maybe add root tabs.
> 
> DONT PANIC - the algae is a clue into the instability root.
> 
> Thanks for these great questions - hope I at least start some discussion!



All right, Now that Josh have answered all the questions we can all go home now.... I mean _lean ... we can all go lean now _  ... But joking aside, good takes on the individual questions there Josh - will obviously need a lot of elaboration!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Easternlethal

JoshP12 said:


> .. we are forced to overcompensate for our greed with more co2… hurting our fish.



I for one would dearly love a chart which shows the optimum parameter for each plant - both macros and micros, KH and GH


Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## ladybones718

Noob question. If you’re wanting to try lean dosing and you’re starting a new tank with an aquasoil, like say Controsoil, do you use root tabs too? I realize the plant choices matter, but I haven’t made those choices yet (I will be this week). I’m just wondering if there are general thoughts about this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Djoko Sauza

MichaelJ said:


> Sudipta mythical lean tanks
> I am going to keep posting this picture to remind us that this is an ultra _lean_, no/low CO2, high-light tank thats been running for a while ... How can we replicate this... step by step!?


Would be useful to know the water parameters on this tank. You mention it is ultra lean but that is still quite vague, at least for me. 
Dosing regime and substrate info also welcome


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Yes, there is a system or an approach there that is something different. Whatever @Sudipta, @Happi and others are doing differently is at least working beautifully for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sudipta mythical lean tanks
> I am going to keep posting this picture to remind us that this is an ultra _lean_, no/low CO2, high-light tank thats been running for a while ... How can we replicate this... step by step!?


His tanks prove the point of @JoshP12. That tank is low tech (low uptake), lean water column *but* rich substrate and very importantly *LOW* temperature. Plants need the food one way or another but in a low tech that uptake is very much reduced. Add low temperature to the mix and you got a winner. < Here is a direct link to his threat in TPT > which goes much further indepth than the link above. Here is one part that is extremely important and is omitted along with that picture. There are obviously other important information but fert wise this is THE most important in my opinion:


> Substrate (approximately 3 inches deep) is ADA Amazonia light (as old as the tank), I added a thin layer of ADA Amazonia (original version) on top of the old substrate about 5 months ago. I do supplement the root zone with Ammonia containing root tabs every 1-2 months.
> 
> I also regularly use a commercial all in one liquid fertilizer (Nilocg ThriveS) which contains very small amounts of N and P but has a decent concentration of K, Fe and other micro elements except copper (this product is actually developed for Shrimps, although tiny amounts of copper won't harm them).





Djoko Sauza said:


> Would be useful to know the water parameters on this tank. You mention it is ultra lean but that is still quite vague, at least for me.
> Dosing regime and substrate info also welcome


Here, read above and you'll get your answer.

At the end of the day doesn't matter what way you go. It all depends how fast you want your plants to grow. To me, and I will repeat this again, if you want to go down the lean bandwagon with medium/high light, there is 1 factor that is the most important to keep constant and that is rich substrate + low temperature. Sudipta clearly explains his plants don't look great when temps go up. He gets algae as well. Would be also nice and most comprehensive if he posted the bad days pictures of the tanks so that we can all have a complete picture, but unfortunately none. Here is < another post from him in TPT > < and another >that are worth reading and detail the limitations.


----------



## Djoko Sauza

Hanuman said:


> His tanks prove the point of @JoshP12. That tank is low tech (low uptake), lean water column *but* rich substrate and very importantly *LOW* temperature. Plants need the food one way or another but in a low tech that uptake is very much reduced. Add low temperature to the mix and you got a winner. < Here is a direct link to his threat in TPT > which goes much further indepth than the link above. Here is one part that is extremely important and is omitted along with that picture. There are obviously other important information but fert wise this is THE most important in my opinion:
> 
> 
> Here, read above and you'll get your answer.
> 
> At the end of the day doesn't matter what way you go. It all depends how fast you want your plants to grow. To me, and I will repeat this again, if you want to go down the lean bandwagon with medium/high light, there is 1 factor that is the most important to keep constant and that is rich substrate + low temperature. Sudipta clearly explains his plants don't look great when temps go up. He gets algae as well. Would be also nice and most comprehensive if he posted the bad days pictures of the tanks so that we can all have a complete picture, but unfortunately none. Here is < another post from him in TPT > < and another >that are worth reading and detail the limitations.


Well, will be interesting to see how @MichaelJ 's experiment goes, considering he's using inert substrate.

@MichaelJ are you planning on using root tabs?

What about epiphytes? They often get little love when it comes to this sort of discussion. How much nutrition do slow growers like Anubias or Bolbitis really need? How about weeds like H. Pinnatifida? If you were to crank up your light and CO2, could you get these plants to thrive on a lean dosing regime provided you stick to a certain nutrient ratio/hardness/temperature?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Djoko Sauza said:


> What about epiphytes? They often get little love when it comes to this sort of discussion. How much nutrition do slow growers like Anubias or Bolbitis really need?


Not a lot for <"_Anubias,  Bolbitis_"> or <"most mosses">.  If I was going to run this kind of experiment <"I'd muck around with the levels and ratios"> of N  : P :  K and possibly magnesium (Mg) and iron (Fe), but untangling _what was what_ would be really difficult, even with just <"changing one variable at a a time">. 

You can see <"from the images"> they have all grown into large plants on very lean rations.  This one is cheating a bit, because _Anubias barteri_ had become emersed, but same applies very low nutrients and inert (but undisturbed) substrate.






Djoko Sauza said:


> How about weeds like H. Pinnatifida? If you were to crank up your light and CO2, could you get these plants to thrive on a lean dosing regime?


My guess is that <"some will">,  but probably not for some others, the real <"_turned up to eleven_"> plants.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Hufsa

@Djoko Sauza I am also trying this lean dosing approach with only sand substrate. It will be very interesting to see, as inert substrate is the main reservation I have against this method working. As a bonus, @plantnoobdude is growing some stems in his tank in cups of sand, he otherwise uses soil substrate. I think it is a bit too early to tell how his experiment is going, but it will add another data point to the collection.

I will get some H. pinnatifida for "scientific purposes" and also because @Karmicnull said I should. Me and that plant have an old score to settle..

I am very fond of epiphytes and my first concern around lean water column was whether or not epiphytes would get enough nutrients. I have several ferns, anubias, buce and many mosses, so will be monitoring them closely. I suspect that they may do surprisingly fine, many of them have such low growth potential that they may be able to grab what they need from the relatively scarce water column, because they may need quite little. Just my theory though.


I have a practical question for @Happi , how does one know when to increase the starting dose of 1.75 ppm N?
I have been doing the starting dose for a week and monitoring the TDS daily. Some readings were taken before the photoperiod was over for the day.
The TDS has been rising by an average of ~1.7 ppm daily. My meter is not a very expensive one so measurements should be "taken with a pinch of salt".
Monday: 128
Tuesday: 133
Wednesday: 135
Thursday: 137
Friday: 139
Saturday: 138
Sunday: 140
Aside from TDS, is there any other way we can measure or guesstimate what dose we should be at?
My micros are higher than prescribed at the moment, 0.3 Fe DTPA (as proxy) for the past week, although some of my plants are still showing chlorosis. I will increase to 0.5 for this coming week, but if that doesnt help I am calling foul play somewhere because more than 0.5 Fe for such a low dose of macros seems outrageous. I am using Hydrocotyle tripartita to check for improvement as this plant grows very fast, hence the one week periods before changing dose.


----------



## Zeus.

Hufsa said:


> I will get some H. pinnatifida for "scientific purposes"


Struggled with that with my tap water with 130ppm Ca and 5ppm Mg. Having a high baseline [Ca] and then trying to correct with adding salts and hitting certain ratios is a nightmare.

Think for 'the experiment' using RO water and adding the salts to remineraliser is a must, as its the only way you know what you have got in the water. The trouble with using RO water is the cost of RO water produced reduces any cost benefits of lean dosing - esp if very hard water


----------



## JoshP12

The Achilles of my post! “Lean dosing and inert”. It was late. I got dramatic. Lol 

My first tank was actually lean with fluorite.

I guess here’s the thing: inert is totally possible but your target parameters have to be consistent and “good” for the plant. It will work with EI, lean, water column dosing. We need to muddy the water of lean here because it just means proper dosing for the plant choice. 

EI with 3x water changes is Tropica with 1x water change. “Roughly”. 

I think there is one more thing to acknowledge: if we look to natural waters and models, our plants will look like … natural waters. And often we imagine tight internodes, beautiful whorls, robust leaves, you know the photos.

In other words, when we talk about lean vs rich and using rich substrate vs inert, I think we should establish the plant forms we are “wanting”.


----------



## JoshP12

Easternlethal said:


> I for one would dearly love a chart which shows the optimum parameter for each plant - both macros and micros, KH and GH
> 
> 
> Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


This is very hard to procure. I’d say “APT complete” weekly dosed on day 1. Those are optimal target parameters. (To start, arguably so is EI lol like when Tom says start EI then go all the way down - but this is just to cover myself). 

These numbers will be easier to deal with:

These are roughly:
Nitrate 6
Phosphate 3.6
Potassium 16

Then get calcium 24
Magnesium 8

Micro ~ .015 Fe proxy (@Geoffrey Rea) using any mix … just make sure concentrated solution so you get highest likelhiood of getting all ratios good — daily dose at lights on.

Pair with good substrate to compensate

Then daily potassium - steal from ADA - ~1-2ppm a day?

Weekly water change - dailies on startup.

High light - no ramp - steal from ADA.

Low KH as you got - unless your fish need more (bumblebee goby is example for breeding) -and the lower it is the “less” co2 ramp time you need.

And you must feed your fish


----------



## Hufsa

Zeus. said:


> Struggled with that with my tap water with 130ppm Ca and 5ppm Mg. Having a high baseline [Ca] and then trying to correct with adding salts and hitting certain ratios is a nightmare.
> 
> Think for 'the experiment' using RO water and adding the salts to remineraliser is a must, as its the only way you know what you have got in the water. The trouble with using RO water is the cost of RO water produced reduces any cost benefits of lean dosing - esp if very hard water


RO water would be ideal I agree, however most of the people trying out Happi's method are doing so with the conditions they already have, so some of us have soil, some have gravel/sand, some have soft tap water and some use RO. Not sure if we have any using hard water, that would also be interesting. 

Not directly related to your post Zeus but I wanted to write my opinion on the "testing" conditions we have.
Any "results" that I get from my setup (with all the conditions specific to my tank), I will not claim to be some sort of universal truth, because if it works, I can only claim that it works for my tank. And if it doesnt work, I can only claim that it doesnt work for my tank. 
Also, even if something here works for me, it doesnt mean it is the only way to do it.

I think that the amount of people able to try it out would be closer to zero if requirements were RO, low GH (keeping of neocaridina shrimp excluded then) and 2 (or 6) tanks under identical parameters and setup. The money and time it would take to set up such conditions are simply not there for most people.
This will never be a proper scientific experiment, and I use terms like "for science" tongue in cheek 
At best we are going to have a handful of observations that some may find interesting.
I freely share pictures from my tank in my journal along with what I think is going on, with the hopes that I may learn a thing or two, and maybe someone else learns something as well. Any theories or apparent results we should keep in mind are relative to the specific situation, and as humans it is always possible that we are looking at it all wrong and totally mistaken


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> Yes, there is a system or an approach there that is something different. Whatever @Sudipta, @Happi and others are doing differently is at least working beautifully for them.
> 
> View attachment 186387
> Sudipta mythical lean tanks
> I am going to keep posting this picture to remind us that this is an ultra _lean_, no/low CO2, high-light tank thats been running for a while  ...  How can we replicate this... step by step!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All right, Now that Josh have answered all the questions we can all go home now.... I mean _lean ... we can all go lean now _  ... But joking aside, good takes on the individual questions there Josh - will obviously need a lot of elaboration!
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


As @Hanuman mentioned temperature plays a big role in Sudipta's tanks. He freely admits that when temps go up tank health goes down.

Also his dosing is much different from Happi's. Here's a quote from him.

_I also regularly use a commercial all in one liquid fertilizer (Nilocg ThriveS) which contains very small amounts of N and P but has a decent concentration of K, Fe and other micro elements except copper (this product is actually developed for Shrimps, although tiny amounts of copper won't harm them)._

So he's dosing very low N but higher K, which from what I can tell is the opposite of the Happi method higher N and lower K. And also higher micros vs. lower micros.

But the biggest thing that is overlooked with Sudipta's tank is horticulture. He very, very rarely uproots any plants, only trims the tops. Many times not for a year or more. So after trimming plants will go through a period of not looking well until they start gaining back steam. If he does uproot them he says it's rough on the plants as there is very little energy available to establish new roots. So a deep healthy undisturbed root mass is one of the big keys.


----------



## Happi

Hufsa said:


> @Djoko Sauza I am also trying this lean dosing approach with only sand substrate. It will be very interesting to see, as inert substrate is the main reservation I have against this method working. As a bonus, @plantnoobdude is growing some stems in his tank in cups of sand, he otherwise uses soil substrate. I think it is a bit too early to tell how his experiment is going, but it will add another data point to the collection.
> 
> I will get some H. pinnatifida for "scientific purposes" and also because @Karmicnull said I should. Me and that plant have an old score to settle..
> 
> I am very fond of epiphytes and my first concern around lean water column was whether or not epiphytes would get enough nutrients. I have several ferns, anubias, buce and many mosses, so will be monitoring them closely. I suspect that they may do surprisingly fine, many of them have such low growth potential that they may be able to grab what they need from the relatively scarce water column, because they may need quite little. Just my theory though.
> 
> 
> I have a practical question for @Happi , how does one know when to increase the starting dose of 1.75 ppm N?
> I have been doing the starting dose for a week and monitoring the TDS daily. Some readings were taken before the photoperiod was over for the day.
> The TDS has been rising by an average of ~1.7 ppm daily. My meter is not a very expensive one so measurements should be "taken with a pinch of salt".
> Monday: 128
> Tuesday: 133
> Wednesday: 135
> Thursday: 137
> Friday: 139
> Saturday: 138
> Sunday: 140
> Aside from TDS, is there any other way we can measure or guesstimate what dose we should be at?
> My micros are higher than prescribed at the moment, 0.3 Fe DTPA (as proxy) for the past week, although some of my plants are still showing chlorosis. I will increase to 0.5 for this coming week, but if that doesnt help I am calling foul play somewhere because more than 0.5 Fe for such a low dose of macros seems outrageous. I am using Hydrocotyle tripartita to check for improvement as this plant grows very fast, hence the one week periods before changing dose.



We do not use TDS to guess what dose to add, TDS has nothing to do with it. The only thing TDS will do is that it will rise anytime you add anything in the water. However, the TDS can also fall if your soil is rich in CEC and also a choice of your fertilizer that is low in several elements such as Cl, Na, S etc. and NPK etc. are rather up taken by the plants and used by the soil which will result in lowering the TDS. You will also see a rise in TDS if naturally occurring NO3 for example is building up in your water. The idea about keeping the TDS low while using a different fertilizer was based on using a salts that are low in Cl, S etc. to begin with which will add less to the TDS compared to the salt that are high in these elements.

@plantnoobdude  was having a similar issues, he could probably explain what was happening in his case. But if you are showing chlorosis even with 0.5 ppm Fe that mean you are either low on Mn, Mg or something is interfering with the Iron at that point.


----------



## Easternlethal

JoshP12 said:


> Weekly water change - dailies on startup.


Anybody tried fewer water changes on lean dosing? because using less ferts is great but reducing water changes is a potential game changer. 
This is type of questioning nearly got me banned from tpt


----------



## JoshP12

Easternlethal said:


> Anybody tried fewer water changes on lean dosing? because using less ferts is great but reducing water changes is a potential game changer.
> This is type of questioning nearly got me banned from tpt


Yes.

Water change resets you back to “baseline”. Ya move gunk and stuff but that just consumes oxygen.

Water change is paired with remineralization and re-dosing. So the point of water change is primarily to bring the system back to an estimative  standard.

In my tank, I postponed water change with slow growth by - after lots of trial and experiment - guessing how much K (and used as proxy with other stuff) was needed to keep consumption on point. Can use TDS as a proxy with best guess on what the minerals are … but it’s a best guess . See ADA does this but they change water weekly or 2x and overdose K. If we find sweet spot K and proxy the rest marginally (if we dont we exhaust substrate and eventually cyano).

So at 100% water change I dose 100% of my target ferts. The. Daily I dosed 5-10% of my that same dosing solution with daily micro.

Kept TDS and plant growth constant. Other option is Darrel’s method - 10% daily JUST WATER - and top off 10% dose. I did this and kept my tank growing constantly for months. High tech, sexy plant forms etc. I automated the water change.

Why need to water change then? If you do massive trim and let the plants leak out all the juices and disturb substrate and make ammonia or a fish die (bullying, breeding etc) - simple … water change (remember Best guess TDS is constant ) 2x back to back, 100% target fertilizer and move on with day.

EDIT: This is concept of PPS-Pro ... and Edward did it. But here is the catch -- water change is a tool. Don't be afraid to do some small ones during the week water only, thjen every two weeks do a big one (provided you are on point with minimal dosing with TDS best guess proxy and watching plant forms etc). So one week you can do a 50, one week you can do a 20, one week you can do 4x 10s ... that's mastery.


----------



## JoshP12

JoshP12 said:


> Yes.
> 
> Water change resets you back to “baseline”. Ya move gunk and stuff but that just consumes oxygen.
> 
> Water change is paired with remineralization and re-dosing. So the point of water change is primarily to bring the system back to an estimative  standard.
> 
> In my tank, I postponed water change with slow growth by - after lots of trial and experiment - guessing how much K (and used as proxy with other stuff) was needed to keep consumption on point. Can use TDS as a proxy with best guess on what the minerals are … but it’s a best guess . See ADA does this but they change water weekly or 2x and overdose K. If we find sweet spot K and proxy the rest marginally (if we dont we exhaust substrate and eventually cyano).
> 
> So at 100% water change I dose 100% of my target ferts. The. Daily I dosed 5-10% of my that same dosing solution with daily micro.
> 
> Kept TDS and plant growth constant. Other option is Darrel’s method - 10% daily JUST WATER - and top off 10% dose. I did this and kept my tank growing constantly for months. High tech, sexy plant forms etc. I automated the water change.
> 
> Why need to water change then? If you do massive trim and let the plants leak out all the juices and disturb substrate and make ammonia or a fish die (bullying, breeding etc) - simple … water change (remember Best guess TDS is constant ) 2x back to back, 100% target fertilizer and move on with day.
> 
> EDIT: This is concept of PPS-Pro ... and Edward did it. But here is the catch -- water change is a tool. Don't be afraid to do some small ones during the week water only, thjen every two weeks do a big one (provided you are on point with minimal dosing with TDS best guess proxy and watching plant forms etc). So one week you can do a 50, one week you can do a 20, one week you can do 4x 10s ... that's mastery.


But this is insanity .... and it is where the HEART of EI comes along and says -- why are you wasting your life worrying about this? Change water 2x a week, pour in the ferts, and focus on other stuff ... lol. An anecdote on water changes?

Ironically, EI is harder to manage.

The best - a hybrid. Change water AND dose lean (without a magnifying glass lol). Perfection. Steal from ADA -- substrate -- and dose the middle road ... Tropica/APT. Save money by DIY copy cat those ferts.

Edit: all that is left is GH/KH. Moderate or soft water - you’re laughing throw co2 with lights and call it a day.

Hard water is tougher. You need more of everything. Because acquisition of nutrients is “harder” -- not because or free nutrients. 

I will add if anyone sees issues in what I say please help support our communal growing of knowledge and help grow our intuition.


----------



## Easternlethal

maybe its a bit orthogonal to lean dosing to be asking about water changes - but if lower ferts + substrate can concentrate biological activity to where we want it most (ie the plants) there will be less dissolved organics ending up in the water and less need for water changes 

This is something that can easily be measured by a carbon analyzer if I can find a cheap one. Would be interesting to know


----------



## JoshP12

Easternlethal said:


> maybe its a bit orthogonal to lean dosing to be asking about water changes - but if lower ferts + substrate can concentrate biological activity to where we want it most (ie the plants) there will be less dissolved organics ending up in the water and less need for water changes
> 
> This is something that can easily be measured by a carbon analyzer if I can find a cheap one. Would be interesting to know


I look forward to it - this is why I pursue pure maths not science ... tests LOL.

I think you are bang on. The removal of waste piece of water change (along with reset column params).

Edit - this intuition very good @Easternlethal  — also eludes to increased oxygen demand by excess potential waste that bacteria will control … as a result taxing system even more, further explaining the increased challenge with EI and why EI works very well with wet/dry filter and high light. 
Thank you for sharing.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> @plantnoobdude was having a similar issues, he could probably explain what was happening in his case. But if you are showing chlorosis even with 0.5 ppm Fe that mean you are either low on Mn, Mg or something is interfering with the Iron at that point.


am convinced it is co3 at this point. my tonina is growing in higher light than hufsa at 0.083ppm Fe weekly. hufsa is using same micros as me and similar macro.  am trying out some stems of tonina in sand to rule out substrate differences. been I think two weeks and it is still growing fine. no difference.


----------



## MichaelJ

Djoko Sauza said:


> Well, will be interesting to see how @MichaelJ 's experiment goes, considering he's using inert substrate.


Hi @Djoko Sauza  Thanks. Yes, I am a bit torn on the state and suitability of my substrate. I have no plan of changing it out.



Djoko Sauza said:


> @MichaelJ are you planning on using root tabs?


I am not at the moment. But I may do so if the plants are having a hard time getting started or starts to deteriorate (I just put the stems in yesterday after having them floating for almost a week).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> I am not at the moment. But I may do so if the plants are having a hard time getting started or starts to deteriorate (I just put the stems in yesterday after having them floating for almost a week).


I wouldn't suggest them to be honest. dose urea/nh4 in collumn and you're good. root tabs can cause algae outbreaks in my and many other people's experience. they leach fairly quickly so it is similar effect as dosing to collumn.









						Osmocote plus disaster
					

I was currently testing the osmocote plus for over the month or so, I added handful of osmocote deep into the aqua soil just to see what will happen. I already knew what was likely to happen because I have done a similar experiment before. But this one was more intense compare to the last one...



					ukaps.org


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> I wouldn't suggest them to be honest. dose urea/nh4 in collumn and you're good. root tabs can cause algae outbreaks in my and many other people's experience. they leach fairly quickly so it is similar effect as dosing to collumn.


Thats my thinking as well at the moment... I haven't see a whole lot of benefit from root tabs in the past - except perhaps when I set up the tanks initially and just popped in a some (First Tropica and then Seachem tabs) to prime the pump. Did it make a difference? I do not know to be honest. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12

plantnoobdude said:


> I wouldn't suggest them to be honest. dose urea/nh4 in collumn and you're good. root tabs can cause algae outbreaks in my and many other people's experience. they leach fairly quickly so it is similar effect as dosing to collumn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osmocote plus disaster
> 
> 
> I was currently testing the osmocote plus for over the month or so, I added handful of osmocote deep into the aqua soil just to see what will happen. I already knew what was likely to happen because I have done a similar experiment before. But this one was more intense compare to the last one...
> 
> 
> 
> ukaps.org


What if you turned up the CO2 right after doing that? So plunk in tabs and turn up CO2 at same time.


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> As @Hanuman mentioned temperature plays a big role in Sudipta's tanks. He freely admits that when temps go up tank health goes down.


@GreggZ and @Hanuman  Yes, I believe low temp helps - especially in a low-tech environment. It's an important _one-two-punch_;  it lowers the plants metabolism and at the same time bump the available/dissolved CO2 in the water column.  The same can be said for mature substrate due to increased microbial activity... more CO2 - still low of course.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hufsa

Just a reminder to folks that this thread is for the practical part that spawned from the pros and cons thread, anything very theoretical, abstract or comparing different regimes should go in the pros and cons thread to avoid cluttering this one.
Thank you for helping


----------



## plantnoobdude

JoshP12 said:


> What if you turned up the CO2 right after doing that? So plunk in tabs and turn up CO2 at same time.


sure, you could do that, you would meet the co2 needs per N (atleast that's how I think it works).  the plant cannot keep ammonia out, with all this N in tissue, it needs more co2, demand isn't met. resulting in stunted trashy growth. but why complicate things, it's the same reason Happi advises me not to disturb the substrate, avoid influx in N, keep co2 demand stable, pretty growth forms. I would imagine this has something to do with why sudipta doesn't uproot plants often aswell.


----------



## MichaelJ

Easternlethal said:


> maybe its a bit orthogonal to lean dosing to be asking about water changes - but if lower ferts + substrate can concentrate biological activity to where we want it most (ie the plants) there will be less dissolved organics ending up in the water and less need for water changes
> 
> This is something that can easily be measured by a carbon analyzer if I can find a cheap one. Would be interesting to know


I am not sure dosing lean necessarily means you can do less WC's.  I think of WC's mainly to get rid of waste - known and unknown organic waste, algae spores, pathogens etc. - for the benefit of my livestock, and to a lesser extent the plants. I do measure ORP and TDS that can be a somewhat dicy endeavor to interpret - but as long as I don't see much deviation week over week I take it that the tank is doing well and is _stable_.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12

plantnoobdude said:


> sure, you could do that, you would meet the co2 needs per N (atleast that's how I think it works).  the plant cannot keep ammonia out, with all this N in tissue, it needs more co2, demand isn't met. resulting in stunted trashy growth. but why complicate things, it's the same reason Happi advises me not to disturb the substrate, avoid influx in N, keep co2 demand stable, pretty growth forms. I would imagine this has something to do with why sudipta doesn't uproot plants often aswell.


Totally ... could skyrocket light to help use up the ammonia demand. 

Is more so about what do you do if it happens. 

And sometimes you want to uproot ... what if you want to replant? What if you substrate weakens couple years down the road and you have a 6 foot display that you don't want to uproot and rescape since you don't have a crew like Amano to do it for you! -- you need to replenish with root tabs at some point. 

I think this also illustrates the power of EI ... by dosing such high N in the column, you have more stability and you don't need to worry about avoiding substrate - a kid can get their fingers in there and you don't need to worry about algae. How else do we keep the hobby going? 

For me, it's about power and control - nothing is an issue - we need to be able to use all of the tools in our toolkit to have perpetual success.


----------



## JoshP12

MichaelJ said:


> I am not sure dosing lean necessarily means you can do less WC's.  I think of WC's mainly to get rid of waste - known and unknown organic waste, algae spores, pathogens etc. - for the benefit of my livestock, and to a lesser extent the plants. I do measure ORP and TDS that can be a somewhat dicy endeavor to interpret - but as long as I don't see much deviation week over week I take it that the tank is doing well and is _stable_.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


But "could we get away with less by the virtue of what we pour in"? Grin. Complete control.


----------



## MichaelJ

JoshP12 said:


> "could we get away with less by the virtue of what we pour in"?


Almost certainly it seems... It's just that we do not know  exactly how much_ less_  we can _get away with_...  What I do know is that I haven't lost a fish in ages...  If this would be a_ plant-only tank _I wouldn't hesitate for one second to explore this aspect.  Also dosing NH4 compounds just makes me a little bit more careful - Yes, I am aware that with my N 2-3 ppm target,  free NH3 concentration is very unlikely to become an issue given my plant mass, lower temperature (73-74 F) and somewhat acidic water (6.2-6.4 pH) ?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Almost certainly it seems... It's just that we do not know  exactly how much_ less_  we can _get away with_...  What I do know is that I haven't lost a fish in ages...  If this would be a_ plant-only tank _I wouldn't hesitate for one second to explore this aspect.  Also dosing NH4 compounds just makes me a little bit more careful - Yes, I am aware that with my N 2-3 ppm target,  free NH3 concentration is very unlikely to become an issue given my plant mass, lower temperature (73-74 F) and somewhat acidic water (6.2-6.4 pH) ?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


2-3ppm N per week?  that is very very rich for low tech, I'd start at 1ppm, just my opinion.


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> 2-3ppm N per week?  that is very very rich for low tech, I'd start at 1ppm, just my opinion.


Yes per week - @plantnoobdude - I believe @Happi told me the same (1'ish ppm)  earlier on - It's actually a lot closer to 2 ppm rather than 3 ppm, but I should/could probably lower that.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

MichaelJ said:


> If this would be a_ plant-only tank _I wouldn't hesitate for one second to explore this aspect


This brings to light another question in regards to the practical application of lean dosing when we have critters in the tank. 
I could be wrong but most of the tanks we see that successfully manage the "lean" approach seem to have a very small fish bio load.

It's something I've been pondering for a while, to me it would be impossible to chase ratios if we can't accurately tell how much N & P is being generated from the fish. 

So how do we approach this conundrum in a practical sense.


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> I could be wrong but most of the tanks we see that successfully manage the "lean" approach seem to have a very small fish bio load


Thats true... and my _lean experiment tank_ is actually somewhat moderately stocked - definitely not low stocked.


John q said:


> It's something I've been pondering for a while, to me it would be impossible to chase ratios if we can't accurately tell how much N & P is being generated from the fish.
> 
> So how do we approach this conundrum in a practical sense.


Good questions, as always @John q - I guess we almost have to ignore the contribution from fish and food waste since we have zero idea what that contribution amounts to - pretty vague  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Thats true... and my _lean experiment tank_ is actually somewhat moderately stocked - definitely not low stocked.


I think it is just a coincidence, people experimenting with such complex dosing strategies often aren;t so interested in fish. heavy fish load shouldn't stop you from getting good results at all. in fact a couple years back Happi was recommending to feed fish heavy (Nh4+P) and dose K+micros only.


----------



## LondonDragon

If you want an example of lean dosing, how about this one (no dosing ever): I have not shared this tank for a long time, as to be honest I don't want people to copy what I am doing and fail doing it, but thought it would be an interesting throw into the twist, since you guys think we are all about dumping 10 kilos of dry salts into the tank every week 






It was set up in 2010 with Oliver Knott soil (there is still a journal lurking around somewhere), and capped with sand about 6 years ago! It was original to breed Crystal shrimp, but that didn't go well at the time and was left with just a few snails and some Amanos. The Anubias you see in the tank were taken from a show tank setup by @Dan Crawford at the first Aquatics Live exhibition at Earl's Court in 2011, never trimmed and flowers quite often. Leaves on this one are over a decade old haha not many signs of any algae in this tank. I also have stems of Rotala they grow very compact with wavy leaves, there is also Moss, Fissidens, Pellia, Bobilts and some Narrow ferns (the latter two plants are 2 years old, the rest were all planted between 2011-12.
This is home to a colony of shrimp (200+) I got from Chris Lukhaup (The Shrimp King) when UKAPS attended Vivarium in Holland in 2011, this was a species caught in the wild that was not on the market, nothing fancy but to this day I still have the same colony (need to get some photos of the shrimp, this also has a breeding colony of Elephant Snails (3 years, 5 very large adults, 10-15 babies), various colours of Ramshorn snail (decade, 50+) and Trumpet snails (decade, 50+),
This is a Juwel Rekord 60 (60 liters) the original hood failed about 5-6 years ago, I purchased that light from eBay for a tenner, think it's 10w LED. It's filtered by a JBL e1500 which the return pipe squeezed to reduce the flow. I have never dosed any ferts in this tank, and I am sure the soil as long-lost its ability to provide any fertilizers.
When it comes to maintenance is pretty much non-existent, the last water change (50%) in this tank was back in September 2021, and I last cleaned the filter sometime in 2020. I have done a single 50% water change a year for the last 5-6 years. I have not cleaned the front glass in over 2 years. The only thing I do in a weekly basis is top up the tank (about 3-4 litres) and feed the shrimp and snails twice a week.
Out of the 5 tanks I still run (I have another 2 nanos that are also over a decade old lol) , this is by far the easiest tank I have to maintain


----------



## aquanoobie

LondonDragon said:


> The only thing I do in a weekly basis is top up the tank (about 3-4 litres) and feed the shrimp and snails twice a week.


Spectacular. Can I ask, RO or tap?


----------



## MichaelJ

LondonDragon said:


> If you want an example of lean dosing, how about this one (no dosing ever): I have not shared this tank for a long time, as to be honest I don't want people to copy what I am doing and fail doing it, but thought it would be an interesting throw into the twist,


I love this tank - Thanks for posting it!  Look at how healthy most of those plants look...  and NO FISH! and you do top off presumably when needed - which is important to point out IMHO!

Rotala you say.... A good example of the merits of _lean dosing - _provided by shrimp and snail waste and food, no CO2, pretty high light and not much algae to speak of as far as I can tell 👍

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## LondonDragon

aquanoobie said:


> Spectacular. Can I ask, RO or tap?


Straight from the tap as all my tanks, and yes top up when needed.


----------



## MichaelJ

Ok, I finally got some of the stem plants in. They are still somewhat curled up after being floating for almost a week. They came in looking pretty scrawny (sh*tty) and without roots. Just thought I would provide some pictorial evidence that I am actually doing this 
 (without naming names, some have suggested that I've might have been _faking it_ let alone that I might not even own an aquarium... you know who I am talking about @Hufsa and @plantnoobdude ! ... ).... Joking aside;  this is a work in progress. I weeded out a ton of plants to make room for the stems - all the floating plants are gone (there is a tiny bit of duckweed left) and there are still a bunch of crypts and Buca's left that I need to relocate to my other tank where I mostly keep shrimps and still dose rather traditionally and keep light levels low. I am currently targeting ~2 ppm of N per week with Tropica Specialized thats it (might lower that a tad). No CO2, Keeping my GH at ~4 and KH <1, temp at 73-74, pH at 6.2-6.4... still 12 hours of light per day - quite a bit higher light levels mostly due to getting rid of the floating plants, but I don't think it technically qualify as high light yet!






Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Easternlethal

LondonDragon said:


> feed the shrimp and snails twice a week.



Do you think that maybe the low feeding helps to keep organics low? 


Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## JoshP12

John q said:


> So how do we approach this conundrum in a practical sense.


It’s ironic - when we think of all the negatives of EI, we glorify lean dosing.

Now we get to the nitty gritty of N/P fluctuations, substrate cleaning etc and EI seems to be the greener side!


----------



## erwin123

LondonDragon said:


> When it comes to maintenance is pretty much non-existent, the last water change (50%) in this tank was back in September 2021, and I last cleaned the filter sometime in 2020. I have done a single 50% water change a year for the last 5-6 years. I have not cleaned the front glass in over 2 years. The only thing I do in a weekly basis is top up the tank (about 3-4 litres) and feed the shrimp and snails twice a week.
> Out of the 5 tanks I still run (I have another 2 nanos that are also over a decade old lol) , this is by far the easiest tank I have to maintain


I'm going to guess that the tank is run at low temps, 22C degrees or lower?


----------



## Hanuman

LondonDragon said:


> If you want an example of lean dosing, how about this one (no dosing ever): I have not shared this tank for a long time, as to be honest I don't want people to copy what I am doing and fail doing it, but thought it would be an interesting throw into the twist, since you guys think we are all about dumping 10 kilos of dry salts into the tank every week


If I may and as much as I appreciate the quality of that tank, it is far away from what people here seem to want to accomplish. The plants in your tank are all easy plants with little requirements. 


MichaelJ said:


> I love this tank - Thanks for posting it! Look at how healthy most of those plants look... and NO FISH! and you do top off presumably when needed - which is important to point out IMHO!


🧐 Maybe I missed something but that tanks is filled with shrimps and snails which also produce a good amount of waste, and subsequently nutrients. Regardless, most of the plants are easy plants and would probably get away without any fauna. This said shrimps help with small algae and dying matter.


LondonDragon said:


> This is home to a colony of shrimp (200+) I got from Chris Lukhaup (The Shrimp King) when UKAPS attended Vivarium in Holland in 2011, this was a species caught in the wild that was not on the market, nothing fancy but to this day I still have the same colony (need to get some photos of the shrimp, this also has a breeding colony of Elephant Snails (3 years, 5 very large adults, 10-15 babies), various colours of Ramshorn snail (decade, 50+) and Trumpet snails (decade, 50+),


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> If I may and as much as I appreciate the quality of that tank, it is far away from what people here seem to want to accomplish. The plants in your tank are all easy plants with little requirements.
> 
> 🧐 Maybe I missed something but that tanks is filled with shrimps and snails which also produce a good amount of waste, and subsequently nutrients. Regardless, most of the plants are easy plants and would probably get away without any fauna. This said shrimps help with small algae and dying matter.


Yes I said: ..._ A good example of the merits of lean dosing - provided by shrimp and snail waste and food, no CO2, pretty high light and not much algae to speak of as far as I can tell 👍_


----------



## erwin123

MichaelJ said:


> I am not sure dosing lean necessarily means you can do less WC's.  I think of WC's mainly to get rid of waste - known and unknown organic waste, algae spores, pathogens etc. - for the benefit of my livestock, and to a lesser extent the plants. I do measure ORP and TDS that can be a somewhat dicy endeavor to interpret - but as long as I don't see much deviation week over week I take it that the tank is doing well and is _stable_.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



I agree with that. It had been a misconception that EI users need regular water changes to remove all the excess nutrients they were dumping in - which would lead to the conclusion that if they dosed less they would need to do less waterchanges.

If the objective is fewer water changes, then maybe one can experiment with lower temperatures on the basis that low temperatures reduce metabolism / cell reproduction and thus less waste is produced? I've read that Green Aqua run their tanks at 22C, much lower than 'conventional wisdom'


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> pretty high light


Sorry but that's a 10w light! I wouldn't call that high light at all. Actually that's pretty much very low light. To that, considering the light is 5-6 years old it is safe to assume the light has lost some of its brightness making it even lower light.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Sorry but that's a 10w light! I wouldn't call that high light at all. Actually that's pretty much very low light. To that, considering the light is 5-6 years old it is safe to assume the light has lost some of it's brightness making it even lower light.


All right @Hanuman , its pretty much very low light then! 👍


----------



## aquanoobie

erwin123 said:


> It had been a misconception that EI users need regular water changes to remove all the excess nutrients they were dumping in - which would lead to the conclusion that if they dosed less they would need to do less waterchanges.


Is this the 30:3:30 dosings? And later going to 1/2, and then to 1/4, and then to daily lean version? There is so many variables, why?


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> All right @Hanuman , its pretty much very low light then! 👍


Not sure if it's ironic or genuine. My point is not to be argumentative but to point out that the tank posted by @LondonDragon does not seem to fit the bill from what I believe is suppose to be discussed here yet that post gets praised and "gets away with murder". I guess the benefits of being an admin 😉. Please correct me if I am wrong so I can review my understanding. Does the "Practical application of lean fertilizer dosing" thread imply high light and so called difficult plants, or not?


----------



## aquanoobie

Hanuman said:


> Does the "Practical application of lean fertilizer dosing" thread imply high light and so called difficult plants, or not?


You said it, I see it too. The thread title should be more like "Practical application of lean dosing with high light and CO2".


----------



## Hanuman

aquanoobie said:


> and CO2


I suppose you meant "no-Co2" perhaps  or at the least moderate to low CO2?


----------



## Happi

aquanoobie said:


> Practical application of lean dosing with high light and CO2


We will be exploring all options, including high lights no co2.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Not sure if it's ironic or genuine.


Hi @Hanuman, I was being genuine! Irony doesn't really play well in this environment - differences and misunderstandings that gets squared out in a split second in a face-to-face conversation seems to explode on our faces on these forums. I always try and make it abundantly clear when I am joking around. And 5-6 year old 10w LEDs  above a 60 L tank (I missed that originally) is not high light - but obviously we cant really make a 100% clear-cut assessment from a picture how low or high it actually is.


Hanuman said:


> My point is not to be argumentative but to point out that the tank posted by @LondonDragon does not seem to fit the bill from what I believe is suppose to be discussed here yet that post gets praised and "gets away with murder". I guess the benefits of being an admin 😉.


Well I feel Paulo laid it out pretty well with the back-story of the tank and all.... And I agree, it doesn't 100% fit the bill, I agree with that.



Hanuman said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong so I can review my understanding. Does the "Practical application of lean fertilizer dosing" thread imply high light and so called difficult plants, or not?


Yes...  that was at least part of the objective for me personally - more challenging stem plants, high(er) light, low CO2.. and _lean dosing._

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## aquanoobie

Hanuman said:


> I suppose you meant "no-Co2" perhaps  or at the least moderate to low CO2?


This thread is called "Practical application of lean fertilizer dosing", right? Maybe it's not descriptive enough, maybe it should be called "Practical application of lean fertilizer dosing, high light and CO2 injection".  Do you agree?


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Hanuman, I was being genuine! Irony doesn't really play well in this environment - differences and misunderstandings that gets squared out in a split second in a face-to-face conversation seems to explode on our faces on these forums. I always try and make it abundantly clear when I am joking around.


🙏 - I appreciate the clarification.


MichaelJ said:


> but obviously we cant really make a 100% clear-cut assessment from a picture how low or high it actually is.


I'm really going to sound like the guy who is nick picking here but 10W in a 60p is very low wattage. The picture in this case does not really provide significant information. The specs of the light do however. Obviously the higher you get to the light the higher the PAR  but if we are talking about substrate level PAR then that is most probably in the 30PAR to at very max of 50PAR region specially considering that's a very cheap ebay light. Even at 50PAR that would be considered low tech all the way.


aquanoobie said:


> This thread is called "Practical application of lean fertilizer dosing", right? Maybe it's not descriptive enough, maybe it should be called "Practical application of lean fertilizer dosing, high light and CO2 injection". Do you agree?


I don't know what it should be called. I didn't make the thread. I am simply trying to grasp what it should be. My understanding is that "no to low-co2" is actually what @MichaelJ is trying to achieve and disscuss here. But it seems not everyone agree. You and @Happi seem to be looking/considering beyond low CO2.
So what's the deal guys?


----------



## aquanoobie

Happi said:


> We will be exploring all options, including high lights no co2


No carbon no go. How do you want to get around it?


----------



## Hanuman

aquanoobie said:


> No carbon no go. How do you want to get around it?


No injected CO2 is what I believe is being implied. There is always some level of CO2 in the water and the lower the temperature the more of it you get to a certain point obviously. Bacteria, fish and plant also produce CO2. Lower temperatures will enable you to sequester that CO2 longer.


----------



## Easternlethal

erwin123 said:


> It had been a misconception that EI users need regular water changes to remove all the excess nutrients they were dumping in


this is getting into voodoo territory but we know that water is not just carrying nutrients and waste around. for example we know about redox and that it can react with the substrate and plants also. Even walstad talks about in her book. so perhaps leaving water in the tank for longer does affect this ability and that might explain why some scapers swear that water has a 'memory'

temperature affects this too


----------



## Yugang

I do not want to derail the thread, but the last few postings trigger me to adding a footnote.

We are today inundated with knowledge, technology. It almost seems we have forgotten that previous generations of aquarists had none of that, and were not even aware of all complexity and options that would be thrown at the planted tank in the decades after.

I remember my father having a 400 l planted tank, in the 60’s and 70’s, inspiring me as a toddler. I ran my 160 cm, 400 l planted tank from the late 70’s. Diana Walstad had yet to enlighten us, not even to speak of Amano or Barr. I had 4 TLD tubes (not really low light), no CO2 and I can’t remember worrying about ferts. My mental model of my tank was as if it were a small pond in nature, I played around a bit with rainwater, river clay and feeding fish, but nothing fancy and no chemicals. My interest was plants, and they did really well.

I personally have no doubt that lean dosing on low tech will work, even with moderate light. In my view the experiments will refresh experiences that used to be common knowledge, supplemented with relatively subtle dosing tweaks from today’s knowledge.

I believe the  challenge for any particular setup is to find out which plants will thrive and which will struggle. This experiments plant test & selection is a not much different process from what most high tech (light, CO2, dosing) scapers do, but just in a different set of aquarium specs.

This all is not to say that the experiment is less relevant, it rather is to encourage as I am convinced there is success to be found.


----------



## LondonDragon

Hanuman said:


> Not sure if it's ironic or genuine. My point is not to be argumentative but to point out that the tank posted by @LondonDragon does not seem to fit the bill from what I believe is suppose to be discussed here yet that post gets praised and "gets away with murder". I guess the benefits of being an admin 😉. Please correct me if I am wrong so I can review my understanding. Does the "Practical application of lean fertilizer dosing" thread imply high light and so called difficult plants, or not?


I did not see any mention on the starting post about it being non-CO2, just about lean dosing, otherwise you should change the title "High Tech/High light with lean dosing" (which to be fair there are examples in this forum already, I dose a third of the EI recommendations on my CO2 injected tank). My point is you can achieve good results with whichever method you choose, there is no exact science, there are many many variables, you start at a certain point and then you tone it down until you reach the point where both plants are healthy and algae is at bay, you only learn this by practice and EI (or any other commercial fertilizer) is the starting point recommended to ensure you have all the right nutrients from the go. Higher demanding plants to be honest it's mostly about the constant levels of CO2 in the tank, and this is where most fail, not how overdosing the tank causes the problems.

I do feel this is being over complicated for the sake of complication, but good luck with the experiment, if you follow Filipe Oliveira for example, you will know he practices lean dosing on his tanks too, it's nothing new and to achieve the redder in plants you need to starve the tank of nutrients which he does to good effect. Anyway, I will keep away from your theoretical practices in that case, since practical examples are irrelevant.

Good luck!


----------



## Tim Harrison

LondonDragon said:


> Straight from the tap as all my tanks, and yes top up when needed.


Everyone knows London tap water is magic...


----------



## John q

LondonDragon said:


> I do feel this is being over complicated for the sake of complication, but good luck with the experiment,


Seems to be an ongoing theme at the minute.



LondonDragon said:


> Anyway, I will keep away from your theoretical practices in that case, since practical examples are irrelevant.



I think you showed a good example of a tank that can be run without adding or minimal addition of fertiliser, surely that's what @MichaelJ  is seeking to achieve here.



Tim Harrison said:


> Everyone knows London tap water is magic...



Lol, Marcher ratio, straight out the tap. 😁


----------



## Zeus.

MichaelJ said:


> differences and misunderstandings that gets squared out in a split second in a face-to-face conversation


Yes, it is so easy to misunderstand what was meant in a post sometimes, can be better/quicker to have a chat/facetime and then if what you have said is mis interpreted you ask/correct straight away. Myself and @Hanuman clear stuff up much quicker with our chats, like M8s down at the pub (except he's by the pool and I am sheltering from the wind and rain). Plus some folk like me are dyslexic and what we post makes sense to us at the time but is written so 'bad' it is hard to make sense off . Then UKAPS has a very international set of members which again puts another twist on it - you get up in the morning and folk from a different time zone have been very busy posting


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


LondonDragon said:


> I have done a single 50% water change a year for the last 5-6 years. I have not cleaned the front glass in over 2 years. The only thing I do in a weekly basis is top up the tank (about 3-4 litres) and feed the shrimp and snails twice a week............If you want an example of lean dosing, how about this one (no dosing ever): I have not shared this tank for a long time, as to be honest I don't want people to copy what I am doing and fail doing it





> Everyone knows London tap water is magic...



I think Paulo's (@LondonDragon) magic London tap water may be relevant to this, it will contain quite a lot of nutrients and it will continually add dKH and dGH.

cheers Darrel


----------



## GreggZ

LondonDragon said:


> My point is you can achieve good results with whichever method you choose, there is no exact science, there are many many variables, you start at a certain point and then you tone it down until you reach the point where both plants are healthy and algae is at bay, you only learn this by practice and EI (or any other commercial fertilizer) is the starting point recommended to ensure you have all the right nutrients from the go. Higher demanding plants to be honest it's mostly about the constant levels of CO2 in the tank, and this is where most fail, not how overdosing the tank causes the problems.


Agreed.

Tom Barr said this yesterday.........._Ferts are pretty easy, but many aquarist place TOO MUCH importance on them._

I think sometimes people get so caught up in the ferts they can't see the forest through the trees.

Still I am following this thread with great interest. Really looking forward to seeing results.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


GreggZ said:


> I think sometimes people get so caught up in the ferts they can't see the forest through the trees.


I couldn't agree more. Some people will be after optimal growth of difficult plants, but for most of us a much more <"_ad hoc__">_ approach <"works just fine">.  I'd guess most long term planted tank keepers end up with a <"structural backbone"> of plants that grow for them without too much fuss, and add occasional new plants in to see how they get on.

cheers Darrel


----------



## erwin123

GreggZ said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Tom Barr said this yesterday.........._Ferts are pretty easy, but many aquarist place TOO MUCH importance on them._
> 
> I think sometimes people get so caught up in the ferts they can't see the forest through the trees.
> 
> Still I am following this thread with great interest. Really looking forward to seeing results.



I agree that there needs to come a point in time when you "finalise" your water column dosing amount, and then shift focusing on the other things that matter (CO2, circulation, tank maintenance etc). My tank will benefit more from a proper trim to reduce the overcrowding/shading than yet another tweak to fertilisation.... 😁

In a sense, I'm glad I'm just dosing ferts from a bottle... I'm unable to alter the ratios so all I can do is to settle on how much I dose daily. 😅


----------



## Zeus.

erwin123 said:


> I'm glad I'm just dosing ferts from a bottle... I'm unable to alter the ratios so all I can do is to settle on how much I dose daily. 😅



Yes doing DIY traces is very time consuming (and costly), going for certain ratios in traces just increases the complexity of it all. Without using RO water using ratios on traces elements may be a little pointless IMO as your tap water may be half full of your some trace elements [target] to start with.

eg. thought my tank may be low on Ni (Nickel) got the water report did the maths and the Ni levels was acceptable

I also know of RO water users who dont add Ni and yet their tanks are fine, maybe its in substrate or excreted in fish waste etc


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Zeus. said:


> I also know of RO water users who dont add Ni and yet their tanks are fine, maybe its in substrate or excreted in fish waste etc


The problem is the one that @Happi mentioned, we are looking at ppb (10^-9) levels in terms of plant requirements and still relatively low levels <"in terms of plant toxicity">. You can get <"deficiencies of cobalt (Co)"> (or any of the other essential micro-nutrients for plant growth)., but in most cases they are unlikely.

Deficiencies of the <"macro and meso nutrients"> are much more likely, and <"within them valency"> is going to be a <"good indicator of solubility">.

That is why I like a <"green floating plant"> as my <"nutrient canary">, it takes CO2 and light out of the equation, although it is not optimal for those with <"red-green colour blindness">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## aquanoobie

Zeus. said:


> eg. thought my tank may be low on Ni (Nickel) got the water report did the maths and the Ni levels was acceptable
> 
> I also know of RO water users who dont add Ni and yet their tanks are fine, maybe its in substrate or excreted in fish waste etc


Hi
Nickel is everywhere, in soil, in water, in atmosphere, nickel is almost like pollution. Also in cigaret smoke and in foods cooked in stainless steel pots. Simple aerating brings nickel to tank water, comes with fish food too. Also RO water contains nickel.


----------



## Easternlethal

aquanoobie said:


> Hi
> Nickel is everywhere, in soil, in water, in atmosphere, nickel is almost like pollution. Also in cigaret smoke and in foods cooked in stainless steel pots. Simple aerating brings nickel to tank water, comes with fish food too. Also RO water contains nickel.


right. and RO doesn't actually give you distilled water (some only 85 or 90% pure).. which is what is really needed to fully control micros


----------



## Zeus.

Easternlethal said:


> which is what is really needed to fully control micros


 Is it possible to control Micros in the ppb in any order of magnitude in our tanks in the real world😬choosing the wrong fish food could throw the balance.


----------



## Hufsa

Do we need to control micros though? We add something that we think is good, cross our fingers and hope for the best. And the rest is watching the plants. Seems simple enough to me.


----------



## Tim Harrison

LondonDragon said:


> I do feel this is being over complicated for the sake of complication, but good luck with the experiment, if you follow Filipe Oliveira for example, you will know he practices lean dosing on his tanks too, it's nothing new and to achieve the redder in plants you need to starve the tank of nutrients which he does to good effect.


And me too. I definitely think we're back to rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic....


----------



## Hufsa

Now that everyone has chimed in with their opinion, is there any way we could sort of steer the topic back to the original purpose of this thread? 
We still have the Pros and cons thread for those who wish to discuss things further, posting there would be much appreciated by us


----------



## Tim Harrison

Hufsa said:


> Now that everyone has chimed in with their opinion, is there any way we could sort of steer the topic back to the original purpose of this thread?
> We still have the Pros and cons thread for those who wish to discuss things further, posting there would be much appreciated by us



That's little unfair @Hufsa, you cant set the rules and then change them mid thread. I think the above two videos help to address the following topics and questions...



MichaelJ said:


> Topics and questions that we need to address over time includes:
> 
> What do we mean by lean dosing overall... ?
> 
> What targets should we dose in terms of NPK and Micros?
> 
> What off-the-shelf products are suitable for lean dosing?
> 
> What plants are particular suitable for lean dosing and which are not?
> 
> How might our maintenance regime change when we apply the lean dosing approach?
> 
> What corrective actions do we take if thing starts to _go south_ - such as the appearance of algae, deficiency symptoms etc.



 I'm going to double down on my previous comment, we're back to rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, and perhaps even trying to reinvent the wheel....


----------



## MichaelJ

Tim Harrison said:


> Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic


Tim, Can I use this as the title for my journal?  I may start a journal so I can focus my questions and feedback on this experiment within the limits of my own setup.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Tim Harrison

Haha, feel free. It was actually Darrel that used it first. Journals are always welcome 👍


----------



## Zeus.

Hufsa said:


> We add something that we think is good, cross our fingers and hope for the best. And the rest is watching the plants. Seems simple enough to me.


Sounds like EI dosing to me 💃💃💃


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Tim Harrison said:


> It was actually Darrel that used it first.


I think my original rationale was that a <"lot of advertising implied things"> that were manifestly untrue, or <"totally irrelevant">, or both, but without ever actually stating anything that was provably wrong in a court of law.

I don't know the original provenance of it as a quote.  I heard it and I liked it, because it summed up a lot of the problems people have with fish keeping, mainly because they were just concentrating on the minutiae, and often ignoring  <"the wider picture">.  From the point of view of this thread I totally agree with  @Tim Harrison.

I think we are discussing <"_the froth, not the coffee_">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

The best explanation I could find for _Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic_: To do something pointless or insignificant that will soon be overtaken by events, or that contributes nothing to the solution of a current problem.

I hope no one would characterize my honest attempt to grow more challenging stem plants as such 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Tim Harrison

No not at all Michael. It’s very much commendable that you do so. And like I’ve mentioned before that’s what UKAPS is ultimately about, helping folk grow aquatic plants and to disseminate best practice.

I’m sure you’d agree there’s very little under the sun that’s really new. And this thread has highlighted there are folk out there who perhaps aren’t aware lean dosing is already a thing and has been for many years.

I particularly like that you stress in your op that lean dosing isn’t for those just starting out on their planted tank journey because it could get them in to trouble. That is always worth reiterating.

Either way, I don’t really think we need to look much further beyond the advice of pros like Filipe and perhaps the videos posted above for the answers we’re looking for


----------



## MichaelJ

Zeus. said:


> Sounds like EI dosing to me 💃💃💃


💃💃💃 ?  We have dancers now? We are finally making progress here! 

.. can we at least agree that:

1. Paying attention to  NPK and micro ratios
2. Use of soft to very soft water in terms of KH/GH to promote easier uptake
3. Acidic water to promote uptake and availability
4. The use of Urea/NH4 as opposed to primarily NO3 as a source of Nitrogen.
5. Mature/rich substrate
6. Lower temperature
7. Yes, and relatively smaller amount of NPK and micro fertilizers
(... more ?)

Is at least in combination,  something _somewhat_ _different_ than the typical _carpet-bombing_ approach (EI) where you don't really (need to) pay  too much attention to water parameters?

Throw us a bone here! 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

dw1305 said:


> I think my original rationale was that a <"lot of advertising implied things"> that were manifestly untrue, or <"totally irrelevant">, or both, but without ever actually stating anything that was provably wrong in a court of law.



Lost performative:






As old as the hills.


----------



## GreggZ

Tim Harrison said:


> I'm going to double down on my previous comment, we're back to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, and perhaps even trying to reinvent the wheel....


LOL I love this comment! But I think those buying in really do believe they are on to something new.



MichaelJ said:


> NOTE: Lean dosing is by some hobbyists considered to be somewhat experimental


I think this is part of the issue. Lean dosing is not controversial, and it's not new. You can easily find great examples (like the videos above) and it works well for the right type of tank. Tom Barr has lean dosing tanks. So do a bunch of other people that I know well.

Correct me if I am wrong but this thread is not really about "lean" dosing, which is simply dosing less nutrients. That's a pretty easy concept. It's really about the "Happi" method which is a VERY specific way of lean dosing, with high light, medium CO2, and "lean" dosing with a specific ingredients, ratios, and "recipes".

What most don't know is that this method has been around for a VERY long time as well. It's not cutting edge, and it's not a new frontier. Happi and his group (Marcel, Sol) have been talking about this for over a decade on multiple different sites. For some reason it's never caught on. Who knows maybe it will be different this time? Keep the updates coming and we will find out.


----------



## MichaelJ

Tim Harrison said:


> No not at all Michael. It’s very much commendable that you do so.


Hi Tim, Thats appreciated!


Tim Harrison said:


> And like I’ve mentioned before that’s what UKAPS is ultimately about, helping folk grow aquatic plants and to disseminate best practice.


For sure, thats why a lot  - if not all - of us are here I assume.



Tim Harrison said:


> I’m sure you’d agree there’s very little under the sun that’s really new. And this thread has highlighted there are folk out there who perhaps aren’t aware lean dosing is already a thing and has been for many years.


Well, there is _new_ and "_new"... _No one here claims that lean dosing is something fundamentally new - as a matter of fact, when doing a bit of research into this I found out its been discussed for ages.    Its "new" to me because I've never really been aware of it before @Happi started to get a lot of people  (including myself!) riled up about it on this forum back sometimes in the fall of last year.  I think its impossible due to the nature of these forums to avoid rehashing old discussions... and sometimes going back to old discussions with fresh eyes reveal something people never thought of in the past - a new perspective, new ideas and what have you... that's very often how progress is made!  Yes, sometimes we just end up _beating a dead horse._



Tim Harrison said:


> I particularly like that you stress in your op that lean dosing isn’t for those just starting out on their planted tank journey because it could get them in to trouble. That is always worth reiterating.


Yes and I will keep doing that. For the beginner and casual hobbyist who stops by and wan't advice on fertilizer there is no way I would start talking about soft and acidic water,  paying attention to ratios or other esoteric topics that are mostly irrelevant if you just want to grow some easy plants under lower light in straight tap water and give the plants something _decent_ _all-round_ to eat on a regular basis.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## KirstyF

MichaelJ said:


> NOTE: Lean dosing is by some hobbyists considered to be somewhat experimental and possibly comes with several prerequisites that _may_ make it unsuitable for beginners or casual hobbyists. For those who are not interested in experimental approaches UKAPS offers information on plenty of well-tested mainstream fertilizer methods. Also keep in mind that your choice of fertilization method, while important, is only _one_ piece of the vast puzzle that makes a planted aquarium successful!


Can I just highlight the above on the first page of this thread. This states ‘roughly’ that dosing is just one part of a vast puzzle ……so not the be all and end all. That some people consider it to be somewhat experimental, it might not be for ‘newbies’ and that other more ‘mainstream’ info is available…..so we could probably have varying opinions on the specific language used, as lean dosing per se has been knocking around a while, but in the context of the discussion, we do have people actively experimenting with using a particular form of dosing and no pre-qualification that it must be for high light or Low light or Co2 injected or non Co2 injected.  Fair warning has been given by the OP and it’s not being pumped as a ‘general’ solution.

I don’t think we can say fairer than that.

No doubt it’s been done before and with varying levels of success which may or may not be related to the dosing and/or other contributing factors.

We can certainly say the same for EI and we talk about that all the time.

 We also have people dosing full EI, half EI, hell possibly even lean EI but we aren’t really pinning EI down to a specific classification beyond that broad title.

So just my opinion, but maybe we could let people figure out what it looks like and what’s working for them…..and what isn’t without ‘corralling’ it so much, if that’s the word. 

Lean, lean ish, lean column, non-EI - does it matter. 

Surely the objective is simply to explore and discuss and learn more about it…..for some it may feel like eastenders on repeat episodes, for others it will be things they never heard before and you only have to watch if it floats ur boat. 

If these guys succeed, we’ll have learnt something, if they don’t, we’ll have learnt something! and from what I can see their experiments are still using specified dosing methods as guides and still kinda mixing it up a little. (Well either that or I missed the bit where happi suggested inert substrate 😳😂)


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Well, there is _new_ and "_new"... _No one here claims that lean dosing is something fundamentally new - as a matter of fact, when doing a bit of research into this I found out its been discussed for ages. Its "new" to me because I've never really been aware of it before @Happi started to get a lot of people (including myself!) riled up about it on this forum back sometimes in the fall of last year. I think its impossible due to the nature of these forums to avoid rehashing old discussions... and sometimes going back to old discussions with fresh eyes reveal something people never thought of in the past - a new perspective, new ideas and what have you... that's very often how progress is made! Yes, sometimes we just end up _beating a dead horse._


agreed, no one has claimed it is new. infact we have all seen many of maceks pictures, many of these are over 10 years ago, no doubt lean dosing goes further back than that.


----------



## Easternlethal

For me, lean dosing, is not just a set of instructions about parameter (e.g light, macros) like EI, but a change in philosophy where you are trying to get everything just right (no more no less) to achieve what you want (e.g grow plants or less water changes or less hassle with ferts). This involves experimentation, a deep deep understanding of the tank - water, plants, substrate etc and annoying lots of people on forums with silly questions


----------



## Yugang

Tim Harrison said:


> I definitely think we're back to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic....


This may be true, or not. Yet, reading this thread, and the other, it is remarkable how many passengers enjoy observing the effort 😁

@MichaelJ / @Happi  : in the other thread it was argued that we can have no such thing as design of experiment.  Fine.  May I ask, for your experiment could you try and summarize how you would define "*success*"?


----------



## MichaelJ

Yugang said:


> May I ask, for your experiment could you try and summarize how you would define "*success*"?



Thats an easy one for me to define. Being able to successfully grow the following stem plants and keep them healthy:

Rotala Colorata
Rotala Wallichii
Ammannia Senegalensis
Ammannia Sulawesi
Alternanthera Rosanervig

I specifically picked these plants because they are all plants I have tried before and failed with, while everything else in the tank, mostly plants in the easy category  did very well.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Yugang

MichaelJ said:


> Thats an easy one for me to define. Being able to successfully grow the following stem plants and keep them healthy:
> 
> Rotala Colorata
> Rotala Wallichii
> Ammannia Senegalensis
> Ammannia Sulawesi
> Alternanthera Rosanervig
> 
> I specifically picked these plants because they are all plants I have tried before and failed with, while everything else in the tank, mostly plants in the easy category  did very well.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Thank you, that clarifies a lot for me. If you can, can you also summarize if the experiment covers all possible tank parameters (otherwise, for effciciency, you may just copy @GreggZ  tank 😀 ) , or could you define the space in which you will be working?

I am not trying to be argumentative, but believe that the simplest DOE is a describtion as precisely as possible what you do and how you define 'success'.  It will save a lot of time and confusion. I will then patiently wait for you to report the outcome and learnings in the process.


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> LOL I love this comment! But I think those buying in really do believe they are on to something new.


Hi @GreggZ  That is not a true depiction of reality. Nowhere publicly or privately have I seen anyone proclaim they think this is something new overall. It's different all right from other mainstream approaches and there might in fact be some wrinkles to it that improves upon previous approaches.


GreggZ said:


> Tom Barr has lean dosing tanks. So do a bunch of other people that I know well.


That is comforting to know.  I was worried for a moment  that I was chasing my tail 



GreggZ said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but this thread is not really about "lean" dosing, which is simply dosing less nutrients. That's a pretty easy concept. It's really about the "Happi" method which is a VERY specific way of lean dosing, with high light, medium CO2, and "lean" dosing with a specific ingredients, ratios, and "recipes".


You might be right about that. I am broadly following @Happi's advice on this.



GreggZ said:


> What most don't know is that this method has been around for a VERY long time as well.


Yes, its not new - I think we leaners are slowly starting to wrap our heads around that revelation 


GreggZ said:


> It's not cutting edge,


Got it. Things that are not new are very rarely cutting edge either 


GreggZ said:


> and it's not a new frontier.


Got it. Definitely nothing new here and definitely not frontier  


GreggZ said:


> Happi and his group (Marcel, Sol) have been talking about this for over a decade on multiple different sites.


Yes, why wouldn't they...  they believe in it, have good experience with it, believe its reproducible and can help _curious_ _intermediate plant-noobs_ like myself so why shouldn't they share their experiences?   I for one commend their persistence in doing so!


GreggZ said:


> For some reason it's never caught on.


Except among @Happi's cohorts including @Sudipta, @macek.g and other luminaries such as Tom Barr and _a bunch of other people that you know well _I figure    But seriously, this approach is not for everyone.


GreggZ said:


> Who knows maybe it will be different this time? Keep the updates coming and we will find out.


Sure thing @GreggZ - I just hope the advice I get will allow me to grow some more challenging stem plants and perhaps I will pick up some insights along the way.   Otherwise I will bug you to help me replicate your beautiful Rainbow tank without Rainbow fish and CO2 as @Yugang  suggests 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Easternlethal

Tim Harrison said:


> I don’t really think we need to look much further beyond the advice of pros like Filipe and perhaps the videos posted above for the answers we’re looking for


it's a great video but I don't know... I kind of feel it's just an introduction and barely scratching the surface

success for me is never having to replenish the substrate or utilise root tabs, fewer water changes, growing high light plants, not having to dose (like Filipe I also only does K2so4 and Fe. but for my plants I also need MGSO4 and CaCl)


----------



## MichaelJ

Yugang said:


> Thank you, that clarifies a lot for me. If you can, can you also summarize if the experiment covers all possible tank parameters (otherwise, for effciciency, you may just copy @GreggZ  tank 😀 ) , or could you define the space in which you will be working?
> 
> I am not trying to be argumentative, but believe that the simplest DOE is a describtion as precisely as possible what you do and how you define 'success'.  It will save a lot of time and confusion. I will then patiently wait for you to report the outcome and learnings in the process.


For now I am dosing Tropica Specialized (which include NH4NO3). I use soft water in terms of KH and GH to promote easier uptake (specifically ~4 GH, <1 KH) and slightly acidic water (pH 6.2-6.4) to promote availability of traces - Fe in particular. Lowered my temperature (73-74F / 23C) Slowly increasing my light levels. Closely monitoring my plants. Thats it. Not changing anything else for now. When I get the aforementioned stem plants going under these conditions I can start _nit-picking _and perhaps further it by optimizing the ferts by mixing myself using @Happi's recipes to get the ideal ratios and all that....I will gladly do that later.   

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Yugang

Thank you, I believe this is the way to go. I am not going to ask more questions, as I am not competent enough and don't want to be too annoying. 

When you narrow down what you are doing in the experiment, describe relevant parameters,  plan for next step, then everyone can chime in with usefull suggestions. 
We patiently wait for the results and debate what that all means. 
It will make this thread more effective as a collective learning, but probably for some of us less fun 🤩


----------



## aquanoobie

GreggZ said:


> Tom Barr has lean dosing tanks. So do a bunch of other people that I know well.


Then why so many people here are doing everything they can to make it as difficult as possible to talk about it.


----------



## Easternlethal

aquanoobie said:


> Then why so many people here are doing everything they can to make it as difficult as possible to talk about it.


its a process of discovery isn't it? we have a thesis and speculate / experiment about it until it gets discarded because there's nothing new or it leads to a genuinely something new

i get the feeling that many are still grappling with the concept and there is still scepticism over whether its really different from 1/4 EI or whatever.

i can only say that for me it is fundamentally different because EI and most other methods are about cycling the water to remove and reset excess whereas lean dosing is about  trying to create conditions where the tank generates its own nutrients and takes care of itself _indefinitely_, so the theoretical goal is to add and remove nothing (except light and co2) and let the substrate and water generate the food needed for the fish and plants. I believe that one has to come to terms with this theoretical goal in order to be a convert otherwise yes, lean dosing is nothing more than just another scaled-down fertilisation method


----------



## Yugang

Easternlethal said:


> its a process of discovery isn't it? we have a thesis and speculate / experiment about it until it gets discarded because there's nothing new or it leads to a genuinely something new
> 
> i get the feeling that many are still grappling with the concept and there is still scepticism over whether its really different from 1/4 EI or whatever.
> 
> i can only say that for me it is fundamentally different because EI and most other methods are about cycling the water to remove and reset excess whereas lean dosing is about  trying to create conditions where the tank generates its own nutrients and takes care of itself _indefinitely_, so the theoretical goal is to add and remove nothing (except light and co2) and let the substrate and water generate the food needed for the fish and plants. I believe that one has to come to terms with this theoretical goal in order to be a convert otherwise yes, lean dosing is nothing more than just another scaled-down fertilisation method


This is a profound statement, however I believe we either are still not clear what is understood with 'lean', or it is a different concept than you describe.

I may start a thread on 'Homeopathic dosing of Po, pro's and cons'. That will pull some traffic and excitement from here, we can all debate and play around, so that @MichaelJ @Happi get some time to actually describe and run their experiment 😹


----------



## MichaelJ

Yugang said:


> Homeopathic dosing


Hey! Thats not _new_! I suggested that term months ago!


----------



## Yugang

MichaelJ said:


> Hey! Thats not _new_! I suggested that term months ago!


But the Po is, it is definitely a shame that our hobby ignores that element


----------



## Easternlethal

Yugang said:


> not clear what is understood with 'lean'


this a feature not a bug because when you are matching plant needs there will be no longer a single method that one can just cut and paste

i personally am plucking up the courage to set up what I think is a more useful test which is to put nothing in a tank and see how long it takes for everything to die. not many people are interested in that but I think I will learn a lot more from it


----------



## erwin123

MichaelJ said:


> Thats an easy one for me to define. Being able to successfully grow the following stem plants and keep them healthy:
> 
> Rotala Colorata
> Rotala Wallichii
> Ammannia Senegalensis
> Ammannia Sulawesi
> Alternanthera Rosanervig
> 
> I specifically picked these plants because they are all plants I have tried before and failed with, while everything else in the tank, mostly plants in the easy category  did very well.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I purchased Ammannia Gracilis in submersed pink form like what many internet photos show, which thin slender pink leaves. In my tank the Gracilis converted from this delicate pink form to a green form with thick green stems and large leaves which were orange nearer the light. So I'm really interested in seeing what 'form' your Ammannia's take in the tank and whether certain conditions (including fertilisation) result in the Ammannias taking a different form.

I have the same issue with Ludwigia Sphaerocarpa which is a mystery to me. I bought one submersed from a hobbyist  in this beautiful yellow form but in my tank it is green with small leaves.


----------



## MichaelJ

erwin123 said:


> I purchased Ammannia Gracilis in submersed pink form like what many internet photos show, which thin slender pink leaves. In my tank the Gracilis converted from this delicate pink form to a green form with thick green stems and large leaves which were orange nearer the light. So I'm really interested in seeing what 'form' your Ammannia's take in the tank and whether certain conditions (including fertilisation) result in the Ammannias taking a different form.
> 
> I have the same issue with Ludwigia Sphaerocarpa which is a mystery to me. I bought one submersed from a hobbyist  in this beautiful yellow form but in my tank it is green with small leaves.



Hi @erwin123  I just put the plants in a couple of days ago…  the plant were curled up pretty badly after been floating for a week - they came in pretty scrawny looking without roots, but they are actually recovering and are starting to straightening out nicely. I will definitely keep the thread and my journal - if I ever get that going - posted.  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## LondonDragon

Yugang said:


> This is a profound statement, however I believe we either are still not clear what is understood with 'lean', or it is a different concept than you describe.


That's because there is no such thing as "lean", the aim is always to dose what your plants need, some plants need more than others, what might be seen as lean to you is not lean to someone else and vice-versa, that has a totally different water chemistry and a different set of plants, also as your plant mass grows so does their needs in terms of ferts and CO2, a lot of people also forget to adjust accordingly, hence the standard EI is the recommendation to try and ensure that nothing is missed, but even then you might need to go higher than recommended, like I said every tank is different.
For example in my latest high-tech, I started with the recommended doses, I am now down to a third because my plant choice changed, and I have less demanding plants in my tank, therefore I do not need to dose that much any more. You start at a point, things are doing well, you cut down on one for a couple of weeks, see the reaction of the plants, if all good you cut a little more on another, and repeat until you have reached the minimum required by your plants, your "lean"!
What you have to remember is that if you dose the minimum required, there is also no room for error and things can go downhill very quickly too, specially for someone starting up that is not familiar with how fertilization works, hence we don't recommend they over complicate it because then its another person that leaves the hobby!
Looking forward to all these new journals with these concepts being tested, but I have a feeling that all these concepts are already being tested by the various journals already in the forum 
Nevertheless, it makes me chuckle reading some of these posts, specially the other thread, an interesting read!


----------



## Yugang

LondonDragon said:


> That's because there is no such thing as "lean", the aim is always to dose what your plants need, some plants need more than others, what might be seen as lean to you is not lean to someone else and vice-versa, that has a totally different water chemistry and a different set of plants, also as your plant mass grows so does their needs in terms of ferts and CO2, a lot of people also forget to adjust accordingly, hence the standard EI is the recommendation to try and ensure that nothing is missed, but even then you might need to go higher than recommended, like I said every tank is different.
> For example in my latest high-tech, I started with the recommended doses, I am now down to a third because my plant choice changed, and I have less demanding plants in my tank, therefore I do not need to dose that much any more. You start at a point, things are doing well, you cut down on one for a couple of weeks, see the reaction of the plants, if all good you cut a little more on another, and repeat until you have reached the minimum required by your plants, your "lean"!
> What you have to remember is that if you dose the minimum required, there is also no room for error and things can go downhill very quickly too, specially for someone starting up that is not familiar with how fertilization works, hence we don't recommend they over complicate it because then its another person that leaves the hobby!
> Looking forward to all these new journals with these concepts being tested, but I have a feeling that all these concepts are already being tested by the various journals already in the forum



In my humble opinion it is now less productive to discuss what exactly is 'lean', than to support @MichaelJ and @Happi   to define the conditions to achieve what @MichaelJ  defines as 'success'



MichaelJ said:


> Thats an easy one for me to define. Being able to successfully grow the following stem plants and keep them healthy:
> 
> Rotala Colorata
> Rotala Wallichii
> Ammannia Senegalensis
> Ammannia Sulawesi
> Alternanthera Rosanervig
> 
> I specifically picked these plants because they are all plants I have tried before and failed with, while everything else in the tank, mostly plants in the easy category did very well.



Whatever brings @MichaelJ   success, with all our constructive help, is either something existing or something new. The latter may be labelled 'lean' if that would appear to be an appropriate term. 

In my view we should focus our efforts to support and define an interesting experiment, I called that design of experiment, rather than using our creativity to prove that we are wasting our time.

Makes sense?


----------



## LondonDragon

Yugang said:


> In my humble opinion it is now less productive to discuss what exactly is 'lean', than to support @MichaelJ and @Happi to define the conditions to achieve what @MichaelJ defines as 'success'


I just described them above! what are you not following?


----------



## Yugang

LondonDragon said:


> I just described them above! what are you not following?


Agree @LondonDragon , 
The aim of my posting is to get away from discussing terminology, new or not, usefull or not, and focus on a very clearly defined objective - define one experiment, within @MichaelJ and @Happi experimental capabilities, so as to bring at least one interesting and exciting  'success' in @MichaelJ definition. 

I believe the design of experiment is key, otherwise I am very sceptical if we ever come to some conclusion. We all can help @MichaelJ and @Happi with this, and I am sure they would welcome that help.


----------



## LondonDragon

Yugang said:


> and focus on a very clearly defined objective - define one experiment


Yeah, have a successful planted tank with as little dosing as possible, exactly what I said above! We're back to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic....


----------



## Hanuman




----------



## Easternlethal

wouldn't be a real forum if this doesn't happen


----------



## Zeus.

LondonDragon said:


> Looking forward to all these new journals with these concepts being tested


Me too, then we can follow the journals and summarise/discuss the progress in this thread
For each journal I would suggest that if the OP could supply as much detail as possible about their Hardware, lean dosing parameters (DIY or commercial), [CO2]/DC colour, RO/rain water/water report for tap water, WCs, inmates and regular Pics along the way, noting any deviation form the initial lean dosing parameters 
@MichaelJ 'if' folk in the group  do a Journal, could please update the first post with the links to the journals so folk can find them easy. 

I am very open minded about the 'experiment'. Its the vision and grit of the 'group' of precipitants that's important. Re inventing the wheel always gets a comments some constructive some  dismissive. Been their when the IFC Calculator was started and also when I used duel CO2 injection/solenoids. I found being as transparent as possible helpful. Sharing the journey is always helpful to the hobby.

'When you rock the boat, you always make a few waves' and some comments may seem dismissive, however most are just trying to be helpful in their own way


----------



## Yugang

LondonDragon said:


> Yeah, have a successful planted tank with as little dosing as possible, exactly what I said above! We're back to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic....



I believe it makes sense to be as specific as possible (like you, I also shared that I used to run a tank 3 decades ago, using no chemicals whatsoever), so I quote @MichaelJ again:



MichaelJ said:


> Being able to successfully grow the following stem plants and keep them healthy:
> 
> Rotala Colorata
> Rotala Wallichii
> Ammannia Senegalensis
> Ammannia Sulawesi
> Alternanthera Rosanervig



I believe the deckschairs on the Titanic joke does not do justice to some people sticking their neck out and go a little against the flow.

I will not be annoying anyone any more, and apologize. I am not smart enough to summarize the take aways from the other thread, or see how this thread may lead to new insights for the hobby - unless we really support the courageous friends who drive new experiments.


----------



## LondonDragon

Yugang said:


> unless we really support the courageous friends who drive new experiments.


It's not the lack of support, we have repeated a few times to start a journal and show us the findings along the way, and we can all experience it, but like I also suggested some members are already doing it, once you reach a level of experience you will customize the regime to your needs.
You keep saying that Michael and Happi experiment, but I am yet to see any journals from said members with anything relevant, I am encouraging them to start a journal and show us the findings, so we can evaluate and discuss further.

The issue is you are fixated on parameters for such an experiment, which at the end of the day is irrelevant, because people have different types of equipment and no two experiments will be the same! A filter will be different from the media you put in it and the maintenance you carry on it, the flow rate, how mature is the filter! CO2 will differ from what type of reg you use, what type of diffusion you use, what type of measure you use! etc.... just clutching straws here!!


----------



## Yugang

LondonDragon said:


> The issue is you are fixated on parameters for such an experiment, which at the end of the day is irrelevant


I believe in science, was trained in science and suspect that we are getting nowhere unless we start becoming a little more disciplined in our approach. Sorry, my professional deformation 

Talking about science, I am doing some desk research on the homeopathic dosing of Po. No one's done that before, and reported on that 

@LondonDragon please don't take my remarks too serious, and definitely not personal, I am just trying to add a bit of value and for the rest I enjoy the interesting dynamics on this thread


----------



## Easternlethal

LondonDragon said:


> It's not the lack of support, we have repeated a few times to start a journal and show us the findings along the way, and we can all experience it, but like I also suggested some members are already doing it, once you reach a level of experience you will customize the regime to your needs.


ok i will put up a journal of a tank this weekend. has been going for 2 years with the approach of minimising ferts and co2. y'all better not make fun of it..


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Yugang said:


> I believe in science, was trained in science and suspect that we are getting nowhere unless we start becoming a little more disciplined in our approach. Sorry, my professional deformation


Same for me. I'm <"proud to be a scientist"> and I think logical thinking and <"the scientific method"> are of paramount importance, but  I'll be honest I <"hold some "faith" positions"> and it would have needed some <"pretty conclusive evidence"> to make me <"re-think those">, but I am a scientist and  <"I have changed some of my views"> (in face of overwhelming evidence).

I understand that is where we are, but I'm not sure a properly designed empirical approach can get us any further, <"there are just too many variables"> (unless <"some-one throws a lot of time and money at it">).  The more I think about it the more <"Hichhikers Guide to the Galaxy"> swims into view.

Since I've spent more time with  <"Ecologists"> I've begun to appreciate that a <"multivariate approach">, Bayesian <"probability">, <"biotic indices"> etc are much more useful than I had initially realised, particularly for <"shades of grey"> questions.

cheers Darrel


----------



## LondonDragon

Yugang said:


> please don't take my remarks too serious, and definitely not personal,


If I did this forum would have stopped existing a long time ago!  I am totally impartial, and just highlighting both sides of the story, cause a few seem to  be blinded and fixated on science that is all theoretical!


Easternlethal said:


> ok i will put up a journal of a tank this weekend. has been going for 2 years with the approach of minimising ferts and co2. y'all better not make fun of it..


Exactly what should be done, show us your journey and how you get on with it, as a lot of people are already doing lean(er) dosing anyway!

I have a tank with no co2, no dosing and 1 water change a year, I have two tanks, with no CO2, one water change a month and limited micro dosing after water change! I have another with no CO2, weekly water changes and micro dosing after water change, and I have a full high tech with CO2, medium light and custom micro/macro dosing, 1 or 2 water changes a week. No single regime fits all your tanks!


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> Except among @Happi's cohorts including @Sudipta, @macek.g and other luminaries such as Tom Barr and _a bunch of other people that you know well _I figure    But seriously, this approach is not for everyone.


Sudipta doses thrive, wrong ratios for the  Happi method. MaceK.g said his tank does best with KNO3 not Urea and his K is not in the Happi ratio. Tom Barr's head would explode if you said he was dosing the Happi method. There were epic battles between Tom and Happi about this years ago. 

And yes I do have many friends from around the world in the hobby. I feel fortunate I get to pick their brains on a regular basis.

Here's the difference. Lean dosing is easy. You keep lowering dosing until it brings the widest range of plants to peak health at one time. Could be with about any fertilizer out there. And much has to do with your particular tank. Biggest factors are how much light, the mix of plants, and the overall plant mass. It's also a moving target. Tanks mass changes and so does nutrients uptake. And a tank full of Ammannia is quite different than a tank full of nutrient hungry stems like most Ludwigia. 

In the end you can dose EI at 1/4 and for the vast majority of people it is considered lean dosing. But my understanding is that this thread is really about the Happi method. Urea based with a very specific set of ratios (Marschener). In the other thread this got repeated over and over.

What would be interesting to me is if you could make this work really well over a broad range of plants. And then slowly swap KNO3 for Urea, increase K, and increase micros and see what happens.

And if this only about keeping a very small subset of plants happy, that has been done too. Just take a look at Vin's Rotala Kill Tank. No dosing and VERY rich substrate which works well on a small subset of plants.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

GreggZ said:


> Sudipta doses thrive, wrong ratios for the Happi method.









GreggZ said:


> MaceK.g said his tank does best with KNO3 not Urea and his K is not in the Happi ratio.









GreggZ said:


> Tom Barr's head would explode if you said he was dosing the Happi method. There were epic battles between Tom and Happi about this years ago.









GreggZ said:


> Lean dosing is easy. You keep lowering dosing until it brings the widest range of plants to peak health at one time. Could be with about any fertilizer out there. And much has to do with your particular tank. Biggest factors are how much light, the mix of plants, and the overall plant mass. It's also a moving target. Tanks mass changes and so does nutrients uptake. And a tank full of Ammannia is quite different than a tank full of nutrient hungry stems like most Ludwigia.









GreggZ said:


> And if this only about keeping a very small subset of plants happy, that has been done too.









GreggZ said:


> Just take a look at Vin's Rotala Kill Tank. No dosing and VERY rich substrate which works well on a small subset of plants.


----------



## GreggZ

Geoffrey Rea said:


> View attachment 186587
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 186586
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 186585
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 186584
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 186583
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 186582


ROTFLMAO!!


----------



## plantnoobdude

GreggZ said:


> MaceK.g said his tank does best with KNO3 not Urea and his K is not in the Happi ratio.


"It is true, at least in my case, when using urea, I had 2x faster gains, which resulted in cutting the plants 2x a week, which with so many plants took too much time, the better option for me was the mix of UREA + KNO3 or Cano3, Mgno3."









						Lean dosing pros and cons
					

This was written by our member Riverside Scaper in post #38 on page 2. We are now on post #1,004 and page 51! Debate on this subject is dangerously close to reaching War and Peace levels of interest.  Hi @Simon Cole   I think we will eventually surpass Tolstoy's epic. :lol:  G. C. Gerlof-j and...



					www.ukaps.org


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> "It is true, at least in my case, when using urea, I had 2x faster gains, which resulted in cutting the plants 2x a week, which with so many plants took too much time, the better option for me was the mix of UREA + KNO3 or Cano3, Mgno3."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lean dosing pros and cons
> 
> 
> This was written by our member Riverside Scaper in post #38 on page 2. We are now on post #1,004 and page 51! Debate on this subject is dangerously close to reaching War and Peace levels of interest.  Hi @Simon Cole   I think we will eventually surpass Tolstoy's epic. :lol:  G. C. Gerlof-j and...
> 
> 
> 
> www.ukaps.org


You left out the next line............

_I have been dosing different combinations, but the best results are NO3 in the range of 5-12 ppm per week._


----------



## plantnoobdude

GreggZ said:


> You left out the next line............
> 
> _I have been dosing different combinations, but the best results are NO3 in the range of 5-12 ppm per week._


I take this to mean, no3 equivelant of urea-N + N dosed as No3.
so, total N converted into no3. 
many people do not dose ammoniacal sources of N so it is useful to have the no3 equivelant


----------



## plantnoobdude

@GreggZ 









						Lean dosing pros and cons
					

This was written by our member Riverside Scaper in post #38 on page 2. We are now on post #1,004 and page 51! Debate on this subject is dangerously close to reaching War and Peace levels of interest.  Hi @Simon Cole   I think we will eventually surpass Tolstoy's epic. :lol:  G. C. Gerlof-j and...



					www.ukaps.org
				





"Well, this range gives me the best and the most stable results
PO4-0.1-0.5
K-8-15
as for NO3, I was doing the UREA + KNO3 mix
for example :
7ppm NO3 from KNO3 and 5 NO3 from UREA"

so, no, macek doesn't report best growth when using kno3 only.


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> I take this to mean, no3 equivelant of urea-N + N dosed as No3.
> so total N converted into no3.


Who knows. We can ask him sometime. But likely has little relevance in the scheme of things. If someone adds a small bit of Urea to NO3 dosing about the same as having a few fish and feeding them. IMO splitting hairs but that's just me.


----------



## Hanuman

I wanted to have the information straight from the source so I asked the source:


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> "Well, this range gives me the best and the most stable results
> PO4-0.1-0.5
> K-8-15
> as for NO3, I was doing the UREA + KNO3 mix
> for example :
> 7ppm NO3 from KNO3 and 5 NO3 from UREA"


 
Yes well still off. K is 3x to 7x too high for Happi method. 

And vast majority of people will tell you NO3 source matters little. These arguments get exhausting. I am going to my den and stare at my plants for a bit, many of which have been happily growing in the tank for longer than most have been in the hobby. Soothes me and calms my mind. I think we sometimes loose focus as to what this hobby is all about.

All that said will be watching to see when results are posted. Hoping for the best.



Happi said:


> My approach is similar to tropica or Marchner as already mentioned before. Weekly target of:
> N 3 (containing 50-75% urea/nh4 components)
> P 0.3
> K 2-3
> Fe 0.1


----------



## plantnoobdude

Hanuman said:


> I wanted to have the information straight from the source so I asked the source:
> View attachment 186592


So, it is most likely they use nh4no3.








						Molar mass of NH4NO3
					

Molar mass calculator computes molar mass, molecular weight and elemental composition of any given compound.




					www.webqc.org
				



two atoms N per molecule of nh4no3, 1 for Nh4, one for No3


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

GreggZ said:


> These arguments get exhausting. I am going to my den and stare at my plants for a bit, many of which have been happily growing in the tank for longer than most have been in the hobby. Soothes me and calms my mind. I think we sometimes loose focus as to what this hobby is all about.


----------



## aquanoobie

GreggZ said:


> But likely has little relevance in the scheme of things. If someone adds a small bit of Urea to NO3 dosing about the same as having a few fish and feeding them. IMO splitting hairs but that's just me.


You know there is no amount of food to make your fish to produce urea.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> I wanted to have the information straight from the source so I asked the source:
> View attachment 186592



Hi @Hanuman,   Happi and I did this test that seems to confirm the response you got from Tropica.  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


plantnoobdude said:


> So, it is most likely they use nh4no3....two atoms N per molecule of nh4no3, 1 for Nh4, one for No3


That is it, they definitely do.


MichaelJ said:


> I did this test that seems to confirm the response you got from Tropica.


Yes, as soon as they've said




There is nowhere else to go.

cheers Darrel


----------



## GreggZ

aquanoobie said:


> You know there is no amount of food to make your fish to produce urea.


OK then NH4. Back to watching my 32 species of plants grow now. They must not have got the memo about Urea!


----------



## Zeus.

dw1305 said:


> Same for me. I'm <"proud to be a scientist"> and I think logical thinking and <"the scientific method"> are of paramount importance, but I'll be honest I <"hold some "faith" positions"> and it would have needed some <"pretty conclusive evidence"> to make me <"re-think those">, but I am a scientist and <"I have changed some of my views"> (in face of overwhelming evidence).


Same here  (retired dentist).
During my career on CPD courses I came across some outdated ideas/techniques/treatments which have enough evidence against them, that they should not be used as better more efficient techniques/treatments can be used. This can be true esp. of teaching institutes change very slowly whilst cutting edge practices change fast with good leadership/CPD and clinical governance peer review etc. I came across two forms of treatment that could be used to treat the same condition with same outcome, expect one took four time longer so cost x4 and was more painful, which would you choose!! Yet on the 'best practice guide done by 'four peers' it said either treatment was suitable for treatment of the same condition for patients. It just so happen that three of the four peers had practices which used the old technique of treatment keeping them four times busier.
Companies wasn't transparent with there findings/claims ( data on file was typical) and often sales person knew very little about the goods they was selling, a few probing questions soon sorted them out, later in my career I didn't bother with the sales team.
I can only speak from my experiences, however I fail to see why it shouldn't be the same of all disciplines of science.
So trust nothing, keep an opened mind, be respectful of others beliefs -esp. when there is no good evidence to dispute their beliefs and no concrete evidence to support yours. I am sure Edison was aware that AC current was the future even when he was pushing DC. Change takes time.


----------



## Zeus.

Taken from Tropica plant growth specialised fertiliser post#16


Hanuman said:


> I wanted to have the information straight from the source so I asked the source:
> View attachment 186592


Well its not just KNO3 as the [K]/ (w/w%) will exceed what they quote


----------



## plantnoobdude

https://koiorganisationinternational.org/sites/default/files/Plants%20verses%20Filters.pdf
		


this is the probably the reason why tropica uses nh4no3. it satisfies the vast majority of aquatic plants with nh4 content, and the plants in the niche that prefer no3 from the no3 content. let me know if the link works.


----------



## LondonDragon

GreggZ said:


> What would be interesting to me is if you could make this work really well over a broad range of plants. And then slowly swap KNO3 for Urea, increase K, and increase micros and see what happens.


There's the experiment  Greggz time to get some Urea! Since I suffer badly with eczema I think I am going to order some too! At least when I do tank maintenance, I will be soothing my hands


----------



## GreggZ

LondonDragon said:


> There's the experiment  Greggz time to get some Urea! Since I suffer badly with eczema I think I am going to order some too! At least when I do tank maintenance, I will be soothing my hands


LOL. I wouldn't get your expectations too high. I have tried it. Many people I know have tried it. None are using it after trying it. 

In the scheme of things a small sample but I vouch for all their plant growing skills. In fact, they all have tanks that anyone would aspire to. 

But still following along and waiting for that "eureka" moment!


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


plantnoobdude said:


> let me know if the link works.


It does. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## LondonDragon

GreggZ said:


> LOL. I wouldn't get your expectations too high. I have tried it. Many people I know have tried it. None are using it after trying it.
> In the scheme of things a small sample but I vouch for all their plant growing skills. In fact, they all have tanks that anyone would aspire to.
> But still following along and waiting for that "eureka" moment!


Maybe I will stick to hand cream then!  the plants don't have any issues 
But interesting that you say that, as people have been talking about it for over a decade and some swear by it, yet where are these journals with the proof, the preachers never actually show any tanks they have created? We should just take their word for it?
There has been a handful of people that preach it to the point of exhaustion in the forum with no evidence whatsoever and just want members in UKAPS to be their Guinea pigs? I am still waiting for the scientific evidence... prove us wrong, please! 
I am happy this being discussed on separate topics, it's interesting to see the arguments for it and the evidence (latter is lacking), would be great for these guys to come in and create a journal or an article with full details of what they did over a period of time and well documented that someone else could follow, so far is a lot of mumbo jumbo!


----------



## MichaelJ

Geoffrey Rea said:


> View attachment 186587
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 186586
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 186585
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 186584
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 186583
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 186582






Geoffrey Rea said:


> View attachment 186593





hmmm.... It escapes me why the Mods/Admins are in on mocking this conversation?  We genuinely tried to frame this conversation to avoid a repeat of the failure of the "Lean dosing pro and con"-thread where we had to wade through a bunch of _noise _to pick up on each others reply... we obviously failed.. Badge me as sensitive, but I can't help feeling just a little bit that this is a sign that this conversation is not really welcome here on UKAPS. And call me naive, but I though @George Farmer (who's Aquascaping book inspired me to sign up and participate on this forum, instead of just frequently visiting as a guest) founded this forum to advance the hobby and give people a platform to hash out different approaches? I just want to grow more challenging colorful aquatic stem-plants in one of my low-tech/low-CO2 aquariums for me and my family to enjoy, and hopefully share that success (or failure) with the community here 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## LondonDragon

MichaelJ said:


> I just want to grow more challenging colorful aquatic stem-plants in one of my low-tech/low-CO2 aquariums for me and my family to enjoy, and hopefully share that success (or failure) with the community here


That is pretty simple and has been covered here quite a lot in various topics and journals.
I have repeated that a couple of times in this thread already, too. Also take a look at this thread , the values to aim for redder plants! But you have to be careful as other might suffer in the process, like someone mentioned before is finding the sweet spot! 
Also to encourage redder you need to starve the plants, so daily dosing is not an option, you need to dose 2-3 times a week, so the plants have a day or two of limited ferts in the tank. 


MichaelJ said:


> It escapes me why the Mods/Admins are in on mocking this conversation?


I will ask to tone it down, the issue is we have been over this path again and again, and every time it just goes round in circles when it doesn't need to go! Because all the information is already here and people are already doing what you are trying to achieve.


----------



## Djoko Sauza

MichaelJ said:


> hmmm.... It escapes me why the Mods/Admins are in on mocking this conversation?  We genuinely tried to frame this conversation to avoid a repeat of the failure of the "Lean dosing pro and con"-thread where we had to wade through a bunch of _noise _to pick up on each others reply... we obviously failed.. Badge me as sensitive, but I can't help feeling just a little bit that this is a sign that this conversation is not really welcome here on UKAPS. And call me naive, but I though @George Farmer (who's Aquascaping book inspired me to sign up and participate on this forum, instead of just frequently visiting as a guest) founded this forum to advance the hobby and give people a platform to hash out different approaches? I just want to grow more challenging colorful aquatic stem-plants in one of my low-tech/low-CO2 aquariums for me and my family to enjoy, and hopefully share that success (or failure) with the community here
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Couldn't agree more. Sorry that your thread is being derailed like this. So please, if you're not interested then don't post. If you feel the need to post, just do so and move on.

I'm pretty sure @MichaelJ can read, so if you let him know that what he's trying to achieve is nothing new and still he keeps going, he must have his reasons.

I personally like the lean concept, it reminds me of @dw1305 's Duckweed Index. However, I believe all this talk about ratios and magic formulas to be mostly bs. And on top of that I have absolutely no interest in growing fancy stem plants. Still I'm watching with interest.
So don't get discouraged, all experiments are worth documenting and sharing for the good of this hobby.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @LondonDragon,


LondonDragon said:


> That is pretty simple and has been covered here quite a lot in various topics and journals.
> I have repeated that a couple of times in this thread already, too. Also take a look at this thread , the values to aim for redder plants! But you have to be careful as other might suffer in the process, like someone mentioned before is finding the sweet spot!
> Also to encourage redder you need to starve the plants, so daily dosing is not an option, you need to dose 2-3 times a week, so the plants have a day or two of limited ferts in the tank.


Thanks for the link! ...  Good to know when I get to the stage where I begin to _nit-pick_ about the reddishness of the plants...   I am definitely not there yet, but hope to get there for sure.


LondonDragon said:


> I will ask to tone it down,


Appreciated! 🙏


LondonDragon said:


> the issue is we have been over this path again and again, and every time it just goes round in circles when it doesn't need to go! Because all the information is already here


I guess I just haven't been around long enough to feel the fatigue from these conversations (but I am getting there...) -  I'll bet that this discussion is not going away.  


LondonDragon said:


> and people are already doing what you are trying to achieve.


I would love to hear from more of those people who can do this in a low-tech/low-CO2 environment.

Well, I guess I'll better go start that journal instead  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## KirstyF

MichaelJ said:


> hmmm.... It escapes me why the Mods/Admins are in on mocking this conversation?  We genuinely tried to frame this conversation to avoid a repeat of the failure of the "Lean dosing pro and con"-thread where we had to wade through a bunch of _noise _to pick up on each others reply... we obviously failed.. Badge me as sensitive, but I can't help feeling just a little bit that this is a sign that this conversation is not really welcome here on UKAPS. And call me naive, but I though @George Farmer (who's Aquascaping book inspired me to sign up and participate on this forum, instead of just frequently visiting as a guest) founded this forum to advance the hobby and give people a platform to hash out different approaches? I just want to grow more challenging colorful aquatic stem-plants in one of my low-tech/low-CO2 aquariums for me and my family to enjoy, and hopefully share that success (or failure) with the community here
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Also agreeing here. Not mod specific but just in general. 

These folks are grown ups. If they want to give something a whirl to see if it works for them then why not.

They aren’t newbs at risk of accidentally crashing their tanks due to total lack of experience and they I don’t think they need to be steered away from their plans to an established something else. 

They just need to be given the space to do their thing and anyone interested in following along, contributing positive comment, thrashing through a few thoughts or theories then great.

Folks who think it’s nonsense or it’s been done before etc etc etc…..Well, I think these guys probably got that message already.

I’ve absolutely no doubt that those people have completely genuine and evidenceable reasons for their positions but if they don't support the theory (which is completely fine) surely we can at least support the endeavour?

Nothing wrong with a bit of challenge but it would be nice not to see quite so many ‘knock backs’ to these established UKAPS family members.

Regardless of folks opinions, ultimately no-one should be made to feel just plain rotten about what they are trying to do and trying to share.


----------



## Happi

Djoko Sauza said:


> However, I believe all this talk about ratios and magic formulas to be mostly bs


What if your beliefs changes in the next few years? Just like the belief that you cannot have high lights, low to no Co2 or nutrients without getting algae.


----------



## Zeus.

Happi said:


> What if your beliefs changes in the next few years? Just like the belief that you cannot have high lights, low to no Co2 or nutrients without getting algae.



I will take my hat off to the person/team that prove it and shake their hands .  But High light low CO2/nutrients just doesn't balance the equation in my head at my present level of understanding, this will be the same for many others IMO. If you can grow crops at low levels of nutrients farmers would be doing it and not buying NPK blends for crops.
Show us the evidence is all many have asked - without a body a person can't dead- show the body of evidence that mis proves our beliefs is all we/some ask 😘


----------



## LondonDragon

Zeus. said:


> But High light low CO2/nutrients just doesn't balance the equation in my head at my present level of understanding, this will be the same for many others IMO.


It all depends on the definition of high light, like everything else. Is my A900 high light with a Twinstar E900? I reckon medium at most! Hence my dosing and CO2 levels are pretty low! Third of EI index and a bottle of CO2 lasted me over 18 months! It also depends how long you run your lights for over the tank! I have two 12l nanos with 5w of LED and no CO2, micro dosing when I remember, but I only run the lights for 4.5 hours a day! my 60 litter also 10 watts of lights and I run that 8 hours a day! no algea in either and plant growth is fine!

The 2 12 liter nanos with buces and crypts and mosses! Fair enough low demanding plants, but I like an easy life  





it's all about in the definition and the detail like photo period etc... I am not saying it cannot be done, course it can, but its not for the average noob to start with those methods, first learn how to grow plants and then tinker later!


----------



## MichaelJ

Zeus. said:


> But High light low CO2/nutrients just doesn't balance the equation in my head at my present level of understanding, this will be the same for many others IMO.



I hear you @Zeus. It also didn't jive with my understanding either, but saw enough anecdotal evidence to try it out - here is an example:



MichaelJ said:


> Sudipta mythical lean tanks



I am under no illusion that I will be able to pull this off in my first attempt. I don't even know if we know *all* the details here that made it work... I hope I have the persistence to keep it going even if I fail my first few attempts. I think you would agree that this would be pretty cool to replicate and understand? 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## aquanoobie

Why is the Lean Team not allowed to experiment? Maybe if you let them try they may fail. What's the risk?


----------



## LondonDragon

aquanoobie said:


> Why is the Lean Team not allowed to experiment? Maybe if you let them try they may fail. What's the risk?


No one is saying not to try it, what we are saying is that said experts have shown very little evidence of it working other than post a few random photos of what they have achieved with very little detail and probably comes with a lot of caveats too! Some of them only registered to post in the "lean dosing" thread to stir it up a little more 



MichaelJ said:


> I am under no illusion that I will be able to pull this off in my first attempt.


We would rather your first attempt was a great planted tank, and then tweak it  let the so-called experts create details journals for us all to follow


----------



## aquanoobie

LondonDragon said:


> Some of them only registered to post in the "lean dosing" thread to stir it up a little more


Yes I am very interested in their work. Been reading about it for some time and now they are so close to try it publicly in real time. But they are clearly being discouraged from doing so. Why not let them try and see what happens?


----------



## Zeus.

aquanoobie said:


> But they are clearly being discouraged from doing so



I am not discouraging anybody and feel nobody else is.


MichaelJ said:


> I am under no illusion that I will be able to pull this off in my first attempt


Just need some 'grit' and stick to it. Nobody believed me when I was 23yrs old and said I was going to be a dentist and doing my 'O' levels eight years later I was a dentist and now retired, they are still working  Think big and long term


----------



## LondonDragon

aquanoobie said:


> Yes I am very interested in their work. Been reading about it for some time and now they are so close to try it publicly in real time. But they are clearly being discouraged from doing so. Why not let them try and see what happens?


Indeed, like I have said already, why don't these members publish an article/journal in the forum, explaining how the results were achieved, with details on equipment, parameters etc.. what worked well, what didn't work well, how it was fixed, how long did these experiments last for,  and the end result. Also try and word it in a way that the average user can understand so that it can be followed, registering on the forum and throwing a few random posts with minimal information and a couple of photos doesn't give them much credibility! 
I personally want to see those articles/journals, I am up for trying it also, when I know what to test and I know the process that was followed to the letter and what caveats for me to look out for when trying this, it won't be as simple as the processes we are used to.


----------



## John q

9 pages already lol.

@MichaelJ   Hey mate you've absolutely nothing to lose that can't be fixed, and chances are you'll gain a lot of firsthand knowledge into how aquatic plants and nutrients interact.
This new found wisdom may well confirm the majority of people's opinions, or it could well backup what happi is prescribing, who knows.

I tried it and for me it wasn't the correct approach, it has however left me dosing far less fertiliser than I was previously, for me that counts as a learning curve and ultimately a little knowledge gained.

If the human race wants to evolve then sometimes we go out on a limb and experiment.

Just my 2 penneth worth 😀


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> I hear you @Zeus. It also didn't jive with my understanding either, but saw enough anecdotal evidence to try it out - here is an example:
> 
> 
> 
> I am under no illusion that I will be able to pull this off in my first attempt. I don't even know if we know *all* the details here that made it work... I hope I have the persistence to keep it going even if I fail my first few attempts. I think you would agree that this would be pretty cool to replicate and understand?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


LOL see this is why it's so confusing. This is my friends Sudipta's tank. Has nothing to do with the Happi method. 

This is a softwater non CO2 tank that doses Thrive shown in peak condition when temps stay low (70-74). I've spoken to Sudipta extensively about this tank. Right now it's a unicorn. Most of the "brain trust" that I know won't even contemplate it as it's such an outlier. 

This tank has nothing to do with lean dosing or the Happi ratios/recipes/ingredients method. It is something completely different and so far pretty much one of a kind. He does have a friend who posted a couple of pics once of a similar set up a while back but was not heard from again. 

My advice is that if this is your goal that you become friends with Sudipta. There is a lot more going on here than meets the eye, and in my opinion nothing in this thread is really going to help you. I'd go to the source.


----------



## Tim Harrison

High light low-energy can be done if all the nutrients are locked up in the substrate. It’s how I used to run my low-energy soil substrate tanks (no CO2 or water column dosing) many years ago. However, it’s still a very fine balancing act. Algae will inevitably creep in from the edges if tank maintenance isn’t kept on top of.

However, as to growing “difficult” plants that way, I never managed it. In my experience, all other factors being equal, effective and efficient CO2 flow and distribution is the key to that.  Further, surely there will be far too many confounding factors to reach any sort of definitive conclusions, even with a well designed control?

As far as I know a true experiment always includes at least one control group that doesn’t receive the experimental treatment. Without a control group, it’s harder to be certain that the outcome was caused by the experimental treatment and not by other variables. I think that is at the crux of the apparent controversy here and perhaps a source of confusion. Plus there is a degree of trust that the outcome will be genuinely portrayed without bias.


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> Right now it's a unicorn.


I've been in tech all my working life as a researcher and engineer working for companies everyone here would be familiar with. If I could count on my hands how many times I have heard people dismissed ideas because they were outliers, unicorns, not "broadly applicable" or "users wouldn't be interested in that".... or even say some idea was the stupidest idea he ever heard and present the same idea a couple of weeks later as his own  .... well, lets just say I would have a lot of hands 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

GreggZ said:


> that doses Thrive



I think its thrive S that sudipta uses, or used, not sure if or how that differs from standard thrive.
Also worth noting Michael his ph is around 5.75.
Anyways, here's what's in thrive s.

GUARANTEED ANALYSIS​Total Nitrogen(N) 0.43%
0.43% Water Soluble Nitrogen(N)
Available Phosphate(P2O5) 0.14%
Soluble Potash(K2O) 5.5%
Magnesium(Mg) 0.32%
0.32% Water Soluble Magnesium(Mg)
Calcium(Ca) 0.03%
Sulfur (S) 0.76%
0.76% Combined Sulfur(S)
Boron(B) 0.008%
Iron(Fe) 0.38%
0.38% Water Soluble Iron(Fe)
Manganese(Mn) 0.168%
0.168% Water Soluble Manganese(Mn)
Molybdenum(Mo) 0.0006%
Zinc(Zn) 0.0036%
0.0036% Water Soluble Zinc(Zn)

Derived From: Potassium Nitrate, Potassium Phosphate, Potassium Sulfate, Potassium Chloride, Magnesium Sulfate, DTPA Iron, Manganese Sulfate, Boric Acid, Zinc Sulfate, Sodium Molybdate.


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> My advice is that if this is your goal that you become friends with Sudipta. There is a lot more going on here than meets the eye, and in my opinion nothing in this thread is really going to help you. I'd go to the source.


Well I was actually planning to reach out to him at some point. He is a Biochemistry postdoc associate at the University of Minnesota, no less. Not too far from where I live - I will ask him to come over and pour some of that unicorn dust into my tank 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## LondonDragon

MichaelJ said:


> I will ask him to come over and pour some of that unicorn dust into my tank


Bag it and sell it


----------



## plantnoobdude

disclaimer: this is not aimed at anyone in particular. just at the thread in general.

Happi does say that N should be higher than K, but he also says ratios are important, he has said this numerous times, if you have better growth with higher K, say you have high fish load, rich substrate or something providing extra N then dose more K if you'd like. He has repeated this to me numerous times, he even recommended me to try higher K like macek. if EI isn't set in stone we can say the same about happis dosing. Happi says elevated K is unlikely to cause any issues, but he doesn;t see any need for it, why add unnecesarry ferts/tds if you know what you're doing. (this does not apply to beginners starting off with EI)

If you look at maceks tanks you will see he has very good plant growth across a huge variety of species., he doesn;t discount the effect of micro-tox, K-Mg antagonism, B-Ca balance etc. I think there's a reason he's able to grow a huge variety of plants from so called nutrient hogs to plants that prefer a leaner collumn all in very good condition at the same time. Maceks micros were based off of happis recipe with a few tweaks such as chelators. Happi encourages modifications of his recipes and continues to do so, both in private and on the forum, and I don't see anyone claiming anywhere that these ratios or formulas are "magic". Infact I notice quite the opposite, like I said before he encourages people to try different doses to find the right amount as he has done with me.





GreggZ said:


> LOL see this is why it's so confusing. This is my friends Sudipta's tank. Has nothing to do with the Happi method.


but they still believe in many of the same fundamentals.

1. urea/nh4 source.
sudipta uses root tabs every few months that should contain ammonnia/urea . nutrient rich substrate containing nh4.
happi uses ammonia containing salts to fertilise the water collumn and rich substrate as well.

2. low co2.
sudipta doesn't run co2.
happi has ran his tanks at 10-15ppm co2 with high light

3. high light
sudipta uses chihiros fixtures over 100 par at substrate.
happi uses t5 or led fixtures with high par at substrate, around 100 par. 

4. don't disturb substrate often
sudipta very rarely uproots plants or disturbs substrate.
happi discourages substrate disturbance as he found it can cause issues in lean tanks. this is to do with influx of N, co2 messed up yahda yahda yahda.

5. softwater (specifically referring to kh here)
sudipta runs his tanks with very little kh, this is to promote uptake of nutrients such as Fe which are negatively affected by higher co3. and also maximise available co2.
happi runs his tank with very little kh, most of the time, none. this is again, to maximise uptake of what little nutrients he is dosing.

now here is where their ideas get a bit different, but I think I know why.
sudipta uses higher gh, this could be because thrive contains higher traces.
thrive shrimp adds roughly 4ppm No3  for every 10ppm K. and 0.8ppm fe for 10ppm K ( let me know if i've gone horribly wrong please!) and sudipta has a gh of roughly 6.
while I couldn't find the exact amount he is dosing, I doubt it is more than the above, and if he were to tweak the dosing and lower gh, I'm sure he could get away with much less Fe. Sudipta uses high gh, this is probably helping him with the high Fe and subsequent levels of traces. Happi doses much much much less micros, some times less than 0.05ppm Fe weekly, but he also has very low gh as well, often going under 1dgh.

now, I'd say that their tank methods are pretty similar, wouldn't you say so too? like it has beenn repeated countless times in this thread, dosing is a small piece of the vast puzzle that is our planted aquariums.


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Well I was actually planning to reach out to him at some point. He is a Biochemistry postdoc associate at the University of Minnesota, no less. Not too far from where I live - I will ask him to come over and pour some of that unicorn dust into my tank
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I strongly encourage you or anyone to reach out to him, because this is only going to help the hobby and the hobbyist.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Tim Harrison said:


> As far as I know a true experiment always includes at least one control group that doesn’t receive the experimental treatment. Without a control group, it’s harder to be certain that the outcome was caused by the experimental treatment and not by other variables. I think that is at the crux of the apparent controversy here and perhaps a source of confusion. Plus there is a degree of trust that the outcome will be genuinely portrayed without bias.



Think this is why @MichaelJ pushing forwards with a journal and documenting his findings will be fruitful. It’s effectively a single sample case study, perfect for investigating extreme examples of the distribution. Needs to create, or find, an extreme example to investigate first though.

Locationally this is where you would bet the first inklings of a paradigmatic shift may exist. But it is a single sample case study, generalisability is not what it does.



GreggZ said:


> My advice is that if this is your goal that you become friends with Sudipta. There is a lot more going on here than meets the eye, and in my opinion nothing in this thread is really going to help you. I'd go to the source.



Best advice yet on this thread.  Room to talk with a peer. Room to be wrong. Potential to find out something you may never have even known was important to the puzzle.



MichaelJ said:


> hmmm.... It escapes me why the Mods/Admins are in on mocking this conversation? We genuinely tried to frame this conversation to avoid a repeat of the failure of the "Lean dosing pro and con"-thread where we had to wade through a bunch of _noise _to pick up on each others reply... we obviously failed.. Badge me as sensitive, but I can't help feeling just a little bit that this is a sign that this conversation is not really welcome here on UKAPS.



That post was light humour, with a new member who was previously banned from the last forum for speaking his mind, with a mod being true to his character, on a thread that the admins and mods have worked pretty hard at keeping on track. Could argue we’re quite a welcoming group of folk…

Granted those were clips of Titanic… truly awful movie and very offensive. Apologies.

Nothing has been shut down, no one’s ideas are being edited/invalidated/removed, there is no division to speak of. In fact this conversation is being facilitated and has sat at the top of the thread board for quite some time.


----------



## John q

plantnoobdude said:


> while I couldn't find the exact amount he is dosing



Taken from one of his fb posts last year, I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

"I am using an all in one liquid fertilizer (ThriveS) which I add 2-3 times a week (2-3 mL every time). I also occasionally insert individual osmocote root balls deep under the substrate below some of the demanding plants.
I have an oversized hob filter (aquaclear 70) for my 20 gal tank"


----------



## plantnoobdude

John q said:


> "I am using an all in one liquid fertilizer (ThriveS) which I add 2-3 times a week (2-3 mL every time). I also occasionally insert individual osmocote root balls deep under the substrate below some of the demanding plants.


how big is is tank again?


----------



## John q

plantnoobdude said:


> how big is is tank again?


20 G


----------



## plantnoobdude

John q said:


> 20 G


so he is underdosing.
so he should get less than this


----------



## John q

If he's adding the full 9ml then it would be this.

Your addition of *9 ml (equivalent to 1 tsp + 1/2 tsp + 1/4 tsp + 1/16 tsp + 1/64 tsp ) Thrive S* to your 20gal aquarium adds:

Elementppm/degreeK5.646678N0.511173P0.073704Fe0.451734Mg0.451734B0.010699Co0.000476Mn0.225867Mo0.00107Zn0.005944Ni0.000004


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> now, I'd say that their tank methods are pretty similar, wouldn't you say so too? like it has beenn repeated countless times in this thread, dosing is a small piece of the vast puzzle that is our planted aquariums.


In my opinion you are really stretching here. Thrive S does not contain Urea. He puts a few individual osmocote bulbs under a few plants, much like Xiaozhuang does. I doubt he is getting much or any Urea from that little amount.

Other than low dKH and high light (about 80% of the high tech tanks out there) the only similarity is not uprooting often.

So like I said, I think you are really, really stretching framing Sudipta's tank as anything like the Happi method.


----------



## plantnoobdude

GreggZ said:


> Thrive S dosed at 3 ml 3 times a week into a 20G would by NO3 15 ppm, PO4 3 ppm, K 11 ppm. Pretty close to APT EI. Even higher if you figure there's really about 16 gallons.


hmmn, these numbers are completely different from what john has given above and what I calculated my self. to be clear sudipta is using thrive shrimp, correct?

as for the stretching, that is your opinion. if you think I am stretching sudiptas tanks in to Happis method, I can't do anymore than I've done already to convince you.


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> hmmn, these numbers are completely different from what john has given above and what I calculated my self. to be clear sudipta is using thrive shrimp, correct?
> 
> as for the stretching, that is your opinion. if you think I am stretching sudiptas tanks in to Happis method, I can't do anymore than I've done already to convince you.


Oops I did Thrive + not Thrive S. My mistake will edit.


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> as for the stretching, that is your opinion. if you think I am stretching sudiptas tanks in to Happis method, I can't do anymore than I've done already to convince you.


And I can't do anymore to convince you that it's a different animal. I've been talking to Sudipta about this tank for well  over a year, and even introduced him to folks in my old journal. It was a great discussion. I can't remember his dosing ever being much of a topic. His success has to do with everything else. 

Keep in mind his tank is really, really unique. When I first introduced him to some people I know, they insisted that he was injecting CO2. No one believed him. I got to know him over a period of time and I do believe and trust he represents the tank honestly. Still very have few any interest in it as it's simply not repeatable at this time. And the results are seasonal. In the summer the tank does not hold up as well. 

Before something really becomes a "method" you would expect to see hundreds of people, or even dozens of people demonstrate success with it. In this case there is not even ONE person who has done it, other than his friend and that one is still a bit unclear and murky. Either way in my opinion that would be an entirely different thread than this one. Just the fact that it is NON CO2 is enough to put it into a different category of conversation.


----------



## plantnoobdude

GreggZ said:


> And I can't do anymore to convince you that it's a different animal. I've been talking to Sudipta about this tank for well over a year, and even introduced him to folks in my old journal. It was a great discussion. I can't remember his dosing ever being much of a topic. His success has to do with everything else.


agree to disagree then


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @GreggZ,

I am trying to see if I can sum some of this up for my understanding. This is my key takeaways from the @Sudipta setup:


No CO2 injection
RO-DI water Remineralized to 0-1 KH and about 6 GH,
pH approx. 5.75.
low 70'ties temperature (I suppose this could be 73F ?)
Very low water column nutrients <5 ppm nitrate, phosphate <1 ppm.
Rich ADA Amazonia approx. 3 inch. deep
Ammonia containing root tabs ever 1-2 months.  (no word on specific product or amount/sq area)
Nilocg ThriveS ("very small amounts of N and P, but decent K, Fe etc.")  - (no exact info on dosing schedule, but can be deduced from the <5 ppm of nitrate I suppose)
Light: Chihiros wrgb2  120-150+ PAR at the substrate level!
Weekly 40% WC with gentle substrate cleaning
No/infrequent uprooting
Somewhat oversized filtration (HOB) (supposedly to provide adequate flow of co2/nutrient distribution.)

I hope I am representing the conditions correctly, but please let me know otherwise. That doesn't really sound _too_ terribly hard to me.  What's your thoughts on this  @GreggZ ?

Do you know which root tabs he is using btw.?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @GreggZ,
> 
> I am trying to see if I can sum some of this up for my understanding. This is my key takeaways from the @Sudipta setup:
> 
> 
> No CO2 injection
> RO-DI water Remineralized to 0-1 KH and about 6 GH,
> pH approx. 5.75.
> low 70'ties temperature (I suppose this could be 73F ?)
> Very low water column nutrients <5 ppm nitrate, phosphate <1 ppm.
> Rich ADA Amazonia approx. 3 inch. deep
> Ammonia containing root tabs ever 1-2 months.  (no word on specific product)
> Nilocg ThriveS ("very small amounts of N and P, but decent K, Fe etc.")  - (no exact info on dosing schedule)
> Light: Chihiros wrgb2  120-150+ PAR at the substrate level
> Weekly 40% WC with gentle substrate cleaning
> No/infrequent uprooting
> Somewhat oversized filtration (HOB) (supposedly to provide adequate flow of co2/nutrient distribution.)
> 
> I hope I am representing the conditions correctly, but please let me know otherwise. That doesn't really sound _too_ terribly hard to me.  What's your thoughts on this  @GreggZ ?
> 
> Do you know which root tabs he is using btw.?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


+flawless plants and a very happy tank owner


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> I hope I am representing the conditions correctly, but please let me know otherwise. That doesn't really sound _too_ terribly hard to me.  What's your thoughts on this  @GreggZ ?
> 
> Do you know which root tabs he is using btw.?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


LOL doesn't sound _too _terribly hard!!! Well if you did it you would be the first. Like many outliers I am guessing it _will _be terribly hard to duplicate, but I am all for you trying. This tank has fascinated me for some time now and I would really love to see someone else to able to repeat the results.

I think the conditions you have are correct. He uses _individual_ osmocote balls but sparingly. But again, I would reach out to the source. He may be able to provide some insight that will increase your odds. 

And keep in mind that for a large percentage of people low to no CO2 + high light = algae farm. But yet his tank exists, so go for it!!


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> +flawless plants and a very happy tank owner


Yeah, this @Sudipta tank  just dumbfounds me  every-time I look at it


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> LOL doesn't sound _too _terribly hard!!! Well if you did it you would be the first.


I am crazy enough to believe its possible if I get all the conditions just right... again, not for everyone. 


GreggZ said:


> Like many outliers I am guessing it _will _be terribly hard to duplicate, but I am all for you trying. This tank has fascinated me for some time now and I would really love to see someone else to able to repeat the results.


Yes, this tank _bothers_ me a great deal - but in a good way - to be honest.  



GreggZ said:


> He uses _individual_ osmocote balls but sparingly.


Great, thanks! 



GreggZ said:


> But again, I would reach out to the source. He may be able to provide some insight that will increase your odds.


I will!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @GreggZ,
> 
> I am trying to see if I can sum some of this up for my understanding. This is my key takeaways from the @Sudipta setup:
> 
> 
> No CO2 injection
> RO-DI water Remineralized to 0-1 KH and about 6 GH,
> pH approx. 5.75.
> low 70'ties temperature (I suppose this could be 73F ?)
> Very low water column nutrients <5 ppm nitrate, phosphate <1 ppm.
> Rich ADA Amazonia approx. 3 inch. deep
> Ammonia containing root tabs ever 1-2 months.  (no word on specific product or amount/sq area)
> Nilocg ThriveS ("very small amounts of N and P, but decent K, Fe etc.")  - (no exact info on dosing schedule, but can be deduced from the <5 ppm of nitrate I suppose)
> Light: Chihiros wrgb2  120-150+ PAR at the substrate level!
> Weekly 40% WC with gentle substrate cleaning
> No/infrequent uprooting
> Somewhat oversized filtration (HOB) (supposedly to provide adequate flow of co2/nutrient distribution.)
> 
> I hope I am representing the conditions correctly, but please let me know otherwise. That doesn't really sound _too_ terribly hard to me.  What's your thoughts on this  @GreggZ ?
> 
> Do you know which root tabs he is using btw.?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Everything seems correct to me.
I would just like to add that precycling the tank without lights for couple of weeks (even more for ADA Amazonia V1) will help a lot to discourage diatoms and thread algae.

Once the Ammonia reading is around 1ppm or lower then it should be safe to plant. You would still have to do frequent water changes intially after planting (2-3 times a week, 70% or more) for another couple of weeks if you are using Amazonia ver 1.

Keep the lights low (about 25% intensity, probably around 30 PAR at the substrate) for couple of weeks after planting and then increase slowly with time. If you plant dense (some fast growing stems will help a lot) then you should not face any major algae issues intially.

I have tried Osmocote with good results. I am still using Osmocote is some of my tanks. However, I am also using ADA bottom plus in my smaller tanks. I think they both work equally well. Both have high amounts of Ammonia.

Good luck 👍🏽 🙂


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> Yeah, this @Sudipta tank  just dumbfounds me  every-time I look at


The 20 gal non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank, right now. It will be 3 years old in 2 months from now.


----------



## MichaelJ

Sudipta said:


> Everything seems correct to me.
> I would just like to add that precycling the tank without lights for couple of weeks (even more for ADA Amazonia V1) will help a lot to discourage diatoms and thread algae.
> 
> Once the Ammonia reading is around 1ppm or lower then it should be safe to plant. You would still have to do frequent water changes intially after planting (2-3 times a week, 70% or more) for another couple of weeks if you are using Amazonia ver 1.
> 
> Keep the lights low (about 25% intensity, probably around 30 PAR at the substrate) for couple of weeks after planting and then increase slowly with time. If you plant dense (some fast growing stems will help a lot) then you should not face any major algae issues intially.
> 
> I have tried Osmocote with good results. I am still using Osmocote is some of my tanks. However, I am also using ADA bottom plus in my smaller tanks. I think they both work equally well. Both have high amounts of Ammonia.
> 
> Good luck 👍🏽 🙂



Hi @Sudipta  Awesome!

I am doing this in an established very mature tank. I already slowly dialed the dosing and other water parameters down to the levels roughly similar to yours, and I am dosing Tropica Specialized per @Happi's instructions.  Only 1/3rd of the tank is planted with the stems (they just came in the other day after floating for a week - pretty scrawny trimmings from APF  ), the remaining 2/3rd are densely planted with various crypts, various Anubis, Buca and other easy plants thats been there for a couple of years. So yes, the tank and substrate is very mature - zero algae to speak of. I will get some Osmocote for the substrate. I have increased the light levels quite a bit already (but its by no means high yet, it was very low  to begin with). I dont have a PAR meter so I'll have to _wing it._

Thanks for chiming in!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

Sudipta said:


> The 20 gal non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank, right now. It will be 3 years old in 2 months from now.
> View attachment 186648


Hey Sudipta glad you commented. My goodness every time I see your tank I am stunned. Well done my friend. 

A while back you had a friend that posted a picture of a similar tank. How is his going these days?


----------



## MichaelJ

Sudipta said:


> It will be 3 years old in 2 months from now.


Unbelievable!  Is that real plants? 

Don't know what to say except: stunning!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Yugang

Catching up in early morning hours in hk, great discussion and I believe real progress.



Tim Harrison said:


> As far as I know a true experiment always includes at least one control group that doesn’t receive the experimental treatment. Without a control group, it’s harder to be certain that the outcome was caused by the experimental treatment and not by other variables. I think that is at the crux of the apparent controversy here and perhaps a source of confusion. Plus there is a degree of trust that the outcome will be genuinely portrayed without bias


I agree 100%. Yet sometimes, like in our hobby, it will be very hard to conduct real science experiments, does that mean that studying a well documented case is not useful at all? Take the _science_ of economics, with their own 'laws' and hypothesis. Virtually none of them has been 'scientifically' tested, but how many books have been published on the 1929 Great Depression? When science cannot be packed in a test-tube, this is where the art of pragmatism comes in 



LondonDragon said:


> Indeed, like I have said already, why don't these members publish an article/journal in the forum, explaining how the results were achieved, with details on equipment, parameters etc.. what worked well, what didn't work well, how it was fixed, how long did these experiments last for, and the end result. Also try and word it in a way that the average user can understand so that it can be followed, registering on the forum and throwing a few random posts with minimal information and a couple of photos doesn't give them much credibility!


Can't agree more, also asked for by many, and for our hobby I believe this is best practice. Looking forward!


----------



## Sudipta

GreggZ said:


> LOL doesn't sound _too _terribly hard!!! Well if you did it you would be the first. Like many outliers I am guessing it _will _be terribly hard to duplicate, but I am all for you trying. This tank has fascinated me for some time now and I would really love to see someone else to able to repeat the results.
> 
> I think the conditions you have are correct. He uses _individual_ osmocote balls but sparingly. But again, I would reach out to the source. He may be able to provide some insight that will increase your odds.
> 
> And keep in mind that for a large percentage of people low to no CO2 + high light = algae farm. But yet his tank exists, so go for it!!


I don't think that it will be difficult to replicate my results by most people who can run a high-tech tank successfully. I have provided all the information regarding my setups to the best of my knowledge. I will more than happy to any further clarification. 
I know atleast 5 people who have recently started a tank similar to mine and they are getting decent results.  I will encourage them to post their tank pics sometime soon.
Here is how the 5 gal shallow non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank is looking rigth now. This setup is almost 6 months old.


----------



## Sudipta

GreggZ said:


> Hey Sudipta glad you commented. My goodness every time I see your tank I am stunned. Well done my friend.
> 
> A while back you had a friend that posted a picture of a similar tank. How is his going these days?


Thank you Gregg. 😀 
He has 2 tanks and both of them are doing great. I believe he posted a picture recently on FB. I will try to find the post and copy it here.


----------



## Sudipta

GreggZ said:


> Hey Sudipta glad you commented. My goodness every time I see your tank I am stunned. Well done my friend.
> 
> A while back you had a friend that posted a picture of a similar tank. How is his going these days?


Here is the link of the video he posted on FB.


This is the screenshot of the page.


----------



## MichaelJ

Sudipta said:


> I have tried Osmocote with good results.


Hi @Sudipta  Just looked at Amazon.... plenty to choose from, what specific Osmocote product are you using?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Sudipta  Just looked at Amazon.... plenty to choose from, what specific Osmocote product are you using?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I use both of these products. Osmocote plus has micro nutrients along with NPK while the green one only has NPK. I prefer to use Osmocote plus for non-CO2 and green one for CO2 injected tanks.


----------



## MichaelJ

Sudipta said:


> I use both of these products. Osmocote plus has micro nutrients along with NPK while the green one only has NPK. I prefer to use Osmocote plus for non-CO2 and green one for CO2 injected tanks.
> View attachment 186651View attachment 186652



Perfect! Those are the ones that came up in my 1st Amazon search. Just wanted to make sure!   Thanks a bunch @Sudipta, I think this bit might be crucial for my experiment.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @Sudipta  another question, of course, is how much Nilocg ThriveS  your are dosing weekly?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman

Hi, @MichaelJ You have commented several times that basically what you want is to grow some difficult plants. Maybe you have mentioned the plants but I don't remember seeing which. What's the list of those plants?


----------



## Yugang

Geoffrey Rea said:


> In fact this conversation is being facilitated and has sat at the top of the thread board for quite some time.


But I worry, when we're finished and done discussing lean dosing - what are we all going to do with our lives?


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Hi, @MichaelJ You have commented several times that basically what you want is to grow some difficult plants. Maybe you have mentioned the plants but I don't remember seeing which. What's the list of those plants?


Hi @Hanuman,

@Yugang asked me that as well, here is what I put in the experimental tank so far:

Rotala Colorata
Rotala Wallichii
Ammannia Senegalensis
Ammannia Sulawesi
Alternanthera Rosanervig

I specifically picked these plants because they are all plants I have tried before and failed with, while everything else in the tank, mostly plants in the easy category did very well.

Whats your take?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Rotala Colorata
> Rotala Wallichii
> Ammannia Senegalensis
> Ammannia Sulawesi
> Alternanthera Rosanervig


I have only grown the 2 first ones which grew perfectly fine in my medium/high light, high CO2 setup. They are not particularly picky to me. They actually grew like weed up to point I decided to remove them as too much maintenance. At that time I was using APT Complete if memory serves me well.



For the Ammania and Alternanthera Rosanervig I have never grown any of those so can't say.
I am growing Rotala Wallichii again in my new setup and this time I am using a DIY fert that basically is ~ an APT EI clone.  Co2 still high, rich substrate, RO as above. Rotala Wallichii is still growing as weed. The one in the foreground is actually a small specimen that I picked up at a street shop selling plant pots (0 relation to aquatics). I thought the plant had an interesting structure and experimented in putting in my tank. The one at the back is actually a branded Rotala Wallichii sold by APC. They are virtually identical to me. One was free the other was 10 euros!



Some pics of the transformation process from emersed to submersed.


 

 





MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Sudipta Just looked at Amazon.... plenty to choose from, what specific Osmocote product are you using?


My only comment on this would be that any would work. Simply chose one that has no traces in it.


----------



## ElleDee

Sudipta said:


> I don't think that it will be difficult to replicate my results by most people who can run a high-tech tank successfully. I have provided all the information regarding my setups to the best of my knowledge. I will more than happy to any further clarification.
> I know atleast 5 people who have recently started a tank similar to mine and they are getting decent results.  I will encourage them to post their tank pics sometime soon.


I look forward to there being more data points, and I'm especially interested to see if there are deviations from your parameters that are nonetheless successful. You've definitely inspired me to take my new builds in this direction, though I don't know right now if I am able to check every box.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> I have only grown the 2 first ones which grew perfectly fine in my medium/high light, high CO2 setup. They are not particularly picky to me. They actually grew like weed up to point I decided to remove them as too much maintenance. At that time I was using APT Complete if memory serves me well.
> View attachment 186653
> For the Ammania and Alternanthera Rosanervig I have never grown any of those so can't say.
> I am growing Rotala Wallichii again in my new setup and this time I am using a DIY fert that basically is ~ an APT EI clone.  Co2 still high, rich substrate, RO as above. Rotala Wallichii is still growing as weed. The one in the foreground is actually a small specimen that I picked up at a street shop selling plant pots (0 relation to aquatics). I thought the plant had an interesting structure and experimented in putting in my tank. The one at the back is actually a branded Rotala Wallichii sold by APC. They are virtually identical to me. One was free the other was 10 euros!
> View attachment 186654
> Some pics of the transformation process from emersed to submersed.
> View attachment 186655 View attachment 186656 View attachment 186657
> 
> 
> My only comment on this would be that any would work. Simply chose one that has no traces in it.


Very nice!


----------



## erwin123

Agree that Rotala Wallchii is a weed. Good for vacuuming up those nitrates.  Even though I'm not 'lean dosing', maybe I have even less nitrates in water column than lean dosers given the amount of Wallichii (and R. Blood red - the 2 fastest growers in my tank) then I'm tossing from my tank after every trim. 😅

After 3 weeks, I think my APC Rotala Wallichiis have converted - while they look similar to my current Wallichiis in term of colour (i..e. stems have turned red), they are slightly 'smaller' width wise.  I will wait for the sideshoots to appear as new sideshoots will usually indicate the final 'form' of the plant in my tank.


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> I specifically picked these plants because they are all plants I have tried before and failed with,


What exactly was the problem because saying you failed is actually rather broad. If you have detailed this already please link it here so not to waste your time repeating the same thing.


----------



## Yugang

Hanuman said:


> What exactly was the problem because saying you failed is actually rather broad. If you have detailed this already please link it here so not to waste your time repeating the same thing.





MichaelJ said:


> Rotala Colorata
> Rotala Wallichii
> Ammannia Senegalensis
> Ammannia Sulawesi
> Alternanthera Rosanervig



Forgive me my ignorance - have these plants  already been kept successfully in non-CO2 injected tanks? And if so, with what dosing? 
I am asking this as I wonder if @MichaelJ , using no CO2, is actually pushing the boundaries of low-tech with more demanding plants (which would be very exciting)?


----------



## Hanuman

GreggZ said:


> LOL doesn't sound _too _terribly hard!!! Well if you did it you would be the first. Like many outliers I am guessing it _will _be terribly hard to duplicate, but I am all for you trying. This tank has fascinated me for some time now and I would really love to see someone else to able to repeat the results.


Honestly I think that's disputable. It all depends what you put in the word "difficult". I don't think it is difficult to achieve that result BUT, and here is the thing, it will take a far much longer time and patience than if you went full high tech. High tech people me included, are used to get instant or near instant gratification since things grow so fast even after trimming and uprooting. In Sudipta's case it takes a good amount of patience and to me that's probably the most difficult thing. Adding ferts, putting some osmocote here and there, changing water etc etc are all common denominators to any aquarist.


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> Perfect! Those are the ones that came up in my 1st Amazon search. Just wanted to make sure!   Thanks a bunch @Sudipta, I think this bit might be crucial for my experiment.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


You don't need them for the first couple of months if you are using Ammonia rich aquasoil.


MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Hanuman,
> 
> @Yugang asked me that as well, here is what I put in the experimental tank so far:
> 
> Rotala Colorata
> Rotala Wallichii
> Ammannia Senegalensis
> Ammannia Sulawesi
> Alternanthera Rosanervig
> 
> I specifically picked these plants because they are all plants I have tried before and failed with, while everything else in the tank, mostly plants in the easy category did very well.
> 
> Whats your take?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I have grown all of these plants in my non-CO2 setups except colorata (just another rotundifolia variant, should be easy to grow). I keep H'ra and it looks great.
Correct name for _Ammania sulawasi_ is _Cuphea anagalloidea_.
These are some pictures from my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks.










MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Hanuman,
> 
> @Yugang asked me that as well, here is what I put in the experimental tank so far:
> 
> Rotala Colorata
> Rotala Wallichii
> Ammannia Senegalensis
> Ammannia Sulawesi
> Alternanthera Rosanervig
> 
> I specifically picked these plants because they are all plants I have tried before and failed with, while everything else in the tank, mostly plants in the easy category did very well.
> 
> Whats your take?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


----------



## Hanuman

@Sudipta I mentioned in another post that it would also be good for the sake of completeness and fairness if you also posted pictures of your tank when things aren't that pretty. If I understood well those pics basically represent the paroxysm of the tank. What about when you uproot, trim and temps are on the hotter side? Showing those would also allow full disclosure on your tank's complexity. It is human to only show the good side of things and so there is no blame in what I am asking, but to cool everyone off it would be good to show the dark side of things.


----------



## Yugang

Sudipta said:


> You don't need them for the first couple of months if you are using Ammonia rich aquasoil.
> 
> I have grown all of these plants in my non-CO2 setups except colorata (just another rotundifolia variant, should be easy to grow). I keep H'ra and it looks great.
> Correct name for _Ammania sulawasi_ is _Cuphea anagalloidea_.
> These are some pictures from my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks.View attachment 186660View attachment 186661View attachment 186662View attachment 186663


I now feel totally depressed with my high tech tank. How to get that plant health, and pearling, without CO2? Amazing.


----------



## Yugang

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Hanuman,
> 
> @Yugang asked me that as well, here is what I put in the experimental tank so far:
> 
> Rotala Colorata
> Rotala Wallichii
> Ammannia Senegalensis
> Ammannia Sulawesi
> Alternanthera Rosanervig
> 
> I specifically picked these plants because they are all plants I have tried before and failed with, while everything else in the tank, mostly plants in the easy category did very well.
> 
> Whats your take?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


If I may still annoy you a bit @MichaelJ , I would suggest you state really clearly whether or not you will include CO2 in your setup. I know currently you're not....

I believe if we throw both high tech CO2 injected tanks, as well as low tech tanks into the same discussion we are comparing apples and oranges and another cause for some confusion.


----------



## Hanuman

Yugang said:


> now feel totally depressed with my high tech tank. How to get that plant health, and pearling, without CO2? Amazing.


The short and quick answer for the pearling is the higher light.
All parameters and condition of the tank aside, what is your tank temperature? Honestly I think that's one of the most overlooked parameters. Keep it a 24C or so, decrease your CO2 and you should be getting similar results. I am doing a lot of shortcuts here obviously but temps can solve or create problem easily.


----------



## Sudipta

Hanuman said:


> @Sudipta I mentioned in another post that it would also be good for the sake of completeness and fairness if you also posted pictures of your tank when things aren't that pretty. If I understood well those pics basically represent the paroxysm of the tank. What about when you uproot, trim and temps are on the hotter side? Showing those would also allow full disclosure on your tank's complexity. It is human to only show the good side of things and so there is no blame in what I am asking, but to cool everyone off it would be good to show the dark side of things.


I agree that I haven't posted any pictures showing algae problems or other issues. However, I did mention in my original post at TPT how I struggled with alage when I setup the 20 gal tank. Unfortunately, I didn't take any pictures back then. Here are couple of pictures showing bba in my 20 gal tank (2 years ago) and hydra in my 4 gal setup  (1 year ago, treated with fenbendazole). Another image showing my failed attempt to grow _Eriocaulon quinquangulare_ in my non-CO2 setups. I have tried multiple times but haven't succeeded yet (I was able to keep one alive for 3 months, my best so far). Another such plant is _Hygrophila _'Chai'. I have never said that I can grow any plant without pressurized CO2 injection but


 I have also demonstrated that many so called high-tech plants can be grown successfully in non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks.

I have said this several times that I do get occasional algae (mostly in summer time coupled with my negligence as I spend more time outside during weekends and holidays photographing wildlife and nature. I have also noticed that I face algae issues if I don't clean the filter regularly even though I hardly miss weekly water change (not a big surprise here).
I spot treat BBA with a freshly prepared 1:1 mixture of H2O2 and excel. 
*







*


----------



## LondonDragon

Again very little evidence of what has been done, no mention of photoperiod duration etc... also performing water changes every day 2 hours into the photoperiod (as suggested in another thread) does introduce a certain level of CO2 into the tank!


----------



## Hanuman

Sudipta said:


> I agree that I haven't posted any pictures showing algae problems or other issues. However, I did mention in my original post at TPT how I struggled with alage when I setup the 20 gal tank. Unfortunately, I didn't take any pictures back then. Here are couple of pictures showing bba in my 20 gal tank (2 years ago) and hydra in my 4 gal setup (1 year ago, treated with fenbendazole). Another image showing my failed attempt to grow _Eriocaulon quinquangulare_ in my non-CO2 setups. I have tried multiple times but haven't succeeded yet (I was able to keep one alive for 3 months, my best so far). Another such plant is _Hygrophila _'Chai'. I have never said that I can grow any plant without pressurized CO2 injection but I have also demonstrated that many so called high-tech plants can be grown successfully in non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks.
> 
> I have said this several times that I do get occasional algae (mostly in summer time coupled with my negligence as I spend more time outside during weekends and holidays photographing wildlife and nature. I have also noticed that I face algae issues if I don't clean the filter regularly even though I hardly miss weekly water change (not a big surprise here).
> I spot treat BBA with a freshly prepared 1:1 mixture of H2O2 and excel.[/B]



But the reality is that you could write 3 pages long of ugly stuff about the tank, then post a picture of the tank at its prime. Which one do you think people will remember? That’s exactly what is happening. Although in the back of people’s mind we all know a tank cannot be as beautiful as the picture shows all the time, the picture tends to stick and we forget that this is just the top of the iceberg.

I can only say one thing: good job for the patience and dedication you have put into this tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> What exactly was the problem because saying you failed is actually rather broad. If you have detailed this already please link it here so not to waste your time repeating the same thing.


Hi @Hanuman  I don’t think I ever  documented the situation here on UKAPS. It was back in the day when I was just lurking around before signing up. I definitely didn't do very low KH/GH, lower pH, lower temps.  Off the top of my head I think I had my low-tech tanks at ~7 GH/KH, 7.2-7.4 pH and 77-78 F back then and my tanks weren't  as stable as they are now.  The plants would begin to struggle after a short while, loose their leaves and eventually just died off. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Djoko Sauza

Yugang said:


> But I worry, when we're finished and done discussing lean dosing - what are we all going to do with our lives?


Lean substrate pros and cons ofc!


----------



## MichaelJ

LondonDragon said:


> Again very little evidence of what has been done, no mention of photoperiod duration etc...


Hi @LondonDragon  I assume you might have missed  what  @Sudipta confirmed was his approach - and his follow-up posts.  Lots of specifics in my book!

Yes, @Sudipta  didn't specify photo period - I would like to know that too!! 👍

Let me know what "etc..." you think are missing? so I can ask @Sudipta



LondonDragon said:


> also performing water changes every day 2 hours into the photoperiod (as suggested in another thread) does introduce a certain level of CO2 into the tank!


He is doing 40% weekly!  ... If that "CO2 injection" amounts to anything other than instability I suppose a heck of a lot of people here could save a ton of dough on CO2 equipment 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Tim Harrison

Yugang said:


> Catching up in early morning hours in hk, great discussion and I believe real progress.
> 
> 
> I agree 100%. Yet sometimes, like in our hobby, it will be very hard to conduct real science experiments, does that mean that studying a well documented case is not useful at all? Take the _science_ of economics, with their own 'laws' and hypothesis. Virtually none of them has been 'scientifically' tested, but how many books have been published on the 1929 Great Depression? When science cannot be packed in a test-tube, this is where the art of pragmatism comes in
> 
> 
> Can't agree more, also asked for by many, and for our hobby I believe this is best practice. Looking forward!


Precisely my point, and thanks for expanding on it. Since the word experiment has been thrown about I just wanted to make it clear to other members that any investigation using this method of fertz dosing won’t be particularly scientific. It is at best a non-empirical case study.

Non-empirical methods use current events, personal observations, and subjectivity to draw conclusions. Whereas good science employs empirical  methods which are objective, and are the results of a quantitative evaluation that produces a theory.


----------



## Easternlethal

Hanuman said:


> I have only grown the 2 first ones which grew perfectly fine in my medium/high light, high CO2 setup. They are not particularly picky to me. They actually grew like weed up to point I decided to remove them as too much maintenance. At that time I was using APT Complete if memory serves me well.
> View attachment 186653
> For the Ammania and Alternanthera Rosanervig I have never grown any of those so can't say.
> I am growing Rotala Wallichii again in my new setup and this time I am using a DIY fert that basically is ~ an APT EI clone.  Co2 still high, rich substrate, RO as above. Rotala Wallichii is still growing as weed. The one in the foreground is actually a small specimen that I picked up at a street shop selling plant pots (0 relation to aquatics). I thought the plant had an interesting structure and experimented in putting in my tank. The one at the back is actually a branded Rotala Wallichii sold by APC. They are virtually identical to me. One was free the other was 10 euros!
> View attachment 186654
> Some pics of the transformation process from emersed to submersed.
> View attachment 186655 View attachment 186656 View attachment 186657
> 
> 
> My only comment on this would be that any would work. Simply chose one that has no traces in it.


see this is why i don't want to put up a journal of my tank


----------



## Yugang

Tim Harrison said:


> Non-empirical methods use current events, personal observations, and subjectivity to draw conclusions. Whereas good science employs empirical methods which are objective, and are the results of a quantitative evaluation that produces a theory.



So would we dismiss Economy as a Science?  If a theory, or hypothesis can not be perfectly scientifically tested, could it still have some potential value? Would it make sense to still try oit an hypothesis, be it in an imperfect world?

This is why I stated...


Yugang said:


> When science cannot be packed in a test-tube, this is where the art of pragmatism comes in



Lean dosing cannot be scientifically tested. That is the bad news. But we can have a constructive discussion how to set up @MichaelJ  case study to learn more. This means  giving ideas to @MichaelJ and @Happi , rather than to challenge them or dismiss the idea that is yet to be matured. They are the only ones with skin in the game.

After hundreds of postings,  have we correctly framed what we are actually discussing, supporting or challenging? What is lean, in the context of this thread?

Do we have a full description and plan what @MichaelJ and others will be doing? In a perfect science world you call that design of experiment, but this forum dismisses this concept with the argument that we can't do science anyway. Ok, fine, then no design or experiment, no science -- so what is next best and practical? (Indeed, a journal  )

My humble observation is that I see  contributions in this thread (and I am not pointing to any particular person, please don't feel offended) where we use our creativity to dismiss an idea that is perhaps immature, yet interesting and potentially valuable. Some  go like 'this is nothing new', some go like 'look what I did, although a bit different', some go like 'this cannot be scientifically tested', some go like 'there is an easier way to do this'. I believe the higher art of science is to build on imperfect ideas, imperfect methods, be constructive and see what comes out of it. We have really nothing to lose, why would anyone be so defensive?

I will not be annoying you anymore, hope nobody feels offended as this is not meant to address any particular posting. I hope it makes us think how to focus, and give contructive support.


----------



## Hanuman

Easternlethal said:


> see this is why i don't want to put up a journal of my tank



You might want to elaborate because honestly I don’t get it.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Hanuman said:


> You might want to elaborate because honestly I don’t get it.


quoted the wrong post perhaps? @Easternlethal


----------



## erwin123

Yugang said:


> So would we dismiss Economy as a Science?  If a theory, or hypothesis can not be perfectly scientifically tested, could it still have some potential value? Would it make sense to still try oit an hypothesis, be it in an imperfect world?


Economics is the dismal science. Bias and reproducibility are two big problems. Sound familiar? By the way I am a huge fan of economics but I consider myself a loving critic - its way too politicised in some countries


----------



## aquanoobie

Tim Harrison said:


> I just wanted to make it clear to other members that any investigation using this method of fertz dosing won’t be particularly scientific.


Hi all
Are there any scientifically proven research papers on other fertilizing methods?


----------



## Yugang

erwin123 said:


> Economics is the dismal science. Bias and reproducibility are two big problems. Sound familiar? By the way I am a huge fan of economics but I consider myself a loving critic - its way too politicised in some countries


Hope you still get my key message?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


aquanoobie said:


> Are there any scientifically proven research papers on other fertilizing methods?


Not really, commercial producers of aquarium plants <"use emersed growing methods"> and commercial hydroponics is all about the <"economic balance"> between expenditure and  <"maximising yield">.

There would be data from <"phytoremediation in ponds"> and <"constructed wetlands">, but it is often about toxicity and the favoured plants are floating (or emergent) to access aerial CO2. There is a lot of work on Rice (_Oryza sativa_), but again it mainly looks at avoiding toxicity and <"maximising yield">*.

* Moe, K.; Htwe, A.Z.; Thu, T.T.P.; Kajihara, Y.; Yamakawa, T.  (2019 )"Effects on NPK Status, Growth, Dry Matter and Yield of Rice (_Oryza sativa_) by Organic Fertilizers Applied in Field Condition. *Agriculture*  9, 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9050109

cheers Darrel


----------



## Easternlethal

Hanuman said:


> You might want to elaborate because honestly I don’t get it.


Just trying to pay a compliment

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## aquanoobie

dw1305 said:


> Not really, commercial producers of aquarium plants <"use emersed growing methods"> and commercial hydroponics is all about the <"economic balance"> between expenditure and <"maximising yield">.


Thank you @dw1305


----------



## Ria95

I see quite a bit of oppressed/censored victim play here in a transparent attempt to distract from the sporadic and less well documented data. Funny claims when admins/mods are literally  called out and being overly polite about it. If your post is still there you could have done something more fruitful with it and post the progress of actual growing plants with the lean dosing application. I've yet to see the journal being deleted because it was using the 'lean method' and there is little chance somebody is sneaking in at night to add extra NO3 to your tanks to sabotage your efforts. Critical thinking is a feature not a bug of a free society.

As this thread is about practical application of lean fertilizing, here is an example practical application. I'm using NO3 as a proxy to keep things easy to read.

 Adding 3.5 ppm NO3 per  week ( actual NO3 not NH4 or urea, thats leaner than Hapy is suggesting  ) -  It's lean right ?
but I only did 50% water change every 30 days... well 3.5 ppm NO3 per week is still lean right?
and I front load for the entire month right after the water change  15ppm NO3... well 3.5 ppm NO3 per week is still lean right?
after the one macro dose at the start, water is at around  25 ppm NO3 ... well it will get down in time , maybe not so lean 
that's about it for dosing. Except it isn't ... fish feeding was rather heavy and plant uptake apparently pretty much matched  fish nitrogenous waste production ...hmm
at the end of the month the tank's water was frequently between 20 and 30 ppm  NO3 ... well that's not lean.
Do plants care that I lean dose fertilizers or do they care more about the nutrient concentration available in the aquarium? Is this a practical application of lean dosing or an adaptation of EI with less water changes ?


----------



## Hanuman

Easternlethal said:


> Just trying to pay a compliment


🙏 - Honestly I don't consider my tank to be nice at all. It's just a mishmash of plants. There is no much structure in my tank. I keep removing/adding plants just because I am curious to see how they grow. That's it really. I'm not so much interested in making a nice scape. I've tried it and I'm not good at it.
You should do a journal. It's really mostly for you at the end to keep track of things. I should have done it years ago.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Tim Harrison said:


> Non-empirical methods use current events, personal observations, and subjectivity to draw conclusions. Whereas good science employs empirical methods which are objective, and are the results of a quantitative evaluation that produces a theory.





Yugang said:


> So would we dismiss Economy as a Science? If a theory, or hypothesis can not be perfectly scientifically tested, could it still have some potential value? Would it make sense to still try oit an hypothesis, be it in an imperfect world?


Firstly, I deliberately refrained from making any value judgements in the above statement. It is simply a matter of fact. Whether it has value to you or anyone else, and what you think it may imply are again matters of opinion and really non of my business.

Secondly, I'm unsure whether your questions are  rhetorical. Either way they're very philosophical, and therefore a matter of opinion. Which, again, is the point I am making.



Yugang said:


> Lean dosing cannot be scientifically tested. That is the bad news. But we can have a constructive discussion how to set up @MichaelJ case study to learn more. This means giving ideas to @MichaelJ and @Happi , rather than to challenge them or dismiss the idea that is yet to be matured. They are the only ones with skin in the game.


In its most basic form a discussion is a means of reaching a decision or exchanging ideas. If as you say @MichaelJ  and @Happi are the only ones with skin in the game then there is no discussion. UKAPS is an open forum where members are free to exchange and challenge opinions and ideas, and even dismiss them with creativity if they so wish, _without censorship_.

UKAPS is not an echochamber. If you'd like an environment in which your beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system and insulated from rebuttal, you are free to take your "discussion" elsewhere.



Yugang said:


> the idea that is yet to be matured





Yugang said:


> After hundreds of postings, have we correctly framed what we are actually discussing, supporting or challenging? What is lean, in the context of this thread?





Yugang said:


> Do we have a full description and plan what @MichaelJ and others will be doing?


We have two mamath threads on the subject that differ by name only, and yet you are still no closer to answering those questions. Why do you think that is?



Yugang said:


> We have really nothing to lose, why would anyone be so defensive?


I'm unsure as to whether this is a another rhetorical question, but I'll throw it back at you anyway. Why _would_ anyone be so defensive? Could it be they have something to loose?


----------



## KirstyF

Sudipta said:


> I have said this several times that I do get occasional algae (mostly in summer time coupled with my negligence as I spend more time outside during weekends and holidays photographing wildlife and nature. I have also noticed that I face algae issues if I don't clean the filter regularly even though I hardly miss weekly water change (not a big surprise here).


Hi @Sudipta 

Just a couple of quick queries. 

Do you heat/cool your tanks to maintain fairly consistent temps now or are you getting natural seasonal variations? 

And… is there a temperature at which you find algae issues notably increase? 

Just curious to see if you have personally found an optimal temp for ‘smooth running’


----------



## plantnoobdude

Yugang said:


> What is lean, in the context of this thread?


now I will try to answer these questions. 
The aim is to provide nutrients in ratios close to that of what scientific data reports. to promote healthy plant growth and over many different species and minimal growth of algae. while paying attention to ratios, chelators and nutrient antagonism and it's effect.
ultimately, this may include the use of ammoniacal nitrogen compounds, such as nh4no3, or urea and different chelators/none. 
in an Ideal scenario, this will reduce water changes and put less stress on co2 demand.


Yugang said:


> Do we have a full description and plan what @MichaelJ and others will be doing?


I will try and describe it.
N weekly  values, 
for high tech, 1-3ppm N weekly depending on plant mass. for low tech, can be less. this will be mostly from nh4/urea. 
P something like 0.1 to 0.4ppm weekly.
K this one is tricky, but I will say anywhere from 0.6ppm K to 3ppm K should be sufficient if running a tank with very little N from other sources (substrate, fish load). but you may need more to balance with Mg or high fish load, rich substrate.

micros. 
anywhere from 0.05~0.2ppm range Fe weekly as proxy. in some cases we may need to add more due to high kh, or gh.
Mn: focus on maintaining roughly 2:1 ratio of Fe:Mn.

rich substrate if youd like.
high light
low/moderate co2.


----------



## aquanoobie

plantnoobdude said:


> N weekly values,
> for high tech, 1-3ppm N weekly depending on plant mass. for low tech, can be less. this will be mostly from nh4/urea.
> P something like 0.1 to 0.4ppm weekly.


For those of us using NO3 and PO4 systems, 1 - 3 ppm N weekly have the same quantity of nitrogen as 4.4 - 13.3 ppm NO3. And 0.1 - 0.4 ppm P weekly is 0.3 - 1.2 ppm PO4.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

plantnoobdude said:


> I will try and describe it.
> N weekly values,
> for high tech, 1-3ppm N weekly depending on plant mass. for low tech, can be less. this will be mostly from nh4/urea.
> P something like 0.1 to 0.4ppm weekly.
> K this one is tricky, but I will say anywhere from 0.6ppm K to 3ppm K should be sufficient if running a tank with very little N from other sources (substrate, fish load). but you may need more to balance with Mg or high fish load, rich substrate.
> 
> micros.
> anywhere from 0.05~0.2ppm range Fe weekly as proxy. in some cases we may need to add more due to high kh, or gh.
> Mn: focus on maintaining roughly 2:1 ratio of Fe:Mn.



So where does this differ from Tropica’s TPN+ then?  🤷🏻‍♂️ 








plantnoobdude said:


> 1-3ppm N weekly



Check ✅ 



plantnoobdude said:


> P something like 0.1 to 0.4ppm weekly



Check ✅ 



plantnoobdude said:


> K this one is tricky, but I will say anywhere from 0.6ppm K to 3ppm K



Check ✅ 



plantnoobdude said:


> anywhere from 0.05~0.2ppm range Fe weekly



Check ✅ 



plantnoobdude said:


> Mn: focus on maintaining roughly 2:1 ratio of Fe:Mn



Check ✅

Have raised this query before and got blown off. You’ve described Tropica TPN+ …


----------



## plantnoobdude

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Have raised this query before and got blown off. You’ve described Tropica TPN+ …


yes, TPN works well and Happis dosing is quite similar to TPN. I haven't said it;s different from TPN, infact his micros are based off of tpn and many of the ratio he uses are quite similar. that is why @MichaelJ is using TPN in his tank currently. as for your query being blown off, I apologize, I must've missed it.


----------



## MichaelJ

Tim Harrison said:


> We have two mamath threads on the subject that differ by name only.and yet you are still no closer to answering those questions. Why do you think that is?



Hi Tim, That is not the case in my opinion. Here are the specifics for my experiment:

NO CO2 injection
RO+DI water remineralized to <1 KH and ~4 GH (my RO+DI water almost always sits for 24 hours before I use it)
pH 6.2-6.4 (I will probably lower my pH to 6.0 or just a smidge under)
Temperature at 23 C
Low water column dosing - targeting ~1 ppm of N weekly using Tropica Specialized (NH4NO3).
Mature substrate about 7 cm deep.
Osmocote root tabs containing NH4 every month or two (in very small quantities)
Light:  Start lower 40 PAR and eventually adjust up to +120 PAR at the substrate level (I don't have a PAR meter so I'll have to guesstimate this - or get a cheap one).
Weekly 40% WC
No uprooting
Plenty of circulation/filtration to provide adequate CO2/Oxygen/nutrient distribution.
12 hour photo period (I may have to dial that down to 8-10 hours or less, let's see).

Courtesy of  @Happi, @Sudipta and others.

As for the _scientific fitness_ of this approach, it sort of gives me at least a _tiny bit of confidence_ that this approach have been applied successfully by a fellow hobbyist who also happens to be an active research scientist in the field of biochemistry  and furthermore, that the approach have been applied by at least 5 others of his fellow hobbyists with _decent results_ - not to mention @Happi, @macek.g @plantnoobdude and probably others on this forums who might not even care to participate in this discussion.

Get over it, this _topic_ of low-CO2/low dosing/high-light is not going away! 

And NO! this approach is NOT for beginners or casual hobbyists! We have plenty of information here on UKAPS on mainstream and well-understood methods for growing aquatic plants in both low-tech and high-tech aquariums with far fewer prerequisites! 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Tim Harrison

Well done. Look forward to regular updates through your well documented journal 😉


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Right… Think I follow @plantnoobdude

So you’re up to where @JamesC was in 2008 on this forum fourteen years ago:






						Tropica TPN+ match using ammonium nitrate
					

Been playing with my calculator again and come up with an almost exact match for Tropica's TPN+. Rather than use potassium nitrate for a source of nitrogen I have used ammonium nitrate which is what I'm led to believe is what is in TPN+. Using ammonium nitrate seems to tie all the figures in...



					ukaps.org
				




James’ Planted Tank website also outlines in plain instructions how to create 1KH 5GH water using RO:



			James' Planted Tank - Re-mineralising RO Water
		


Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t “dose 2.33ml of TPN+ per 100 litres per day “ and “use James’ Planted Tank remineralisation instructions to standardise your water” be more easily communicated rather than:



plantnoobdude said:


> I will try and describe it.
> N weekly values,
> for high tech, 1-3ppm N weekly depending on plant mass. for low tech, can be less. this will be mostly from nh4/urea.
> P something like 0.1 to 0.4ppm weekly.
> K this one is tricky, but I will say anywhere from 0.6ppm K to 3ppm K should be sufficient if running a tank with very little N from other sources (substrate, fish load). but you may need more to balance with Mg or high fish load, rich substrate.
> 
> micros.
> anywhere from 0.05~0.2ppm range Fe weekly as proxy. in some cases we may need to add more due to high kh, or gh.
> Mn: focus on maintaining roughly 2:1 ratio of Fe:Mn.



Then you can just instruct folks who want to try this method to use:



plantnoobdude said:


> high light
> low/moderate co2



Whatever those figures are and however you choose to measure them. Then see what happens in other peoples tanks?


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

MichaelJ said:


> Get over it, this _topic_ of low-CO2/low dosing/high-light is not going away!



You alright there @MichaelJ ?

You appear to be having a moment.


----------



## MichaelJ

Geoffrey Rea said:


> You alright there @MichaelJ ?
> 
> You appear to be having a moment.


No, I am all-right. Thanks for asking @Geoffrey Rea!


----------



## MichaelJ

Geoffrey Rea said:


> So where does this differ from Tropica’s TPN+


Hi @Geoffrey Rea & @plantnoobdude    Excuse my ignorance what  is Tropica TPN+  ? -  I that what Tropica Specialized used to be called in the UK or something?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## LondonDragon

MichaelJ said:


> Tropica TPN+ ? - I that what Tropica Specialized used to be called in the UK or something?


It was its original name 😉


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Geoffrey Rea & @plantnoobdude    Excuse my ignorance what  is Tropica TPN+  ? -  I that what Tropica Specialized used to be called in the UK or something?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



TPN+ = Tropica Plant Nutrition Plus

This is why there is some head scratching occurring @MichaelJ

The ‘Happi Dosing Method’ is TPN+ dosing at recommended levels for high tech systems with extra confusion (descriptions across a thousand posts plus, two threads and from different members).

Did ask at the beginning of the last thread whether TPN+ was what was being referred to as a proxy for lean dosing…  ALL the way back in the beginning.

Then it’s suggested (I think, not quite sure) that this could then be combined with no Co2 and high light to test? Is that appraisal correct?

Tanks with those attributes have found themselves regularly in the ‘algae help’ section before, hence why we’re in dialogue asking _how  _this lean dosing thingy me jiggy is different? Then Sudipta’s tank…

@GreggZ suggestion of investigating the tank  @Sudipta has running gives you an example of a tank with attributes you’re interested in, ready made. Definitely seems like the tank to focus on if the above appraisal is correct and you are both local to each other.

You stated what @Sudipta does already:



MichaelJ said:


> This is my key takeaways from the @Sudipta setup:
> 
> 
> No CO2 injection
> RO-DI water Remineralized to 0-1 KH and about 6 GH,
> pH approx. 5.75.
> low 70'ties temperature (I suppose this could be 73F ?)
> Very low water column nutrients <5 ppm nitrate, phosphate <1 ppm.
> Rich ADA Amazonia approx. 3 inch. deep
> Ammonia containing root tabs ever 1-2 months. (no word on specific product or amount/sq area)
> Nilocg ThriveS ("very small amounts of N and P, but decent K, Fe etc.") - (no exact info on dosing schedule, but can be deduced from the <5 ppm of nitrate I suppose)
> Light: Chihiros wrgb2 120-150+ PAR at the substrate level!
> Weekly 40% WC with gentle substrate cleaning
> No/infrequent uprooting
> Somewhat oversized filtration (HOB) (supposedly to provide adequate flow of co2/nutrient distribution.)



To which he agrees:



Sudipta said:


> Everything seems correct to me.



And added:



Sudipta said:


> I would just like to add that precycling the tank without lights for couple of weeks (even more for ADA Amazonia V1) will help a lot to discourage diatoms and thread algae.
> 
> Once the Ammonia reading is around 1ppm or lower then it should be safe to plant. You would still have to do frequent water changes intially after planting (2-3 times a week, 70% or more) for another couple of weeks if you are using Amazonia ver 1.
> 
> Keep the lights low (about 25% intensity, probably around 30 PAR at the substrate) for couple of weeks after planting and then increase slowly with time. If you plant dense (some fast growing stems will help a lot) then you should not face any major algae issues intially.
> 
> I have tried Osmocote with good results. I am still using Osmocote is some of my tanks. However, I am also using ADA bottom plus in my smaller tanks. I think they both work equally well. Both have high amounts of Ammonia.



He isn’t using TPN+ dosing though, so struggling to understand why that keeps appearing. Many would argue, and have argued, that the substrate matters an awful lot. But then there’s comments that say it’s optional:



plantnoobdude said:


> rich substrate if youd like.



High ammonia containing soils also have drawbacks at startup, which once again @Sudipta has kindly let us know about, but he doesn’t say that was a cause of algal problems, that’s my own interpretation:



Sudipta said:


> I agree that I haven't posted any pictures showing algae problems or other issues. However, I did mention in my original post at TPT how I struggled with alage when I setup the 20 gal tank.



He does say pre-cycling the tank without lights is important (dark start) until ammonia levels are around 1ppm before planting, which one would assume is to prevent algal problems.

Supposedly you are using TPN+ dosing as well @MichaelJ unless @plantnoobdude is mistaken:



plantnoobdude said:


> that is why @MichaelJ is using TPN in his tank currently.



There seems to be all sorts of interpretations flying about which is a little confusing to say the least.

Journals are concise and only from the authors mouth which is why that suggestion keeps coming up, to mitigate any confusion.

If you aren’t using TPN+ then the suggestion in post #248 is also pointless 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## MichaelJ

Again, there is *no such product called TPN+*  It's called *Tropica Specialised Nutrition*. (or Tropica Specialized for us savages that doesn't speak English) Its highly confusing we are discussing non-existing products - at least for my feeble mind... (Yes, @Geoffrey Rea I am still all-right but I might be getting close to having a moment here  )

Here are some hard facts:

The guaranteed analysis that @Zeus. pulled up from 2013 (9 years ago!)  @Zeus., Thanks for that btw. ! -  is referring to a product called Tropica Plant Growth Specialised Fertilizer.  with 1.3% N

And further @Hanuman's inquiry into the matter - thanks for that too - also refers to Tropica Specialized Nutrition. also with 1.3% N

EDIT: Fixed above links!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Again, there is *no such product called TPN+* It's called *Tropica Specialised Nutrition*. (or Tropica Specialized for us savages that doesn't speak English) Its highly confusing we are discussing non-existing products - at least for my feeble mind... (Yes, @Geoffrey Rea I am still all-right but I might be getting close to having a moment here  )


apologies!


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

MichaelJ said:


> Again, there is *no such product called TPN+*



Ta daa…. 🪄






						Tropica TPN+ match using ammonium nitrate
					

Been playing with my calculator again and come up with an almost exact match for Tropica's TPN+. Rather than use potassium nitrate for a source of nitrogen I have used ammonium nitrate which is what I'm led to believe is what is in TPN+. Using ammonium nitrate seems to tie all the figures in...



					ukaps.org
				




Rotala Butterfly Calculator wouldn’t agree, it’s there.

It was why I asked specifically which form of Tropica dosing Happi was referring to over a thousand posts ago. Formula changes… got ignored…

How to clone it:



			James' Planted Tank - All In One Solution
		


And it also matches the newly named, newly branded ‘Happi Dosing Method’ 🎉 :



Geoffrey Rea said:


> So where does this differ from Tropica’s TPN+ then?  🤷🏻‍♂️
> 
> View attachment 186701
> 
> 
> 
> Check ✅
> 
> 
> 
> Check ✅
> 
> 
> 
> Check ✅
> 
> 
> 
> Check ✅
> 
> 
> 
> Check ✅
> 
> Have raised this query before and got blown off. You’ve described Tropica TPN+ …



If all anyone wanted to see is how TPN+ performs under 1KH 5GH water and a dark green drop checker you only needed to check out the 1200 journal in the footnote.

Looked better under ADA though:





PS be careful ordering ammonium nitrate or you may find you gather some more fans of your thread 👮🏻 🚨


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> Yes, @Sudipta didn't specify photo period - I would like to know that too!!


7 hours every day for the 20 gal non-CO2 supplemented tank. This includes 30 minutes of ramp up and down times in the beginning and the end of photoperiod.


----------



## MichaelJ

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Ta daa…. 🪄


Ahhh... you got me there... I should have said no longer such product called TPN+


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

MichaelJ said:


> Ahhh... you got me there... I should have said no longer such product called TPN+



And that is why I asked the question way back when. Not trying to catch folks out, just want to know we’re talking about the same thing. 

Either way, Tropica moved on from that formula over a decade ago. Only make it now as some of the cottage plants do well with it and make 5 litres at a time.


----------



## Sudipta

KirstyF said:


> Hi @Sudipta
> 
> Just a couple of quick queries.
> 
> Do you heat/cool your tanks to maintain fairly consistent temps now or are you getting natural seasonal variations?
> 
> And… is there a temperature at which you find algae issues notably increase?
> 
> Just curious to see if you have personally found an optimal temp for ‘smooth running’


Hello @KirstyF,


KirstyF said:


> Do you heat/cool your tanks to maintain fairly consistent temps now or are you getting natural seasonal variations?


No I don't do anything to maintain a specific temperature in any of my tanks. They do get little cooler in winter time (around 70-72 F). The temperature during summer time stays around 74-76 F since I have installed air conditioning. I have recorded temperatures around 80F or slightly higher before installing the air conditioning during summer. This is when I have noticed issues with plant growth (significantly slower growth with suboptimal colors) and algae problems. However, I have also found out that frequent water changes help significantly to keep the plants healthy with minimum algae problems. I think I have mentioned it sometime ago that when I had to deal with velvet disease in my 10 gal tank. I raised the temperature to 84F along with adding medicine. I was worried about the plants because of that high temperature. So I decided to do 20% water change every day. I did that for 3 weeks and I noticed that the plants stayed very healthy and I didn't face any algae outbreak. I didn't keep a proper record of that because I was more scared about spreading the disease across my other tanks. However, I have no doubts that daily water changes helped significantly even at such high temperature (especially if you think about from a perspective of non-CO2 coupled with high light, I didn't decrease the light intensity during that time).

I think around 70-74F is a good range for keeping the plants healthy. However, I can also say there is no guarantee that you won't get algae if you keep the temperatures low. I have recently faced some bba and green dust algae issues in my 20 gal tank even though the temperature is around 70-72F for the last few months. It turned out that I didn't clean the filter for more than two months and I also let significant amount of moss grow on the wood (which is difficult to see sometimes because of massive plant and moss growth). I thoroughly cleaned the filter, removed a lot of moss, trimmed some of the affected plants, uprooted some plants to clean the substrate and also to allow some movement among the bunches. I also spot treated the slow growing plants with freshly mixed (1:1) solution of 3% H2O2 and excel.
These measures help significantly and it took me just couple of weeks to fix majority of the problems. The plants started to grow nicely again. There is still some algae left but it is manageable now.


----------



## MichaelJ

Sudipta said:


> 7 hours every day for the 20 gal non-CO2 supplemented tank. This includes 30 minutes of ramp up and down times in the beginning and the end of photoperiod.



Thanks @Sudipta ... I'll probably stretch that a couple of hours and see how it goes.

Also, just for clarification:  Do you use Osmocote Plus (NPK+traces) or just the Regular (NPK only) Osmocote in your non-CO2 setup?   I am uncertain how many of those balls I should put in?  I am aware your not totally keeping track of how many you using in your low-tech setups etc. as I also figure it depends on plant density and how they are doing otherwise, so I am just trying to put a _ballpark number on it_ say per square area... I am thinking perhaps 1-2 per balls per 5x5 inches (12 x 12 cm) in proximity to the stems every couple of month or so? 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> Thanks @Sudipta ... I'll probably stretch that a couple of hours and see how it goes.
> 
> Also, just for clarification:  Do you use Osmocote Plus (NPK+traces) or just the Regular (NPK only) Osmocote in your non-CO2 setup?   I am uncertain how many of those balls I should put in?  I am aware your not totally keeping track of how many you using in your low-tech setups etc. as I also figure it depends on plant density and how they are doing otherwise, so I am just trying to put a _ballpark number on it_ say per square area... I am thinking perhaps 1-2 per balls per 5x5 inches (12 x 12 cm) in proximity to the stems every couple of month or so?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I have used both and I have not seen any major differences.
You can use just the osmocote if you want since you will be dosing all in one liquid fertilizer which will have sufficient amounts of micro elements.
Yes you can add 1-2 osmocote balls distributed throughout the tank every couple of months. However, you might have to change the numbers and/or frequency depending on your plant mass along with their respective growth rate.

I am copying my exact reply to Happi regarding this same question here.
"Hello, I don't keep a record of how much root tabs I add every. Usually, I try to do it every couple of months usually under some of the faster growing demanding plants. However, I also put occasionally root tabs under the slower growing plants but again I do it in very irregular ways (I don't keep a good track record of it). I might try keeping some records from now on. I also change the root tabs from ADA bottom plus to osmocote from time to time. Again I don't do it systematically to tell the exact details. Honestly, I have yet to see major differences between my non-CO2 tanks despite me being quite irregular when it comes to addition of root tabs in all 4 of my setups. I think that growth rate of plants is significantly slower to show any major differences unless I don't add any root tabs or liquid fertilizer for several months."


----------



## Sudipta

Again, copying my response to @Happi  regarding dosage of ThriveS in my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks.

"20 gal non-CO2 tank - I add 3mL of ThriveS to my 20 gal tank right after water change (40-50% weekly). Then I try to add similar dose two more times before the next water change (one week). I think it is safer to say that I don't add more than 10 mL of ThriveS weekly.

10 gal non-CO2 tank - 1 mL (sometimes 2 mL) right after water change (70-80% weekly). Then I add 1mL another couple of times before the next water change. 
No more than 5 mL every week.

4 gal non-CO2 tank - 1mL right after water change (70-80% weekly). I try to add once more the same dose (1mL) before the next water change.
Less than 3mL weekly.

5 gal non-CO2 tank - Exactly as 4 gal tank.

I hope this will help."


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Sudipta said:


> "20 gal non-CO2 tank - I add 3mL of ThriveS to my 20 gal tank right after water change (40-50% weekly). Then I try to add similar dose two more times before the next water change (one week). I think it is safer to say that I don't add more than 10 mL of ThriveS weekly.
> 
> 10 gal non-CO2 tank - 1 mL (sometimes 2 mL) right after water change (70-80% weekly). Then I add 1mL another couple of times before the next water change.
> No more than 5 mL every week.
> 
> 4 gal non-CO2 tank - 1mL right after water change (70-80% weekly). I try to add once more the same dose (1mL) before the next water change.
> Less than 3mL weekly.
> 
> 5 gal non-CO2 tank - Exactly as 4 gal tank.
> 
> I hope this will help."



Hi @Sudipta

Would you estimate that dosing after plant tissues have been exposed to atmospheric levels of gases, with the water level dropped (40-50%, 70-80%, 70-80% and 70-80% respectively), with the plants loaded with oxygen and carbon dioxide primed for the Calvin cycle, combined with rich soil and water column dosing immediately after WC, is a main contributing factor to the plant forms you experience for the remainder of the week in your setups?

A second question if I may. Do you perform water changes on a regimented set day? Therefore, there’s only so many days that pass (e.g. seven days) between exposures?

A final third question.  Is the 2 and 1 more doses for the week on these tanks because you’ve experienced negative responses dosing more the further away you are from the atmospheric exposure?


----------



## Sudipta

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Would you estimate that dosing after plant tissues have been exposed to atmospheric levels of gases, with the water level dropped (40-50%, 70-80%, 70-80% and 70-80% respectively), with the plants loaded with oxygen and carbon dioxide primed for the Calvin cycle, combined with rich soil and water column dosing immediately after WC, is a main contributing factor to the plant forms you experience for the remainder of the week in your setups?


Hello Geoffrey,
I am not a plant scientist so I don't think that I will be able to correctly answer this question. However, I would love to read any scientific paper/evidence that would support your argument. Please send me any scientific article if you have.

Regarding your second question - I do try to change water on a specific day for each tank. However, I have missed water changes on several occasions due to lack of time. This only becomes a problem when I have missed water chnages for more than 3 weeks along with higher temperatures and more organics (dirty filter, fish food etc.).

Third question - I don't think that I have seen any big difference when I have added more or less fertilizer. I have already mentioned that the growth rate of plants is quite slow in my tanks and the fertilizer I am using has extremely low levels of N and P.  I have dosed (ThriveS) more in the past and never saw any bad effects on plants. Honestly, I don't pay too much attention to the exact amounts of fertilizer (liquid and root tabs) as long as the plants are healthy and I am not skipping dosing or not dumping the entire bottle at once. I try to pay more attention to trimming plants on a regular basis, regularly changing water (to the best of my abilities) along with cleaning filters and substrate. I think proper regular maintenance is far more important than dosing exact amount of fertilizer. It works for a sterile system in a lab but doesn't quite work like that in a system where plants are growing everyday, livestock breathing/eating/excreting constantly, millions of unknown microorganisms doing the same etc.


----------



## KirstyF

Sudipta said:


> Hello @KirstyF,
> 
> No I don't do anything to maintain a specific temperature in any of my tanks. They do get little cooler in winter time (around 70-72 F). The temperature during summer time stays around 74-76 F since I have installed air conditioning. I have recorded temperatures around 80F or slightly higher before installing the air conditioning during summer. This is when I have noticed issues with plant growth (significantly slower growth with suboptimal colors) and algae problems. However, I have also found out that frequent water changes help significantly to keep the plants healthy with minimum algae problems. I think I have mentioned it sometime ago that when I had to deal with velvet disease in my 10 gal tank. I raised the temperature to 84F along with adding medicine. I was worried about the plants because of that high temperature. So I decided to do 20% water change every day. I did that for 3 weeks and I noticed that the plants stayed very healthy and I didn't face any algae outbreak. I didn't keep a proper record of that because I was more scared about spreading the disease across my other tanks. However, I have no doubts that daily water changes helped significantly even at such high temperature (especially if you think about from a perspective of non-CO2 coupled with high light, I didn't decrease the light intensity during that time).
> 
> I think around 70-74F is a good range for keeping the plants healthy. However, I can also say there is no guarantee that you won't get algae if you keep the temperatures low. I have recently faced some bba and green dust algae issues in my 20 gal tank even though the temperature is around 70-72F for the last few months. It turned out that I didn't clean the filter for more than two months and I also let significant amount of moss grow on the wood (which is difficult to see sometimes because of massive plant and moss growth). I thoroughly cleaned the filter, removed a lot of moss, trimmed some of the affected plants, uprooted some plants to clean the substrate and also to allow some movement among the bunches. I also spot treated the slow growing plants with freshly mixed (1:1) solution of 3% H2O2 and excel.
> These measures help significantly and it took me just couple of weeks to fix majority of the problems. The plants started to grow nicely again. There is still some algae left but it is manageable now.



Thanks @Sudipta for the comprehensive reply. Useful to know the temp range you are working with and also your remedy for higher temps. 

I’m assuming that the plant/algae issues were likely caused by reduction in available Co2 due to higher temps and daily water changes would be acting as Co2 top ups (I believe @Hanuman mentioned this a couple of dozen posts back) as well as possibly reducing any organics etc created by plant stress? 

Not guaranteed, scientific….in fact I could be making it all up 😉😂……but does that seem like a reasonable conclusion or anything I’m missing? 

As for the recent algae, I guess the same could be said for many if not most tanks. Have you found this type of set up to be more sensitive to maintenance ‘slip ups’ or have you always kept your tanks using this ‘method’ ie no comparables!


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Thank you for the reply @Sudipta



Sudipta said:


> I am not a plant scientist so I don't think that I will be able to correctly answer this question.



Definitely not a plant scientist either. More than fair.



Sudipta said:


> I would love to read any scientific paper/evidence that would support your argument.



No argument put forward, just questions and curiosity. Only asking if there is a rationale behind the dosing structure that appears descending and decreases as the tanks get more and more distant from exposure to atmospheric gas concentrations? Asking about experience really, as a fellow hobbyist. You run all these setups this way, curious as to what experience has led to these habitual actions.



Sudipta said:


> Regarding your second question - I do try to change water on a specific day for each tank.



Excellent 👍🏽



Sudipta said:


> However, I have missed water changes on several occasions due to lack of time.



Who doesn’t? Glass boxes are a hobby, not a chore.



Sudipta said:


> Honestly, I don't pay too much attention to the exact amounts of fertilizer (liquid and root tabs) as long as the plants are healthy and I am not skipping dosing or not dumping the entire bottle at once.



Do you use ADA Amazonia (1) in all the referenced tanks?



Sudipta said:


> I don't think that I have seen any big difference when I have added more or less fertilizer.



So in your opinion could you dose more without consequence the further away you are from a water change?



Sudipta said:


> I try to pay more attention to trimming plants on a regular basis



But not uprooting if I understand correctly?


Appreciate your time.


----------



## Sudipta

KirstyF said:


> Not guaranteed, scientific….in fact I could be making it all up 😉😂……but does that seem like a reasonable conclusion or anything I’m missing?


Yes this definitely seems reasonable. I would just like to add that oxygen concentration also increases significantly by introducing fresh water to a warm tank. People put too much attention on CO2 but I think oxygen is the key for a stable planted tank. 
Another point that people miss a lot is the microbes. Most people just think about couple of species of bacteria that they think are running the show. However, the real story might be very complicated. There are microbes (eukaryotes and prokaryotes possibly including archea) everywhere in the tank not just in the filter and they are all doing different things, breathing, eating, reproducing and dying constantly. The amount of metabolites (organics) they release could be way more significant than most people think about their tanks.

Yes I think regular maintenance is far more important than dosing an exact amount of fertilizer.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Sudipta said:


> There are microbes (eukaryotes and prokaryotes possibly including archea) everywhere in the tank not just in the filter and they are all doing different things, breathing, eating, reproducing and dying constantly. The amount of metabolites (organics) they release could be way more significant than most people think about their tanks.



Are there any papers you can recommend specifically on the functions that eukaryotes, prokaryotes and archea may play in an aquarium system? Understand this may be your specific area as you are a  biochemistry postdoc associate at the University of Minnesota. Would appreciate further reading if possible.

Is it possible that this huge area of the tree of life may account for the plant forms you are producing? If so, is there the potential to share a small proportion of your substrate from one of your tanks to @MichaelJ ?



Sudipta said:


> Yes I think regular maintenance is far more important than dosing an exact amount of fertilizer.



Certainly. Also, what do you make of the obsession with the n’th degree of trace elements being of the utmost importance if this is your position? So far it’s been described as the crux of the issue with arriving at the same destination as your tanks @Sudipta .

Sorry for so many questions. There’s a lot of folks who want to know how the unicorn got its horn… just curious and genuinely appreciate your time if you have any answers. Not to put you on the spot. UKAPS loves learning ❤️

Probably annoying dealing with simplistic deductive reasoning, but it’s a path towards working out the epistemological underpinnings that make this conversation work towards an agreed, varifiable and testable theory.


----------



## MichaelJ

Geoffrey Rea said:


> UKAPS loves learning ❤️


_Wait! what?_  

But seriously, thanks to @Geoffrey Rea and others for asking good straight questions and thanks to @Sudipta for providing good straight answers!   ❤️

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Tim Harrison

MichaelJ said:


> _Wait! what?_


Really? Having another moment Michael? You sure you're alright?


----------



## GreggZ

Sudipta said:


> Third question - I don't think that I have seen any big difference when I have added more or less fertilizer. I have already mentioned that the growth rate of plants is quite slow in my tanks and the fertilizer I am using has extremely low levels of N and P.  I have dosed (ThriveS) more in the past and never saw any bad effects on plants. Honestly, I don't pay too much attention to the exact amounts of fertilizer (liquid and root tabs) as long as the plants are healthy and I am not skipping dosing or not dumping the entire bottle at once. I try to pay more attention to trimming plants on a regular basis, regularly changing water (to the best of my abilities) along with cleaning filters and substrate. I think proper regular maintenance is far more important than dosing exact amount of fertilizer. It works for a sterile system in a lab but doesn't quite work like that in a system where plants are growing everyday, livestock breathing/eating/excreting constantly, millions of unknown microorganisms doing the same etc.


Sudipta I love this post. 

Less concentration on dosing, and more concentration on maintenance and horticulture. In that way your tank is not so different than mine. I have always found that if I keep my tank in uber clean condition and pay attention to and keep up on horticulture I can get by with a wide range of dosing. I hope people don't gloss over that part of your post. I notice most times when you say things are off some maintenance helps clear it up. The same has been true for me for years.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

GreggZ said:


> Less concentration on dosing, and more concentration on maintenance and horticulture. In that way your tank is not so different than mine.








😂 😆 🤣


----------



## MichaelJ

Geoffrey Rea said:


> View attachment 186731
> 
> 😂 😆 🤣



No, no,  no you guys! You are not going to get away with the deck chair analogy ... Listen to what @Sudipta said: "..._and the fertilizer I am using *has extremely low levels of N and P.*_" (underlining and bolding is mine)    ... you can dose more and that works too, as many of us have experienced.  But you can also dose  far, far less!  That, backed by appropriate water parameters, mature substrate with tons of microbial activity and proper maintenance is the ticket    ... you can't leave that out.

Also, if you have livestock from the Amazon river,  why in Mothers Natures name would you run your tank at 250 ppm TDS if 50 ppm. will suffice and possibly (almost certainly IMO) benefit your livestock ?

I think this debate needs to be a bit more holistic especially in respect to our precious livestock.


Tim Harrison said:


> Really? Having another moment Michael? You sure you're alright?


Well, I am getting there quite honestly!  but its 6:30pm here and my "medicine hour" is coming up... so I will be all-right 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Sudipta

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Are there any papers you can recommend specifically on the functions that eukaryotes, prokaryotes and archea may play in an aquarium system? Understand this may be your specific area as you are a biochemistry postdoc associate at the University of Minnesota. Would appreciate further reading if possible.


Here are some links that you might find interesting:








						Overview of freshwater microbial eukaryotes diversity: a first analysis of publicly available metabarcoding data - PubMed
					

Although they are widespread, diverse and involved in biogeochemical cycles, microbial eukaryotes attract less attention than their prokaryotic counterparts in environmental microbiology. In this study, we used publicly available 18S barcoding data to define biases that may limit such analyses...




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				











						Microbial Diversity and Potential Pathogens in Ornamental Fish Aquarium Water
					

Ornamental fishes are among the most popular and fastest growing categories of pets in the United States (U.S.). The global scope and scale of the ornamental fish trade and growing popularity of pet fish in the U.S. are strong indicators of the myriad economic and social benefits the pet...




					journals.plos.org
				











						Archaea in Aquaria: Tiny Organisms, Huge Discovery
					

We thought we knew everything about the nitrogen cycle. We were wrong.




					aquariumkids.org
				




I will also highly recommend you and anyone in the group to watch Bonnie Bassler's famous talk. Although it is not directly related to aquariums but you will get a decent understanding about bacterial communication which is equally relevant for a planted tank or an entire ecosystem.





Geoffrey Rea said:


> Certainly. Also, what do you make of the obsession with the n’th degree of trace elements being of the utmost importance if this is your position?


Traces are definitely important for any lifeform but there is a reason why these compounds are listed as "traces". I am dosing ThriveS which doesn't have any Copper in it. I also avoid Osmocote plus in tanks with sensitive caridina shrimp tanks (I don't know the exact composition of ADA bottom plus but I started using it less than a year ago and my 20 gal tank is running since 2019). Does that mean the plants are not getting any copper? There is probably enough copper in substrate or tiny amounts are probably present in fish food that I am adding every day. As I said before, I think people in this hobby put too much attention on fertilization. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is not important but I strongly disagree that it needs to be this much complicated where people discuss whether 0.01 or 0.02 ppm is ideal concentration for a certain element. Sometimes, I read the comments and I get confused whether they are discussing about planted tanks or a million dollar NIH/DOE/NSF project. I have been dealing with those kind of projects for more than 10 years and I don't want to do that when I am in home, trying to enjoy my hobby.

thank you for the questions.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

MichaelJ said:


> No, no, no you guys! You are not going to get away with the deck chair analogy ...



You can do it Michael, you can do it… lay back in the deck chair:





Think of Newtons deterministic universe…

Newton was convinced of a clearly definable now. There is no universal clock… poof 💨 

No more block universe, it got superseded.



Sudipta said:


> Here are some links that you might find interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overview of freshwater microbial eukaryotes diversity: a first analysis of publicly available metabarcoding data - PubMed
> 
> 
> Although they are widespread, diverse and involved in biogeochemical cycles, microbial eukaryotes attract less attention than their prokaryotic counterparts in environmental microbiology. In this study, we used publicly available 18S barcoding data to define biases that may limit such analyses...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Microbial Diversity and Potential Pathogens in Ornamental Fish Aquarium Water
> 
> 
> Ornamental fishes are among the most popular and fastest growing categories of pets in the United States (U.S.). The global scope and scale of the ornamental fish trade and growing popularity of pet fish in the U.S. are strong indicators of the myriad economic and social benefits the pet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.plos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaea in Aquaria: Tiny Organisms, Huge Discovery
> 
> 
> We thought we knew everything about the nitrogen cycle. We were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aquariumkids.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will also highly recommend you and anyone in the group to watch Bonnie Bassler's famous talk. Although it is not directly related to aquariums but you will get a decent understanding about bacterial communication which is equally relevant for a planted tank or an entire ecosystem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traces are definitely important for any lifeform but there is a reason why these compounds are listed as "traces". I am dosing ThriveS which doesn't have any Copper in it. I also avoid Osmocote plus in tanks with sensitive caridina shrimp tanks (I don't know the exact composition of ADA bottom plus but I started using it less than a year ago and my 20 gal tank is running since 2019). Does that mean the plants are not getting any copper? There is probably enough copper in substrate or tiny amounts are probably present in fish food that I am adding every day. As I said before, I think people in this hobby put too much attention on fertilization. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is not important but I strongly disagree that it needs to be this much complicated where people discuss whether 0.01 or 0.02 ppm is ideal concentration for a certain element. Sometimes, I read the comments and I get confused whether they are discussing about planted tanks or a million dollar NIH/DOE/NSF project. I have been dealing with those kind of projects for more than 10 years and I don't want to do that when I am in home, trying to enjoy my hobby.
> 
> thank you for the questions.




Truly appreciated @Sudipta and will work through them before generating any further questions 🙏🏽


----------



## GreggZ

Sudipta said:


> Yes this definitely seems reasonable. I would just like to add that oxygen concentration also increases significantly by introducing fresh water to a warm tank. People put too much attention on CO2 but I think oxygen is the key for a stable planted tank.
> Another point that people miss a lot is the microbes. Most people just think about couple of species of bacteria that they think are running the show. However, the real story might be very complicated. There are microbes (eukaryotes and prokaryotes possibly including archea) everywhere in the tank not just in the filter and they are all doing different things, breathing, eating, reproducing and dying constantly. The amount of metabolites (organics) they release could be way more significant than most people think about their tanks.
> 
> Yes I think regular maintenance is far more important than dosing an exact amount of fertilizer.


Since this thread is filled with bunches of different topics, I might as well add another one. And it may have to do microbes.

Sudipta do you remember when T. Barr got involved in our conversation and he thought for sure you were injecting CO2? Well this has crossed my mind based on an event in my own tank we have not discussed.

A short time ago due to a equipment malfunction I went for 10 days with no CO2 in my tank. Other than turning my lights down I didn't change anything. I was shocked at how well the tank did. I looked at it as a learning opportunity and monitored everything very closely. 

A couple of things caught my eye. Number one with the T5HO's turned down tank temp came down to 71*. Next is how pH changed daily. Fully degassed in the tank is 6.25. I closely monitored pH and it dropped from 6.25 at night right before lights off to 5.85 right before lights on. This happened every day like clockwork.

So a 0.4 pH drop overnight. No CO2 being added.

Have you ever monitored your pH at various times of the day? Your plants need some carbon, and is it possible the tank is generating some?


----------



## Yugang

GreggZ said:


> Have you ever monitored your pH at various times of the day? Your plants need some carbon, and is it possible the tank is generating some?





Yugang said:


> A couple of years ago I built a spreadsheet model, trying to understand from the pH curve what was going on with CO2 in the tank, over time. Injection rate, bps in my diffuser as a constant. Outgas at the water surface as a function of CO2 concentration difference. From the pH curve before lights on (no plant uptake) the model estimated both injection rate, and outgassing parameters at water/air surface.
> 
> My interest at the time was to try and measure plant CO2 uptake at lights on, time dependant, which would be possible if the other parameters (injection and loss at surface) were estimated accurately enough.
> 
> The model seemed to make sense at the time, but of course I may have missed some part of the science. The injection rate seemed consistent with the bubbles I could count and an estimated volume of a bubble. I could see plant uptake kicking in at lights on, and strongest in the first part of photo period. I did not pursue my ultimate aim to have a measurement tool for plant uptake (and have an objective tool to optimize fertilization and other parameters for plant growth) as I realised that weighing plant mass after an experiment was a more logical way to go.
> 
> Really not sure if what I did was new, or considered relevant to the hobby.



Edit - apologize, a bit off topic, but believe such method may give some insight in @GreggZ question


----------



## Sudipta

GreggZ said:


> Since this thread is filled with bunches of different topics, I might as well add another one. And it may have to do microbes.
> 
> Sudipta do you remember when T. Barr got involved in our conversation and he thought for sure you were injecting CO2? Well this has crossed my mind based on an event in my own tank we have not discussed.
> 
> A short time ago due to a equipment malfunction I went for 10 days with no CO2 in my tank. Other than turning my lights down I didn't change anything. I was shocked at how well the tank did. I looked at it as a learning opportunity and monitored everything very closely.
> 
> A couple of things caught my eye. Number one with the T5HO's turned down tank temp came down to 71*. Next is how pH changed daily. Fully degassed in the tank is 6.25. I closely monitored pH and it dropped from 6.25 at night right before lights off to 5.85 right before lights on. This happened every day like clockwork.
> 
> So a 0.4 pH drop overnight. No CO2 being added.
> 
> Have you ever monitored your pH at various times of the day? Your plants need some carbon, and is it possible the tank is generating some?


Hahahaha, It seems like you have forgotten. 😂😂. This is not unexpected as the CO2 accumulates from root respiration, livestock respiration and from microbial respiration because plants are not photosynthesizing.


----------



## GreggZ

Sudipta said:


> Hahahaha, It seems like you have forgotten. 😂😂. This is not unexpected as the CO2 accumulates from root respiration, livestock respiration and from microbial respiration because plants are not photosynthesizing.
> 
> View attachment 186734


Ha I did forget!!! I think this is a very interesting topic and may have something to do with your success. Honestly I would have hardly believed there could be such swings until I experienced it myself. I am guessing the lower the temperature the more the pH swing, due to greater solubility of gasses.


----------



## Hanuman

As I have said multiple times, temperature is something that is VERY often overlooked but it's perhaps one of the parameters that can dictate nigh and days situations. If Sudipta was in a tropical country without a chiller/aircon/season to control his tank temp he would have never been able to have that tank.
Here in Thailand either you have an air con, or a chiller or you can forget growing tricky/large variety of plants no matter how perfect your parameters are. It's just how it is.
In my case I can see the differences between cool and hot days how the plants pearl. During cooler days pearling will increase. Hotter days, decrease. PH will also drop less during hotter days. 2 to 3 degrees C will make the difference.


----------



## Sudipta

Hanuman said:


> As I have said multiple times, temperature is something that is VERY often overlooked but it's perhaps one of the parameters that can dictate nigh and days situations. If Sudipta was in a tropical country without a chiller/aircon/season to control his tank temp he would have never been able to have that tank.
> Here in Thailand either you have an air con, or a chiller or you can forget growing tricky/large variety of plants no matter how perfect your parameters are. It's just how it is.
> In my case I can see the differences between cool and hot days how the plants pearl. During cooler days pearling will increase. Hotter days, decrease. PH will also drop less during hotter days. 2 to 3 degrees C will make the difference.


Hello @Hanuman
I completely agree with you regarding the importance of lower temperature in non-CO2 injected tanks. I have also said that multiple times in various platforms. However, I do think that it might be possible to run a non-CO2 planted tank in warm conditions if frequent water changes are done (doesn't need to be large quantities of water). You can read my response #260. I might test this soon.
Post in thread 'Practical application of lean fertilizer dosing' Practical application of lean fertilizer dosing


----------



## Hanuman

Sudipta said:


> I completely agree with you regarding the importance of lower temperature in non-CO2 injected tanks. I have also said that multiple times in various platforms. However, I do think that it might be possible to run a non-CO2 planted tank in warm conditions if frequent water changes are done (doesn't need to be large quantities of water). You can read my response #260. I might test this soon.


Running non-co2 tanks in warm conditions is a non-issue. The issue would be what plants and for how long and also what you define as "warm". Above or below 30c? My tanks hoover around 27-29C but I have air con nearly every day that bring temps to 27 during a 1/3 part of the day. I pump CO2 in there like there is no tomorrow.

Mind you that's a 6mm tube.

I have been away for 4 days from home now. Considering the weather I am pretty sure the temps of my tanks probably reached the 30Cs if not more. I can tell you with a good degree of certainty that when I get back home in 2 days the glass will have a fair amount of algae. If my tank was non-co2 it would probably be much worse considering some of the plants I have are not so keen on higher temps and require CO2 else bye bye. So I would say all is possible but then it's a matter of diminishing returns and diminishing options.

My outdoor ceramic pond probably hoovers at 32, maybe more? That pond has got some anubias, ferns, echinodorus and some other pretty harddy plants. I use my main tank WC water and add that to the pond every week. Once in a while I will do a 50% WC with RO to bring TDS down. So basically that pond is EI with no-CO2. Light I would say overall medium as the pond is shadowed most of the day. Plants are fine. I have some hair algae in there, but no biggy I don't care. If I put any plant with BBA in there, BBA will disappear completely. But pay attention to the plants I mentioned. Pretty difficult plants to kill. Put a L. Pantanal, some E. Quin or other plants I got in my main tank and they would died instantly.


----------



## Sudipta

Hanuman said:


> Running non-co2 tanks in warm conditions is a non-issue. The issue would be what plants and for how long and also what you define as "warm". Above or below 30c? My tanks hoover around 27-29C but I have air con nearly every day that bring temps to 27 during a 1/3 part of the day. I pump CO2 in there like there is no tomorrow.
> 
> Mind you that's a 6mm tube.
> 
> I have been away for 4 days from home now. Considering the weather I am pretty sure the temps of my tanks probably reached the 30Cs if not more. I can tell you with a good degree of certainty that when I get back home in 2 days the glass will have a fair amount of algae. If my tank was non-co2 it would probably be much worse considering some of the plants I have are not so keen on higher temps and require CO2 else bye bye. So I would say all is possible but then it's a matter of diminishing returns and diminishing options.
> 
> My outdoor ceramic pond probably hoovers at 32, maybe more? That pond has got some anubias, ferns, echinodorus and some other pretty harddy plants. I use my main tank WC water and add that to the pond every week. Once in a while I will do a 50% WC with RO to bring TDS down. So basically that pond is EI with no-CO2. Light I would say overall medium as the pond is shadowed most of the day. Plants are fine. I have some hair algae in there, but no biggy I don't care. If I put any plant with BBA in there, BBA will disappear completely. But pay attention to the plants I mentioned. Pretty difficult plants to kill. Put a L. Pantanal, some E. Quin or other plants I got in my main tank and they would died instantly.
> 
> View attachment 186736



Those are all valid points and I agree with most of them. However, I don't think that you have read my other post where I mentioned the results after 3 weeks at 84F (almost 29 C). Yes I agree it was only for 3 weeks but still a decent amount of time to show some adverse effects on plants. All I am saying that there is a possibility of having a decent non-CO2 tank with some of the difficult plants (Ludwigia Pantanal included). Pantanal is a warm region and this plant grows in the wild.


 Keeping Eriocaulon quinquangulare is a different issue, I even said yesterday that I couldn't grow this plant in any of my non-CO2 tanks even at 70F, so it is not about the temperature for this plant. I think it's CO2 uptake system is pretty crappy (I am not absolutely sure about this though, I will try to find more information about it).


----------



## Sudipta

These two images were made on 08222020 and 08232020. Although this is not terribly high temperature (about 79F/26C) but I was able to see some noticeable differences in plant growth form and colors (It might not be too obvious from the photo). 
I also wanted to show that the tank was relatively algae free (I was doing regular maintenance of this tank).


----------



## Hanuman

Sudipta said:


> Pantanal is a warm region and this plant grows in the wild.


Sorry but that's a big shortcut you are making. Those temps are air temperatures right? Still plenty of CO2 to go around and you can't compare 32C air to 32C water. 


Sudipta said:


> Eriocaulon quinquangulare is a different issue, I even said yesterday that I couldn't grow this plant in any of my non-CO2 tanks even at 70F, so it is not about the temperature for this plant. I think it's CO2 uptake system is pretty crappy (I am not absolutely sure about this though, I will try to find more information about it).


Yes and no. What happens when temp increase in water? No more CO2 or very little. So yes not technically directly a temp issue but both are correlated. As far as I am aware E. Quin in Thailand grows in the north where there is cooler weather and is not found anywhere else in the country, but I know that it can grow in slightly hotter areas in India and Australia and in the SEA region overall. So maybe sub-species? I don't know. Erios in general are CO2 hogs and do poorly if they don't have their share. They also need at least medium to high light. They don't do well with lower lights.

My point is that yes you can do a non-Co2 tank with higher temps and some "hard to grow plants". I only took 2 examples, but it applies to other plants as well. The higher up in temps you go the less options you have and things get much more difficult to control. Go to 24/25 your options are much greater.


----------



## Sudipta

I made a quick video of all 4 of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks. I tried to show some closeups where you can see slight algae on some plants.
I just want to remind everyone that I do have a 20 gal high-tech tank along with two more nano tanks (low-tech, tap water tanks, one has been severely neglected for several months now and I have to deal with the algae). I don't get enough time to focus on one particular tank. This is one of the biggest reasons why I struggle with some of my tanks occasionally.


----------



## MichaelJ

@Hanuman  and @Sudipta ,

You guys probably know this, but I thought it would be helpful for reference when discussing the CO2 solubility vs. Temperature relationship:

 (101.325 kPa is  _normal_ atmospheric pressure).









Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Yugang

Hanuman said:


> In my case I can see the differences between cool and hot days how the plants pearl. During cooler days pearling will increase. Hotter days, decrease. PH will also drop less during hotter days. 2 to 3 degrees C will make the difference.


I am reading this with great interest @Hanuman , as I am in the back of my mind contemplating if I want to try low tech for a couple of years. Yet, my HK home with usually open windows may easily be 30 degrees in summer, so similar situation to yours. Would my 28 degrees tank temp prohibit developing a really nice looking low tech tank, perhaps with lean dosing?

What confuses me  seeing above graphs, is that solubility of CO2 indeed decreases with temp, but just a few degrees does not really make a dramatic difference. Where do I miss the point?

EDIT: perhaps CO2 outgassing at the surface is a function of temperature as well, and adding to the challenge created by solubility? This argument of course only applies for an injected tank, where we have no equilibrium of CO2


----------



## erwin123

Sudipta said:


> These two images were made on 08222020 and 08232020. Although this is not terribly high temperature (about 79F/26C) but I was able to see some noticeable differences in plant growth form and colors (It might not be too obvious from the photo).
> I also wanted to show that the tank was relatively algae free (I was doing regular maintenance of this tank).



Hi, I notice that that the first photo has a fan above the tank. When you say 26C, you are referring to the air/ambient temp being 26C, plus you have a fan pointed at the tank?

Reason being that fans can cool the water by 1-2 degrees through evaporative cooling, especially in dry climates, in which case, your tank temp is effectively below 26C?


----------



## Sudipta

Hanuman said:


> Sorry but that's a big shortcut you are making. Those temps are air temperatures right? Still plenty of CO2 to go around and you can't compare 32C air to 32C water.


Here is what I found from Christel Kasselmann's book (older edition). Water temperature between 27.5 - 30C and inclinata varieties are still growing. I need to get the new edition now. I am not trying to argue with you regarding this matter. I have been purfying and characterizing enzymes from bacteria for the last 10 years. I do have little bit of knowledge how temperature affects enzyme activities (this property is universal among all life forms on earth).


----------



## Hanuman

Sudipta said:


> Here is what I found from Christel Kasselmann's book (older edition). Water temperature between 27.5 - 30C and inclinata varieties are still growing. I need to get the new edition now. I am not trying to argue with you regarding this matter. I have been purfying and characterizing enzymes from bacteria for the last 10 years. I do have little bit of knowledge how temperature affects enzyme activities (this property is universal among all life forms on earth).


Not arguing either. You probably know much more than I when it comes to biology. I only have a business degree so my knowledge is only what I have acquired through the years and self thought. My point being that the higher you go in temperatures the less amount of species you'll be able to keep at peak form and the more work you have to put into keeping a tank in top shape. You said it yourself, you noticed that multiple water changes were beneficial during summer time. Also if you notice the author mentions that that specie in particular prefers fast flowing water and grew in loam substrate. This means constant new water with perhaps a constant CO2 content? Note this part about keeping that plant alive in culture. This is most probably not related to temperatures but proves that in a close environment plant don't necessarily behave like in their natural habitat which is 10 fold more complex.



I'll look at the book when I get home. I have the new edition.

Too bad I don't live in my home country anymore, Venezuela. A small expedition to the jungle would have been a must!!!


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


MichaelJ said:


> Also, if you have livestock from the Amazon river, why in Mothers Natures name would you run your tank at 250 ppm TDS if 50 ppm.


That was one reason I had for wanting a relatively low conductivity value.


Sudipta said:


> Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is not important but I strongly disagree that it needs to be this much complicated where people discuss whether 0.01 or 0.02 ppm is ideal concentration for a certain element.


Same for me, it is the <"some or none"> argument.

cheers Darrel


----------



## erwin123

I'm wondering whether the conversation can turn towards the plants and whether there are actually 'target dosing ranges' for plants to help them achieve their best 'form'  and whether different species have different targets.
Like MichaelJ who has indicated that his interest in this thread is because he wants to grow certain specific plants, I am also interested in this discussion because I'm interested in growing certain plants that I have trouble with.

For example, Pantanal/Meta - I'm not sure how to make more of the leaves turn red, and not just the new growth on top. I'm already blasting my plants with a lot of light, and CO2 is plentiful with a 1.3pH drop. How to turn more of the plant's leaves red? I have a similar question regarding the lower leaves of Ludwigia Senegalensis. My temps are high-ish at 25.5-26C - does that affect plant colouration, etc?


----------



## Hanuman

erwin123 said:


> I'm wondering whether the conversation can turn towards the plants and whether there are actually 'target dosing ranges' for plants to help them achieve their best 'form' and whether different species have different targets.
> Like MichaelJ who has indicated that his interest in this thread is because he wants to grow certain specific plants, I am also interested in this discussion because I'm interested in growing certain plants that I have trouble with.
> 
> For example, Pantanal/Meta - I'm not sure how to make more of the leaves turn red, and not just the new growth on top. I'm already blasting my plants with a lot of light, and CO2 is plentiful with a 1.3pH drop. How to turn more of the plant's leaves red? I have a similar question regarding the lower leaves of Ludwigia Senegalensis. My temps are high-ish at 25.5-26C - does that affect plant colouration, etc?



By limiting nitrate in water column you will turn plants redder but substrate need to have its fair share of it. That’s the actual purpose of APT complete.


----------



## LondonDragon

Although an interesting conversation it does diverge somewhat from the actual topic, and it seems the OP is a little lost on what he is actually trying to achieve, and is others that are pushing ideals into the mix as "new techniques" that actually everyone is doing it, and there is a lot of contradition by OP and others in this thread, specially when it comes to the "lean" dosing approach that is nothing new and as suggested and shown evidence by many a comercially available fertelizer actually does the same thing, and the couple of examples that have been provided do rely on a lot of parameters in order to achieve some of the results mentioned and the evidence is somewhat lacking!

Like the OP mentioned to me, the more he looks into the Happi method that's what started all this conversation the more he realises that it comes with a lot of strings attached, such as the use of NH4 and Urea, low GH and almost no KH, low PH, low temps, mature or rich substrate! At the end of the day very few will be able to reach theses paramenters for very little gain! and for an actual aquascaper that wants to turn around scapes quickly this is obsolete, this it more for the long term plant keeper, I have run a tank with no CO2 and heavy planted for over a decade without any issues, I have grown in the past carpert of staurogyne for example. For me is just to have something that looks good to me and keeps healthy and that snails and shrimp are also healthy!

I have seen here evidence that when things go wrong chemicals are pumped into the tank to resolve the issues (liquid carbon, etc...) which then also gives the tank and plants a boost for sometime, and like we preach on UKAPS a LOT, keep on top of your maintenance if you want a nice and algae free tank.

The conversation seems to go around in circles and some members that reply tend to ignore some of the things that are being said and just re-write the same thing over and over again using different words to make it sounds more than it actually is!

Hopefully the OP has taken his medication and will have a clear view of what he is trying to do!!!


----------



## LondonDragon

Hanuman said:


> By limiting nitrate in water column you will turn plants redder but substrate need to have its fair share of it. That’s the actual purpose of APT complete.


Covered that a few posts ago, and Tim posted some videos of it also! Like I said people ignore things and then repost them again and again!
Not to be negative, and some interesting posts here in this thread, but 99% of it has been repeated again and again in the forum as a whole  UKAPS does have a nice search feature!!


----------



## Hanuman

Yes hence my short and to the point answer. Reality is that 80% of what people ask in a forum has been said a multitude of times. Ask Darrel he is an expert in recycling old posts


----------



## LondonDragon

Hanuman said:


> Darrel he is an expert in recycling old posts


We need to get him to do a top 50 for the beginners and a top 50 for the advanced!!


----------



## Tim Harrison

Or an article on tank cycling and the role of archaea  vs bacteria...😁 Although this one already posted by @Sudipta is very accessible









						Archaea in Aquaria: Tiny Organisms, Huge Discovery
					

We thought we knew everything about the nitrogen cycle. We were wrong.




					aquariumkids.org
				




Whilst we're on the subject, I absolutely agree with Sudipta, the microorganism communities in our tanks play a major role in their health and are probably the main reason why mature tanks can become incredibly stable and robust. And why plants continue to thrive with minimal fertz, and CO2 input and sometimes neglect.


----------



## Sudipta

Hanuman said:


> This is most probably not related to temperatures but proves that in a close environment plant don't necessarily behave like in their natural habitat which is 10 fold more complex.


That's exactly what I am trying to say. Temperature is just one of the factors. Fast flowing river water contains a lot of organics (particulate and dissolved). There are several scientific papers showing the importance of those organics when it comes to supporting aquatic plant life (primarily production of CO2, maintaining decent oxygen levels, possibly continuous supply of most nutrients needed by plants etc.).
Even though the tds is low but the water is extremely rich in those organics.


----------



## Sudipta

Hanuman said:


> I'll look at the book when I get home. I have the new edition.


This will be great. I would love to know if there are some new information about these rich habitats.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


erwin123 said:


> whether there are actually 'target dosing ranges' for plants to help them achieve their best 'form' and whether different species have different targets.


<"Unequivocally they will">. It is back to <"Tomatoes and Orchids">.


Hanuman said:


> Ask Darrel he is an expert in recycling old posts


Uh um, I beg your pardon, surely you mean "_Carefully curating pre-loved material_".


LondonDragon said:


> We need to get him to do a top 50 for the beginners and a top 50 for the advanced!!


It is not going to work,  as I' said a while a go I haven't made <"thirteen thousand posts">, I've made  the same three posts recycled ("_carefully curated_") <"four thousand times each">. If I was a busker I'd only have one song and <"I wouldn't be very good at that">.

It is one of the many reasons I  couldn't have a <"YouTube channel">, after two episodes in I'd have run out of content.


Tim Harrison said:


> Whilst we're on the subject, I absolutely agree with Sudipta, the microorganism communities in our tanks play a major role in their health and are probably the main reason why mature tanks can become incredibly stable and robust. And why plants continue to thrive with minimal fertz, and CO2 input and sometimes neglect.


That is a view I subscribe to as well, and I thank <"Cory for the Aquarium Co-Op"> for <"posting on this subject">, because it takes a lot of guts to say what he said, because you know you are going to be <"trolled mercilessly">.


Tim Harrison said:


> Although this one already posted by @Sudipta is very accessible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaea in Aquaria: Tiny Organisms, Huge Discovery
> 
> 
> We thought we knew everything about the nitrogen cycle. We were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aquariumkids.org


Thanks to @Sudipta , that is a good one. A remember the first time I read about <"novel ammonia oxidising microorganisms"> (Archaea, COMAMMOX _Nitrospira etc)_ in aquarium filters, it was a like finding the Plec you hadn't seen for three years was both still alive, (and looking very healthy), and your football team winning the league all in one (damascene) moment, I was pretty sure I was right about cycling, but until then I didn't have any science to back it up with.


Sudipta said:


> There are several scientific papers showing the importance of those organics when it comes to supporting aquatic plant life (primarily production of CO2, maintaining decent oxygen levels, possibly continuous supply of most nutrients needed by plants etc.).
> Even though the tds is low but the water is extremely rich in those organics.


<"Same again">. I've linked it in lots of times, but <"All the leaves are brown">   is well worth a read.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Hanuman

dw1305 said:


> Uh um, I beg your pardon, surely you mean "_Carefully curating pre-loved material_".


Definitely Darrel. The word recycling may have a negative connotation for some but not in my book. It's actually a good thing what you do. It forces people to search and investigate more. It also keeps old threads alive.


----------



## Sudipta

dw1305 said:


> A remember the first time I read about <"novel ammonia oxidising microorganisms"> (Archaea, COMAMMOX _Nitrospira etc)_


Hello Darrel,
Since you mentioned comammox... I was able to show during my PhD that one of the laboratory constructed mutants of nitrogenase is capable of reducing nitrate all the way to ammonia. Although it is definitely not relevant to what happens in nature (at least for now) but it was quite fascinating to prove that a single enzyme can catalyze the 8e- reduction of nitrate all the way to ammonia (wildtype enzyme showed extremely low levels of activity, significantly less than the already low activity shown by the mutant, as can be seen from the figure below).  My PhD advisor didn't believe my results when I first showed him my findings but eventually I was able to convince him by repeating my experiments multiple times. As far as I am aware, no other enzyme (single enzyme system) currently known to science can catalyze this reaction.


----------



## aquanoobie

Sudipta said:


> Here are some links that you might find interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaea in Aquaria: Tiny Organisms, Huge Discovery
> 
> 
> We thought we knew everything about the nitrogen cycle. We were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aquariumkids.org


Hi @Sudipta 
Interesting reading. This article says not all freshwater tanks share the same microbial diversity. Would you say this is because not all tanks have the same conditions to support it or because some microbial species are absent?


----------



## JoshP12

There is a lot of emphasis on temperature.

In my books, temp is a tool.

If you are trying to get max O2 in the system to support life, then temp can certainly facilitate the upper bound for saturation … and it will slow down the rate of O2 consumption of everything.

I mean … that assumes O2 wasn’t in pseudo-excess at higher temps (differentiated for each unique species of course since consumption rates aren’t uniform)? There are lots of ways to increase O2 (lights, plant mass, filtration, agitation, maintenance frankly).

But it’s cold … . Why not introduce natural temp fluctuations where at night it’s colder and during the day it’s warmer? If we think about the system, this makes a whole lot of sense.

Are we worried about plant forms? tightening up internodes? Ya low temp reduce metabolism and decrease demand on everything increasing the likelihood that the plant will be “willing to tighten up since current conditions are favourable”.

I’m more worried about ridding the column of bad things (don’t know what they are) and I have no clue how to do that … but the microbiology  and macrobiology does … and it works faster (maybe not more Efficiently … but it will be efficient if O2 and probably lots of other stuff is present … where O2 had the largest magnitude of determiner of success - just guessing - and impose a leidbig law to all living things … that makes sense too) … . Why I’m worried about that? We have hundreds of other tools to obtain tight  plant forms … why withhold energy? I will say that it is more scary and influential than light.

In my eyes: give them the energy they need to do their job to protect the system from the baddies - good will prevail!

Are we afraid of algae? Best thing I did was spawn them all repeatedly and predictably and then fix the system … after.

My 2c on temperature.

People are afraid of it and fish are cold.

Fundamentally, it’s the same argument for light and once we see the argument, it makes sense why the sun is bright and hot … (or it makes sense why we evolved under those predisposed conditions).


----------



## Sudipta

aquanoobie said:


> Hi @Sudipta
> Interesting reading. This article says not all freshwater tanks share the same microbial diversity. Would you say this is because not all tanks have the same conditions to support it or because some microbial species are absent?


Yes that's true, all tanks are different (just like humans, our body is covered with microorganisms, inside and outside. However, there is significant diversity among the microbes from one person to another). 
Nobody can predict what type of microbial community will develop in individual tank. There are so many variables and microbes literally communicate with each other through quorum sensing (watch the TED talk link I posted yesterday). One group of microbes can block another group to grow, they can also allow certain microbes to flourish if there is an advantage. Once the tank is running, it is an ecosystem. It is not something that can be controlled.


----------



## Tim Harrison

I'd hazard a wild guess that microbial species diversity in fish tanks, and on and in humans etc, is determined by and maintained like any other insular biota through a dynamic equilibrium between immigration and extinction rates. In particular by something along the lines of MacArthur and Wilson's  seminal piece on The Theory of Island Biogeography. Although originally applied to island ecosystems, it has since been applied to microbiota as well


----------



## aquanoobie

Sudipta said:


> Once the tank is running, it is an ecosystem. It is not something that can be controlled.


Thank you @Sudipta 
Is having the right microbial species needed to have balanced ecosystem? Yes it is. But the question is do we have to bring those missing species in and seed the tank or does it happen naturally when the conditions are right?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





aquanoobie said:


> Interesting reading. This article says not all freshwater tanks share the same microbial diversity. Would you say this is because not all tanks have the same conditions to support it or because some microbial species are absent?


I'm going to guess that it is the differences in tank maturity and, probably most importantly, the ammonia loading. 


aquanoobie said:


> ......... But the question is do we have to bring those missing species in and seed the tank or does it happen naturally when the conditions are right?


I think that is where tank maturity comes in, you can "cheat" by adding an inoculum from an existing filter, but over time the microbial flora will fine tune itself to the ammonia loading, dissolved oxygen levels, organic carbon loading etc.

I'm going to guess again that you don't have to add anything, over time the appropriate microbial flora will develop.

Cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

LondonDragon said:


> Although an interesting conversation it does diverge somewhat from the actual topic, and it seems the OP is a little lost on what he is actually trying to achieve,



Hi @LondonDragon,

Nope. I am not lost at all.  I know exactly what I want to achieve:





Not sure why you think I am lost on that goal... 




LondonDragon said:


> and is others that are pushing ideals into the mix as "new techniques" that actually everyone is doing it, and there is a lot of contradition by OP



Not a lot of contradictions as far as I can tell... Well, if the fact that I am listening, learning and tweaking my perception in light of new Information on certain aspects, amount to _a lot of contractions_, well so be it... I am actually happy that my mind have that flexibility!    I wish more people would be just a tad more open-minded 



LondonDragon said:


> and others in this thread, specially when it comes to the "lean" dosing approach that is nothing new and as suggested and shown evidence by many a comercially available fertelizer actually does the same thing, and the couple of examples that have been provided do rely on a lot of parameters in order to achieve some of the results mentioned and the evidence is somewhat lacking!


We never said there weren't any string attached - that was made pretty clear in the original post ... see below for more...




LondonDragon said:


> Like the OP mentioned to me, the more he looks into the Happi method that's what started all this conversation the more he realises that it comes with a lot of strings attached, such as the use of NH4 and Urea, low GH and almost no KH, low PH, low temps, mature or rich substrate!


Yep, @Happi @Sudipta et al. never told us otherwise... It was always abundantly clear to me, that this is not for a straight-tap tank that uses 20 GH/20 KH, 8.2 pH water and very high temperatures...  It's a framework as I see it,_ requiring  the _use of certain compounds (NH4 and/or Urea in small quantities... heck, everything is in small quantities... ), soft acidic water, somewhat lower temps. rich/mature substrate and a bunch of other prerequisites.



LondonDragon said:


> At the end of the day very few will be able to reach theses paramenters for very little gain!


Yep, that was pretty much covered by the original post and have been repeated here. The "very little gain!" bit is a matter of opinion, your opinion not mine... for me being able to grow more challenging stem plants is a huge gain for me and my enjoyment of this hobby!



LondonDragon said:


> and for an actual aquascaper that wants to turn around scapes quickly this is obsolete, this it more for the long term plant keeper, I have run a tank with no CO2 and heavy planted for over a decade without any issues, I have grown in the past carpert of staurogyne for example. For me is just to have something that looks good to me and keeps healthy and that snails and shrimp are also healthy!


Perfectly fine. _Horses for courses_... We never talked about this being suitable for aquacapers who often only run their tanks for say 6 month, tear down, rinse, repeat.  That is indeed great,  just not what I want to accomplish. I want long term success with each tank I set up and generally make very few changes along the way.



LondonDragon said:


> I have seen here evidence that when things go wrong chemicals are pumped into the tank to resolve the issues (liquid carbon, etc...) which then also gives the tank and plants a boost for sometime, and like we preach on UKAPS a LOT, keep on top of your maintenance if you want a nice and algae free tank.
> 
> The conversation seems to go around in circles and some members that reply tend to ignore some of the things that are being said and just re-write the same thing over and over again using different words to make it sounds more than it actually is!


We occasionally have posts (including from myself)  like that, yes... I suppose it's just a testament to the fact that this generates a lot of discussions very quickly that can be hard to sort out. Heck, we are at +300 posts and counting in 6 days...  There are bound to be some overlap, repetitiveness and missed posts etc.



LondonDragon said:


> Hopefully the OP has taken his medication and will have a clear view of what he is trying to do!!!


No "medication" yet as it is just barely afternoon here in Minnesota  ... but just to reiterate:

I want to grow more challenging stem plants in a low-tech (i.e. NO-CO2 injection) environment - If I can get anywhere close to what @Sudipta, @Happi, @macek.g  and others have accomplished I will be a very happy hobbyist and so will my livestock - being in waters with parameters much closer to the natural habitats they evolved in!  ... How is this not clear?

Paulo, my friend, I absolutely do not mind being in the _firing line_ of good jokes and banter - I am usually the one having the most fun (pre- and post "medication" ) when that happens in actual social interactions... but I don't really fancy being labelled as _lost_  or "not clear" in this context, when it's quite clear what the objectives are and that I just want to learn more on how I and others can achieve our goals and  increase the chance of success.  Anyway, let's more on from this and concentrate on the topic here.
The last few last days especially after @Sudipta graciously have joined the conversation I think I have learned more and gained more confidence in this approach... yes, more confidence... I also think a lot of the more skeptical voices here have added a lot of good and more relevant input to this conversation recently.


Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Tim Harrison

That's appreciated Michael, thank you. I think you have all the information and support you need to make this a great success. Personally, I'm really looking forward to a well documented journal. It'd be a great place to carry on this discussion in reference to the actual practical application of all the wonderful contributions made throughout this thread and it's predecessor.


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> The last few last days especially after @Sudipta graciously have joined the conversation I think I have learned more and gained more confidence in this approach...


Hello Michael,
I am glad that you are feeling confident about the method. However, you might still find it little challenging when you first start it. It is always the same for me, no matter how much I read or watch other researchers doing certain experiments, I only start learning when I conduct those experiments myself. I have not found any alternative yet.
Feel free to contact me anytime if you have any questions. I will be more than happy to give you some plants from my tanks, you just have to collect them from me (I am in Falcon Heights). I can also give you some extract from the filter which might help to seed/cycle your tank (atleast with whatever microorganisms live in my tanks).
All the best. 🙂


----------



## MichaelJ

Sudipta said:


> Hello Michael,
> I am glad that you are feeling confident about the method. However, you might still find it little challenging when you first start it. It is always the same for me, no matter how much I read or watch other researchers doing certain experiments, I only start learning when I conduct those experiments myself. I have not found any alternative yet.


Hello Sudipta,

Yes. Well, I am definitely confident, but I am also  realistic and  have reasonable expectations I think. This will definitely take some _wet sleeves_, trail and error and learning by doing...   



Sudipta said:


> Feel free to contact me anytime if you have any questions.


I will definitely do so - Thanks for offering your help!



Sudipta said:


> I will be more than happy to give you some plants from my tanks, you just have to collect them from me (I am in Falcon Heights). I can also give you some extract from the filter which might help to cycle your tank (atleast with whatever microorganisms live in my tanks).


That would be awesome! Yep, we are not too far apart - I am down at the Saint Croix river, a short 25 minutes drive from where you are at... I will PM you later today or over the weekend with  some more details.




Sudipta said:


> All the best. 🙂


Thanks a bunch! You've been very, very helpful so far sharing your experience etc.! Much appreciated! 🙏

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## LondonDragon

MichaelJ said:


> Paulo, my friend, I absolutely do not mind being in the _firing line_ of good jokes and banter -


Bit of banter indeed, looking forward to that journal


----------



## aquanoobie

@MichaelJ , 
if you had to pick one, 1 ounce of gold or 1 once of @Sudipta  's microbes. What is it gonna be?


----------



## GreggZ

LondonDragon said:


> Like the OP mentioned to me, the more he looks into the Happi method that's what started all this conversation the more he realises that it comes with a lot of strings attached, such as the use of NH4 and Urea, low GH and almost no KH, low PH, low temps, mature or rich substrate! At the end of the day very few will be able to reach theses paramenters for very little gain!


The claim for these methods is that high light, low nutrients, and low CO2 can work. I don't dispute that. Sudipta's tank is an excellent example.  

But meanwhile in my reality where I talk to a wide range of people in the hobby, for about 95% of the people, high light + low ferts + low CO2 = unhappy plants and algae. I can say that pretty confidently as I have seen it too many times to count. And it happens even more often now that so many LED fixtures are capable of huge amounts of PAR. In most cases lowering light, increasing nutrients, and optimizing CO2 makes things one heck of a lot easier. 

Just saying going down this road is not the path of least resistance, and for those trying them I hope that the results are worth the effort.


----------



## John q

aquanoobie said:


> 1 ounce of gold or 1 once of @Sudipta 's microbes. What is it gonna be?


An ounce of gold.... you do realise  aquatic pants are  our or 2nd hobby 🙄


----------



## plantnoobdude

John q said:


> An ounce of gold.... you do realise  aquatic pants are  our or 2nd hobby 🙄


you see, the correct answer is actually, secret answer number three. get the ounce of gold, sell the gold. MORE PLANTS.


----------



## sparkyweasel

JoshP12 said:


> But it’s cold … . Why not introduce natural temp fluctuations where at night it’s colder and during the day it’s warmer? If we think about the system, this makes a whole lot of sense.


When we used incandescant bulbs to light our tanks, that was a side-effect, - tanks would be several degrees warmer towards the end of the photoperiod.


----------



## aquanoobie

GreggZ said:


> Just saying going down this road is not the path of least resistance, and for those trying them I hope that the results are worth the effort.


The greatest lessons in life are those we learn the hard way.


----------



## sparkyweasel

John q said:


> aquatic pants


I must get some of those!


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

aquanoobie said:


> The greatest lessons in life are those we learn the hard way.


----------



## ElleDee

GreggZ said:


> The claim for these methods is that high light, low nutrients, and low CO2 can work. I don't dispute that. Sudipta's tank is an excellent example.
> 
> But meanwhile in my reality where I talk to a wide range of people in the hobby, for about 95% of the people, high light + low ferts + low CO2 = unhappy plants and algae. I can say that pretty confidently as I have seen it too many times to count. And it happens even more often now that so many LED fixtures are capable of huge amounts of PAR. In most cases lowering light, increasing nutrients, and optimizing CO2 makes things one heck of a lot easier.


Now where's the fun in that, @GreggZ ? 

I agree that high light, low ferts, no supplemental or poorly optimized CO2 is the highway to hell for people just staring out. But I've done the conventional low tech tank. Now I have reason to believe more is possible (without CO2), I have to investigate more. I am ambivalent about how low ferts specifically fit in to the picture, but I don't dose N and P myself because I've never needed to.

Also related to an earlier part of this thread I think I mentioned on TPT that my pH was pretty uniform throughout the day and I just gave up on wondering why. Um, apparently I haven't checked my pH in like a year and a half and lo and behold I have a ~0.4 drop now. I guess that my substrate microbiome is mature now while initially it wasn't?


----------



## Zeus.

Green Aqua don't used remineralised RO water, a shop with air con set at 22 degrees and one person doing WCs all week for nothing. Best tanks I have ever seen.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Zeus. said:


> Green Aqua don't used remineralised RO water, a shop with air con set at 22 degrees and one person doing WCs all week for nothing. Best tanks I have ever seen.


I think green aqua do use RO water!


----------



## plantnoobdude

"GREEN AQUA WATER PARAMETERS - We use Reverse Osmosis (RO) water, as the Hungarian tap water is really hard. (Around GH 24). Remineralize it with Green Aqua Mineral GH Plus to raise the TDS (Total Dissolved Solids value) to 120 (corresponds to GH 3). Our real values are between TDS 110-160 at times. "

from a green aqua youtube video description

https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnUbjHr7jbU
(deliberate space after " https" because of massive link)


----------



## Djoko Sauza

plantnoobdude said:


> "GREEN AQUA WATER PARAMETERS - We use Reverse Osmosis (RO) water, as the Hungarian tap water is really hard. (Around GH 24). Remineralize it with Green Aqua Mineral GH Plus to raise the TDS (Total Dissolved Solids value) to 120 (corresponds to GH 3). Our real values are between TDS 110-160 at times. "
> 
> from a green aqua youtube video description
> 
> https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnUbjHr7jbU
> (deliberate space after " https" because of massive link)


@Zeus. meant they don't do it for nothing, as in they do it for _reasons._


----------



## plantnoobdude

Djoko Sauza said:


> @Zeus. meant they don't do it for nothing, as in they do it for a reason.


Ohhh, I was being a bit daft apologies, @Zeus.


----------



## ElleDee

plantnoobdude said:


> Ohhh, I was being a bit daft apologies, @Zeus.


I'll confess I also totally misread the comment as they don't use remineralized water, have AC, and then some kind of unpaid intern who mainly did water changes. Glad that got cleared up 😂


----------



## Hanuman

JoshP12 said:


> There is a lot of emphasis on temperature.
> 
> In my books, temp is a tool.


Well I think the only one or one of the only ones emphasising temp in this thread is me 😅 so not so much at the end of the day. Yes temp is a tool and should be used in our favor. I don't use a chiller and can live with it but I know a chiller would provide me more control. Mind you, we are speaking only 24/25C degrees here, not cooling the tank at 5C.
25C degrees is what you see in many natural habitats. Sometimes even lower. Sometimes more.



JoshP12 said:


> But it’s cold … . Why not introduce natural temp fluctuations where at night it’s colder and during the day it’s warmer? If we think about the system, this makes a whole lot of sense.
> 
> Are we worried about plant forms? tightening up internodes? Ya low temp reduce metabolism and decrease demand on everything increasing the likelihood that the plant will be “willing to tighten up since current conditions are favourable”.


Tank temperatures fluctuates far more rapidly than in nature due to sheer size. A couple degrees up and down can be observed in short time spam. The smaller the tank the faster the fluctuations. In nature temps do no fluctuate like that and when they do it's really a constant thing. They are smooth out during the day/night. In a house, specially in tropical countries your tank water could reach 35C or more depending its position in the etc. Then you come home and put the air con etc etc. Could you grow plants? Some perhaps, but certainly not 25++ SP all from very different parts of the world with very different requirements.


----------



## Sudipta

GreggZ said:


> But meanwhile in my reality where I talk to a wide range of people in the hobby, for about 95% of the people, high light + low ferts + low CO2 = unhappy plants and algae.


Hello Gregg,
Out of those 95% people, how many do you think have *ALL* of these points covered?

1. Have 0 dKH water - Any measurable amount of KH would mean the equilibrium is towards bicarbonate and not towards dissolved CO2/H2CO3. As far as I know, not even a single plant would prefer HCO3- if there is available CO2.

2. Using commercial aquasoil (not inert gravel or/and substrates heavily rich in organic matter such as potting mix).

3. Low temperature around 70-74 F.

4. Good filtration with decent surface agitation and water circulation throughout the tank.

5. Have heavily planted tanks (primarily with decent number of fast growing stems but don't frequently uproot them).

6. Regularly maintain their tanks like you @GreggZ

7. Don't use pressurized CO2 - It is far easy to maintain stable levels of CO2 if the injection rate is high compared to maintain low and stable levels of CO2 using a pressurized CO2 injection system.


I have mentioned this before that my non-CO2 supplemented tanks are not technically low-tech. They are actually high-tech without pressurized CO2 injection, no frequent uprooting, relatively easy to maintain for longer periods of time as plants grow slowly. It usually takes me less than 30 minutes for weekly water change and glass/substrate cleaning for the 20 gal tank except when I trim the plants and/or clean the filter (usually once a month).


----------



## GreggZ

ElleDee said:


> Also related to an earlier part of this thread I think I mentioned on TPT that my pH was pretty uniform throughout the day and I just gave up on wondering why. Um, apparently I haven't checked my pH in like a year and a half and lo and behold I have a ~0.4 drop now. I guess that my substrate microbiome is mature now while initially it wasn't?


Now this is very interesting. I think there is something to what you, myself, and others have experienced.


----------



## ElleDee

@GreggZ - Yeah, I was not expecting it at all. The reason I quit checking for it so long ago is that I expected the highest CO2 production in the life of the tank to be in the first few months when the soil was fresh. IIRC that's pretty foundational to Walstad's method where it's presented as a window to get your plants established for the long term. To see that actually it's better 2 years later is a welcome surprise - I thought I missed my opportunity and that was that. 

I wish I knew how long that has been going on and if it coincided with when the tank finally balanced and the algae disappeared. @Sudipta, has your tank always had a pH drop, or did that develop over time?


----------



## Sudipta

ElleDee said:


> @GreggZ - Yeah, I was not expecting it at all. The reason I quit checking for it so long ago is that I expected the highest CO2 production in the life of the tank to be in the first few months when the soil was fresh. IIRC that's pretty foundational to Walstad's method where it's presented as a window to get your plants established for the long term. To see that actually it's better 2 years later is a welcome surprise - I thought I missed my opportunity and that was that.
> 
> I wish I knew how long that has been going on and if it coincided with when the tank finally balanced and the algae disappeared. @Sudipta, has your tank always had a pH drop, or did that develop over time?


I was not monitoring the pH in my 20 gal tank for almost 11 months after I setup the tank. However, I did notice pH drop (when I checked pH after 11 months) before the lights turn on.
I did check the pH of my 5 gal shallow tank when it was 2.5 months old and I noticed pH fluctuations as you can see below, low pH before the lights turned on, high pH after lights turned on as most of the available CO2 was consumed by photosynthesis.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Sudipta said:


> laboratory constructed mutants of nitrogenase is capable of reducing nitrate all the way to ammonia.





Sudipta said:


> Nobody can predict what type of microbial community will develop in individual tank. There are so many variables and microbes literally communicate with each other through quorum sensing (watch the TED talk link I posted yesterday)


My guess is that the more people look for factors like microbial diversity, and novel biochemical pathways, the more they will find them. Unfortunately for me biochemistry, microbiology and animal physiology are areas where I don't have any scientific background and have only picked up little snippets of knowledge.


Sudipta said:


> I noticed pH fluctuations as you can see below, low pH before the lights turned on, high pH after lights turned on as most of the available CO2 was consumed by photosynthesis.


Yes, that is pretty universal in planted systems, <"natural and unnatural">, as well as having less CO2 you have <"more dissolved O2">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Hanuman

@Sudipta Here is what Christel says about L. inclinata in the new edition.


----------



## erwin123

Thanks. Noted on the requirement for "intense light" to promote a red colouration.  And GH/KH <1.... 

I'm interested in getting a copy. The only way to order this book is to go to Christel's website and e-mail her?


----------



## Hanuman

erwin123 said:


> Thanks. Noted on the requirement for "intense light" to promote a red colouration.  And GH/KH <1....
> 
> I'm interested in getting a copy. The only way to order this book is to go to Christel's website and e-mail her?


Yes that's the only way. That's how I did it. Payment through Paypal.


----------



## Zeus.

plantnoobdude said:


> I think green aqua do use RO water!


Post was meant to read as - Green Aqua doesn't use - RO water etc for nothing 😬


----------



## plantnoobdude

Sudipta said:


> I was not monitoring the pH in my 20 gal tank for almost 11 months after I setup the tank. However, I did notice pH drop (when I checked pH after 11 months) before the lights turn on.
> I did check the pH of my 5 gal shallow tank when it was 2.5 months old and I noticed pH fluctuations as you can see below, low pH before the lights turned on, high pH after lights turned on as most of the available CO2 was consumed by photosynthesis.
> 
> 
> View attachment 186804
> 
> 
> View attachment 186805


have you considered a siesta period so that co2 can accumulate again, perhaps a couple hours in the middle of the photoperiod?


----------



## GreggZ

Sudipta said:


> Hello Gregg,
> Out of those 95% people, how many do you think have *ALL* of these points covered?


Not many. And that is the point. You have to have a LOT of things dialed in just so to make it work.

And I think you know me well enough to know that my comment about the 95% is not stated as an argument, but rather an observation based on interactions with others over many years.


----------



## Easternlethal

Sorry if this has been covered - how do you guys get low kh water? I think this will be the next variable I try to play with.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Easternlethal said:


> Sorry if this has been covered - how do you guys get low kh water? I think this will be the next variable I try to play with.


RODI, some people use hcl though.


----------



## Easternlethal

Hmmm.... No peat moss or indian almond leaves?


----------



## Sudipta

GreggZ said:


> Not many. And that is the point. You have to have a LOT of things dialed in just so to make it work.


Yes that is absolutely true and that's the reason I stopped using the term "low-tech" for my setups. However, I do see several advantages of a system like this especially when it comes to growing some of the most difficult stems in the hobby such as Ammania pedicillata golden, Cuphea utriculosa, Rotala tulunadensis etc.(I agree that I can't grow some species in these systems and that's why I also run a high-tech tank). I also agree that plants do struggle occasionally in my non-CO2 supplemented tanks but they come back nice and healthy most of the time.


GreggZ said:


> And I think you know me well enough to know that my comment about the 95% is not stated as an argument, but rather an observation based on interactions with others over many years.


Yes I know that and that's why I respect you when it comes to discussing and troubleshooting with regards to planted tanks. 😀










View attachment 2022-02-15_11-54-51.jpg


----------



## ElleDee

@Easternlethal My tap water is just over 1 dkh. I'm dark cycling my first tank with aquasoil right now, so it's buffered down to 0 for the moment. I wonder how long that will be the case and how much new soil I'd need to add to keep it going? Questions for the future. I feel like that's going to be more effective than botanicals at least in anything bigger than a nano tank. 

I've considered stuff like humic and fulvic acid too, which maybe could be an additional organic carbon source as well, but I didn't get deep enough into the research to decide if that was a worthy line of inquiry.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Sudipta said:


> Yes that is absolutely true and that's the reason I stopped using the term "low-tech" for my setups. However, I do see several advantages of a system like this especially when it comes to growing some of the most difficult stems in the hobby such as Ammania pedicillata golden, Cuphea utriculosa, Rotala tulunadensis etc.(I agree that I can't grow some species in these systems and that's why I also run a high-tech tank). I also agree that plants do struggle occasionally in my non-CO2 supplemented tanks but they come back nice and healthy most of the time.
> 
> Yes I know that and that's why I respect you when it comes to discussing and troubleshooting with regards to planted tanks. 😀
> 
> View attachment 186833
> 
> View attachment 186834
> 
> View attachment 186835


wow, hands down best ultriculosa I've ever seen. amazing!!! the trade name is red cross correct?


----------



## Sudipta

plantnoobdude said:


> wow, hands down best ultriculosa I've ever seen. amazing!!! the trade name is red cross correct?


Thanks. Yes that's correct.


----------



## Sudipta

Hanuman said:


> @Sudipta Here is what Christel says about L. inclinata in the new edition


Thanks @Hanuman
Really nice information. I am thinking about getting the book.
I have been growing three variants of _verticillata_ (Pantanal, Cuba and Meta) in my 20 gal non-CO2 supplemented tank. All of them do stunt in this tank from time to time (quite natural for a fast growing plant without pressurized CO2 injection). However, it is still a mystery to me how they always bounce back after I trim the tops and replant them (these are the plants that I don't generally just trim and leave the bottom to grow, they do sprout new side shoots if I do that but my tank is quite small to keep a large bunch).


----------



## ElleDee

@Sudipta - Do you have any theories about why those certain species do better in your non-injected tanks?

Also with regard to Ludwigia inclinata var. verticillata variants I have read that Cuba and Meta are easier to keep happy than Pantanal. You mention that they all occasionally stunt, but do you find that there are any differences in how they are to grow?


----------



## erwin123

One of my challenges with Pantanal is that only the top leaves turn red while the leaves in the middle and lower remain green...  I would like more of the plant to turn red (this photo was taken when I dosing APT EI at the recommended dose)


----------



## tigertim

Easternlethal said:


> Sorry if this has been covered - how do you guys get low kh water? I think this will be the next variable I try to play with.



Rain water from a large water butt, mine comes out at 1 KH


----------



## plantnoobdude

erwin123 said:


> One of my challenges with Pantanal is that only the top leaves turn red while the leaves in the middle and lower remain green...  I would like more of the plant to turn red (this photo was taken when I dosing APT EI at the recommended dose)


I have the same problem, and also, my pantanal has very curly leaves that point downward.









my goal is something like this.


----------



## Sudipta

ElleDee said:


> @Sudipta - Do you have any theories about why those certain species do better in your non-injected tanks?


Hello @ElleDee
My knowledge about plants is quite limited. Although I have been growing flowering plants and vegetables for quite long time (more than 25 years) but I was never interested in understanding about how they work on a molecular level (I still regret that, I could have learned a lot when I was studying in school/college). This changed quite significantly since I started my first planted tank (keeping fishes since my childhood) in the summer of 2018. It has become quite a fascination to me now. I have been trying to fill that knowledge gap but I think I am still in kindergarten 😄.
However, I can still share few things what I have learned so far.

All of these plants that people struggle with are not true aquatic plants, infact most plants in the hobby are like that. That's the primary reason why we inject pressurized CO2 in planted tanks. However, people still struggle to keep some of these plants (Ammania pedicillata golden as a perfect example), no matter how much CO2 they inject. Vin Kutty has done a great job experimenting with these plants.








						Rotala Kill Tank
					

ROTALA KILL TANK   Starting a new journal to document experiments on Lythraceae family of plants.   Lythraceae include Rotala, Ammannia, Nesaea, Didiplis, and Cuphea.   Those of you who have followed my other journal are familiar with the struggle that I (and countless others) have had with this...




					barrreport.com
				



His primary findings; these plants do better in softwater (low KH) and low water column fertilization (especially with hard water) with rich soil based substrates. According to him, the stems/leaves are quite sensitive to excess nutrients, more so in hard water.

I think some of the transporter systems present in their leaves/stems of these plants are not very specific when it comes to importing ions such as nitrate, phosphate etc. When the plants are growing slow (less CO2 injection/non-CO2 system like mine) then there is less pressure on the transporters. They take their time and import the correct ions. However, when the system is pushed with CO2 injection then these importers have a hard time distinguishing these ions. They import the wrong ion (probably HCO3- instead of NO3- or HPO4-2 or H2PO4-1 or some other similar ions).

This is just my hypothesis and I don't have any proof of this. However, I can provide supporting argument from my current research. I am currently working with high-affinity bacterial phosphate binding protein which has a remarkable ability to distinguish between phosphate and extremely similar anion arsenate (most enzymes can't differentiate between these two ions and that's why arsenate is toxic). The protein from _Pseudomonas fluorescens _can differentiate between these two ions by a factor of roughly 700 folds. Protein from a strain of _Halomonas _(found in arsenate rich environment of Mono lake in California) has a differentiation factor of roughly 4500 folds. This particular protein in these bacteria help them to survive in harsh conditions rich in arsenate. Organisms lacking this mechanism won't survive in this environment.

I know I am stretching it too far by making a comparison here, however I can give another example from research done on plants (not aquatic plants). I don't think that most people in the hobby actually know that ammonium ions can interfere with potassium uptake in plants.
Most people struggle when they use fresh ammonia rich substrates (plant melting). There is a decent chance that if they add more potassium during the initial period (while the substrate is releasing decent amounts of ammonia), they might experience better results, less plant melt.

You can read this paper on this topic.








						Competition between uptake of ammonium and potassium in barley and Arabidopsis roots: molecular mechanisms and physiological consequences
					

Plants can use ammonium (NH[4] [+] ) as the sole nitrogen source, but at high NH[4] [+]  concentrations in the root medium, particularly in combination with a low availability of K[+] , plants suffer from NH[4] [+]  toxicity. To understand the role of ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				




I still have a lot to learn. 😅😅


----------



## Happi

Sudipta said:


> when the system is pushed with CO2 injection then these importers have a hard time distinguishing these ions. They import the wrong ion (probably HCO3- instead of NO3- or HPO4-2 or H2PO4-1 or some other similar ions).


this is something Marcel has also talked about at some point and some of the the dosing was created based on this hypothesis, where plant were provided nutrients in such manner. the hypothesis was that if there was excess of one nutrient, plant spent too much energy uptaking that nutrient and then rejecting it till it picked up the correct one to balance it. but this hypothesis should be further investigated. 



Sudipta said:


> However, people still struggle to keep some of these plants (Ammania pedicillata golden as a perfect example), no matter how much CO2 they inject. Vin Kutty has done a great job experimenting with these plants.


this is exactly what I been talking about on the other thread. co2 isn't the only solution for all the problems, its much more complex than that when it comes to these plants.


----------



## aquanoobie

Sudipta said:


> I know I am stretching it too far by making a comparison here, however I can give another example from research done on plants (not aquatic plants). I don't think that most people in the hobby actually know that ammonium ions can interfere with potassium uptake in plants.
> Most people struggle when they use fresh ammonia rich substrates (plant melting). There is a decent chance that if they add more potassium during the initial period (while the substrate is releasing decent amounts of ammonia), they might experience better results, less plant melt.


Hi @Sudipta 
It sounds like ADA got it right with high K in the water column and NH4 leaching substrate.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

aquanoobie said:


> It sounds like ADA got it right with high K in the water column and NH4 leaching substrate.



Yup 👍🏽

Everyone’s slowly catching up with what @JoshP12 has already said in the last thread. He’s way ahead in this conversation. Smart chap!


----------



## Happi

aquanoobie said:


> It sounds like ADA got it right with high K in the water column and NH4 leaching substrate


then we would expect Tropica to increase their K levels in their liquid fertilizer, on top of that they add more NH4 in their liquid fertilizer while using NH4 rich ADA soil. this is the question only ADA can answer, why they choose to add more K in the water? they too add more NH4/Urea in their liquid fertilizer, if their concern was NH4 being released from the substrate and need for more K, then they wouldn't be adding more NH4/Urea in their liquid fertilizer to begin with.

even the data from those rivers that most of these plant originated from shows both NH4 0.07-0.32 range and K around 0.2-2.2 range present in the water all time, this is rather similar to Tropica level, none of the data shows very high amount of K in those waters. #3 with possibly high in organic decomposing resulting in higher Co2 32.4, NH4 0.32, K at 1.54


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> then we would expect Tropica to increase their K levels in their liquid fertilizer, on top of that they add more NH4 in their liquid fertilizer while using NH4 rich ADA soil. this is the question only ADA can answer, why they choose to add more K in the water? they too add more NH4/Urea in their liquid fertilizer, if their concern was NH4 being released from the substrate and need for more K, then they wouldn't be adding more NH4/Urea in their liquid fertilizer to begin with.
> 
> even the data from those rivers that most of these plant originated from shows both NH4 0.07-0.32 range and K around 0.2-2.2 range present in the water all time, this is rather similar to Tropica level, none of the data shows very high amount of K in those waters. #3 with possibly high in organic decomposing resulting in higher Co2 32.4, NH4 0.32, K at 1.54
> 
> View attachment 186869



Thanks for hammering this home @Happi ! - Remember I started a thread on this last year;




__





						Amazon water types vs. "natural fertilizer" levels
					

Hello, I thought this was interesting: Chemistry of different Amazonian water types. Now, the paper is not specifically about aquatic plants in the Amazonas, but I thought it was interesting how low the water column levels of essentially every mineral are in the rivers they sampled from.  I...



					www.ukaps.org
				



It was a revelation to me quite honestly! @Happi and other added lot of good insights to this on that thread.



Geoffrey Rea said:


> Yup 👍🏽
> 
> Everyone’s slowly catching up with what @JoshP12 has already said in the last thread. He’s way ahead in this conversation.


I always like @JoshP12's posts. I am just a humble research engineer and apparently not smart enough to be able to immediately decrypt his condensed writing, but I love a good challenge and often I think I eventually  get it. Takes a bit of effort. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## aquanoobie

Happi said:


> then we would expect Tropica to increase their K levels in their liquid fertilizer, on top of that they add more NH4 in their liquid fertilizer while using NH4 rich ADA soil.


I guess they don't have the same understanding how things work. I am not saying one is right and the other is wrong, they simply don't share the same mythology. As I posted before, Tropica fertilizer is very close to Marschner's plant tissue analysis.  So maybe they prefer this path. 

And the ADA approach is far from Tropica and Marschner as it can be. Can you imagine Amano studying Marschner research? I don't. He was interested in bicycling and photographing nature and the art of it. So he brought home a bucket of fertile local river mud and some plants. Then he had to figure out what was missing the most to keep his tanks going. It was potassium, and ADA was born.



Happi said:


> this is the question only ADA can answer, why they choose to add more K in the water? they too add more NH4/Urea in their liquid fertilizer, if their concern was NH4 being released from the substrate and need for more K, then they wouldn't be adding more NH4/Urea in their liquid fertilizer to begin with.


My explanation is ADA starts dosing urea later to compensate for the previously rich substrate to keep the balanced ecosystem rolling forward without much distraction.



Happi said:


> even the data from those rivers that most of these plant originated from shows both NH4 0.07-0.32 range and K around 0.2-2.2 range present in the water all time, this is rather similar to Tropica level, none of the data shows very high amount of K in those waters. #3 with possibly high in organic decomposing resulting in higher Co2 32.4, NH4 0.32, K at 1.54
> 
> View attachment 186869


Your first example of the river is 
N 0.0544 to 0.2485
K 0.2 to 2.2
This comes to ratio of N : K of 0.27 to 0.11

Tropica ratio of N : K is 1.3 and Marschner is 1.5.

We can see Tropica and Marschner are very close, almost identical. But the river ratios of N and K are very different than Tropica and Marschner plant tissue.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Happi said:


> this is the question only ADA can answer, why they choose to add more K in the water?



Think Sudipta has already taken a pretty good stab at this question:



Sudipta said:


> I don't think that most people in the hobby actually know that ammonium ions can interfere with potassium uptake in plants.
> Most people struggle when they use fresh ammonia rich substrates (plant melting). There is a decent chance that if they add more potassium during the initial period (while the substrate is releasing decent amounts of ammonia), they might experience better results, less plant melt.



Applying additional K after root tabs also mitigates problems. Problems that are blamed by many on root tabs, rather than inadequacy between the interplay of substrate and water column nutrient availability. The total ammonia nitrogen leaching from substrate into the column at start up and after root tabs is high.

As for ADA’s current guidance with their substrate systems….

Only water column K and micros whilst soil is new. First six to nine months.

Really simple dosing instructions: more plants, dose more per day.






This increase also covers you if you add root tabs incidentally. They’ve done the thinking for the aquarist.



Happi said:


> if their concern was NH4 being released from the substrate and need for more K, then they wouldn't be adding more NH4/Urea in their liquid fertilizer to begin with.



Then as @aquanoobie mentions:



aquanoobie said:


> My explanation is ADA starts dosing urea later to compensate for the previously rich substrate to keep the balanced ecosystem rolling forward without much distraction.



Most stick to root tabs and keep soil dependency for N thereafter. Then focus on tank cleanliness to limit organic buildup in the substrate.

The main use for water column N supplementation on top of root tabs in ADA’s system would be for epiphytes. If you look at ADA’s traditional setups they tended to go with a lot of fish in their scapes with Amazonia 1. This has changed slightly with Amazonia 2 being used more frequently now. Folks mix and match dosing strategies these days so A2 plugs that gap.

Once again, just like the TPN+ question regarding which version of Tropica dosing was being referred to, over a thousand posts ago… when you’re talking about ADA dosing it matters what time period you are referring to. They’ve changed their method several times, for example, from Special LIGHTS/SHADE series to the Green Brighty Series. Need to be specific to work out their intended system of nutrient delivery across time.


----------



## Happi

aquanoobie said:


> I guess they don't have the same understanding how things work. I am not saying one is right and the other is wrong, they simply don't share the same mythology. As I posted before, Tropica fertilizer is very close to Marschner's plant tissue analysis. So maybe they prefer this path.


this part I can agree on that they have different mythology



aquanoobie said:


> We can see Tropica and Marschner are very close, almost identical. But the river ratios of N and K are very different than Tropica and Marschner plant tissue.


the ratio doesn't have to be the exact, but they are somewhat similar. my point was that if you have 0.3 ppm NH4 in the water, you don't need lot of K to counter the toxicity if that was the case. again, if someone is adding 8-10 ppm K weekly, this is not going to stop the plant from growing.


----------



## Happi

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Only water column K and micros whilst soil is new. First six to nine months.


this is why I continue to use NH4/Urea instead of NO3, NH4/Urea is constantly being uptaken by the plants and the aqua soil as it attract + charges and mostly ignore - Charges. some people add Osmocote or Ammonium based root tabs to achieve the same effect.


----------



## Easternlethal

So assuming water is 0 kh, is nh4 then the only other reason for using aquasoil?

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanuman

erwin123 said:


> One of my challenges with Pantanal is that only the top leaves turn red while the leaves in the middle and lower remain green...  I would like more of the plant to turn red (this photo was taken when I dosing APT EI at the recommended dose)


Simple answer. High light. Then limit nitrate to finish it off. APT EI is also not limiting nitrates so things will tend to turn greener. Your plants look healthy though.


----------



## MichaelJ

Week 2: Good growth already, still a bit scrawny looking as mentioned (Boo APF...!) By this time in the past these stems would be starting to loose their leaves and withering away!

Parameters: NO CO2, GH ~4.0, KH <1.0, pH ~6.2, 73F/23C, TDS 80 ppm (yes TDS is coming down...), Much higher light, Targeting ~1 ppm of N - or _lean _like Mother Nature intended it - weekly with Tropica Specialized. (Still zero signs of algae)







Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123

MichaelJ said:


> Week 2: Good growth already, still a bit scrawny looking as mentioned (Boo APF...!) By this time in the past these stems would be starting to loose their leaves and withering away!
> 
> Parameters: NO CO2, GH ~4.0, KH <1.0, pH ~6.2, 73F/23C, TDS 80 ppm (yes, coming down...), Much higher light, Weekly ~1 ppm of N with Tropica Specialized.  Still zero signs of algae!
> 
> View attachment 186877
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Apart from posting photos here, pls do start a separate journal if you haven't already!  I find following regular photos of "work in progress" more valuable than a single 'instagram perfect photo' as it shows me the steps I need to take.

Thats why if there is a journal or thread that shows a Pantanal (eg: emersed form) converting from green leaves to red leaves, that would be more helpful than a photo that just shows me a totally red Pantanal (which may also raise questions whether photoshop was involved...)


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Thanks for hammering this home @Happi ! - Remember I started a thread on this last year;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon water types vs. "natural fertilizer" levels
> 
> 
> Hello, I thought this was interesting: Chemistry of different Amazonian water types. Now, the paper is not specifically about aquatic plants in the Amazonas, but I thought it was interesting how low the water column levels of essentially every mineral are in the rivers they sampled from.  I...
> 
> 
> 
> www.ukaps.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a revelation to me quite honestly! @Happi and other added lot of good insights to this on that thread.


Read carefully that screenshot below. The substrate is loam. Highly rich susbtrate. Soil is continuously replenished with new organic matter being deposited in the river floor.
In a  6-month + heavily planted tank, substrate will be depleted to the point where you need to either compensate by dosing water column more heavily or fertilize the substrate with osmocote or whatever you fancy or both depending the plants you have. That's the reason why we are dosing more after a certain point in time.


Hanuman said:


> @Sudipta Here is what Christel says about L. inclinata in the new edition.
> View attachment 186822 View attachment 186812


----------



## Yugang

Happi said:


> then we would expect Tropica to increase their K levels in their liquid fertilizer, on top of that they add more NH4 in their liquid fertilizer while using NH4 rich ADA soil. this is the question only ADA can answer, why they choose to add more K in the water? they too add more NH4/Urea in their liquid fertilizer, if their concern was NH4 being released from the substrate and need for more K, then they wouldn't be adding more NH4/Urea in their liquid fertilizer to begin with.
> 
> even the data from those rivers that most of these plant originated from shows both NH4 0.07-0.32 range and K around 0.2-2.2 range present in the water all time, this is rather similar to Tropica level, none of the data shows very high amount of K in those waters. #3 with possibly high in organic decomposing resulting in higher Co2 32.4, NH4 0.32, K at 1.54
> 
> View attachment 186869



Slightly off topic ..... I see several rivers/measurements with virtually 0 Mg?  What do I miss, as in my tank it is really hard to be successful without Mg?
Beginners question ... Are we sure there are plants growing at these sample locations anyway?


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Read carefully that screenshot below. The substrate is loam. Highly rich susbtrate. Soil is continuously replenished with new organic matter being deposited in the river floor.
> In a  6-month + heavily planted tank, substrate will be depleted to the point where you need to either compensate by dosing water column more heavily or fertilize the substrate with osmocote or whatever you fancy or both depending the plants you have. That's the reason why we are dosing more after a certain point in time.


Hi @Hanuman   I hear you and I mostly agree! I do not think you can do this ultra  lean water column without substrate rich on microbial activity etc. (soft acidic water and all that jazz...).  My substrate was originally "inert", but now after two years  its highly mature and rich in microbial activity (I Assume!), so my lean column dosing _should_ work, but only time will tell...   crossing my fingers!

 Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman

Yugang said:


> Slightly off topic ..... I see several rivers/measurements with virtually 0 Mg?  What do I miss, as in my tank it is really hard to be successful without Mg?


That is exactly the problem. Picking up one set of information (water column data) and then deriving quick conclusions about ferts. What you see is only part of the equation. You need to consider the soil. Look at the screenshot of Christel book above.


Yugang said:


> Beginners question ... Are we sure there are plants growing at these sample locations anyway?


Yes.  Those are the biotopes from where the plants were collected. That data is taken from Christel's book from the older edition book. The new edition has no updates on this matter.


----------



## MichaelJ

Yugang said:


> I see several rivers/measurements with virtually 0 Mg?


Those are water column measurements, not soil measurements. Plants needs Mg., gotta come from somewhere.


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Hanuman   I hear you and I mostly agree! I do not think you can do this ultra  lean water column without substrate rich on microbial activity etc. (soft acidic water and all that jazz...).  My substrate was originally "inert", but now after two years  is highly mature and rich in microbial activity, so my lean column dosing _should_ work, but only time will tell...   crossing my fingers!


I suspect your inert 2 years soil will be far from enough. You grew plants during these 2 years yes? Unless you didn't and dosed heavily and your substrate has a high CEC those plants also sucked up some of the nutrients so your soil will not be as heavily fertile as you think. Note that Sudipta used Amazonia light then also added some Amazonia I. Those are heavily fertile substrates.
In my tank, I can tell you that after 1 year using Amazonia + Black Earth I could see some plants struggling and instead of using osmocote or the like I simply sucked sections of substrate and added new one. Within the next month plants in those sections would rise to fame.
Anyway, you got to try else you'll never know. And yes please do that journal 😬


----------



## Yugang

So perhaps my point is that it is more relevant to compile data on successful planted tanks than data on river systems?


----------



## Hanuman

Yugang said:


> So perhaps my point is that it is more relevant to compile data on successful planted tanks than data on river systems?


Well it is important to have the plant's natural habitat information but reality is that natural habitats are always far more complex than a tank can ever be so we will always miss some infomoration. We do have A LOT of good examples of people growing those plants successfully in an artificial environment (tanks), CO2, No-CO2 etc etc then yes you can use successful planted tanks as a baseline.

The plants cited above have been grown for many many years already, they are no where being new to the hobby so we have a fairly good knowledge on how to grow them nicely.


----------



## JoshP12

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Yup 👍🏽
> 
> Everyone’s slowly catching up with what @JoshP12 has already said in the last thread. He’s way ahead in this conversation. Smart chap!


Appreciate it. Just learning like everyone .


MichaelJ said:


> I always like @JoshP12's posts. I am just a humble research engineer and apparently not smart enough to be able to immediately decrypt his condensed writing, but I love a good challenge and often I think I eventually  get it. Takes a bit of effort.


Again, appreciate it. But when writing is inaccessible it is always the fault of the writer.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Easternlethal said:


> how do you guys get low kh water?





tigertim said:


> Rain water from a large water butt, mine comes out at 1 KH


I use <"rain water as well">. I appreciate that isn't an option for everybody and mine also has some carbonate buffering.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


aquanoobie said:


> This article says not all freshwater tanks share the same microbial diversity.


There are <"some papers"> on this. 


dw1305 said:


> There are a number of recent scientific papers specifically on the nitrifying organisms in aquarium filters, which suggest that their assemblage shows a fluid response to varying ammonia loadings, with a stable core of Archaea and an ever changing cast of nitrifying bacteria.
> 
> This is described in <"Freshwater Recirculating Aquaculture System Operations Drive Biofilter Bacterial Community Shifts around a Stable Nitrifying Consortium of Ammonia-Oxidizing _Archaea_ and Comammox _Nitrospira"_>, Bagchi _et al _(2014) <"Temporal and Spatial Stability of Ammonia-Oxidizing Archaea and Bacteria in Aquarium Biofilters"> & <"Kinetic analysis of a complete nitrifier reveals an oligotrophic lifestyle">.





dw1305 said:


> Thanks to @Sudipta , that is a good one.


I should have linked in our <"conversation with Tim Hovanec"> for newer members. I think generally it would be fair to say I'm not keen on Bacterial supplements etc. but I've got a lot of time for Dr Hovanec.  

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> I suspect your inert 2 years soil will be far from enough. You grew plants during these 2 years yes? Unless you didn't and dosed heavily and your substrate has a high CEC those plants also sucked up some of the nutrients so your soil will not be as heavily fertile as you think. Note that Sudipta used Amazonia light then also added some Amazonia I. Those are heavily fertile substrates.
> In my tank, I can tell you that after 1 year using Amazonia + Black Earth I could see some plants struggling and instead of using osmocote or the like I simply sucked sections of substrate and added new one. Within the next month plants in those sections would rise to fame.
> Anyway, you got to try else you'll never know. And yes please do that journal 😬


Hi @Hanuman ,  Yes, my inert but "mature" substrate is an unknown factor. I did grow plants in it for 2 years. Previously I did dose quite heavily (EI levels) for a long time. I do not know what level the substrates Cation Exchange Capacity is at - thats a big unknown.  I mostly kept the substrate undisturbed, with only occasional vacuuming of mulm and detritus.  Also, I am using a bit of Osmocote balls in the area where I keep the stem plants. I hope I do not have to replace the substrate... Lets see. It might be feasible to deploy your idea of gradually replacing the substrate with Amazonia.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Yugang

LondonDragon said:


> looking forward to that journal





MichaelJ said:


> I am just a humble research engineer



Patience please, the long awaited journal will actually be @MichaelJ (second) PhD thesis🧑‍🎓


----------



## aquanoobie

Yugang said:


> Patience please, the long awaited journal will actually be @MichaelJ (second) PhD thesis🧑‍🎓


Before or after a third gigantic thread?


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Yes, my inert but "mature" substrate is an unknown factor.


Mature or not has little importance in this specific situation I think as long as it is cycled and you have no more or very little ammonia leeching. You could have a 15 year old substrate with all the bacteria in the world that it would be the same issue, and that is nutrient availability in the substrate. Maturity of the substrate is beneficial from a general stand point of the tank and its stability but it serves little if food is not present or in low amounts and you have hungry plants. Anyway as long as you are adding something to the substrate then you should be good.

In my current tank, when I reset it a few months ago, I took 10%-15% of the old substrate and added it as a first layer before adding the new substrate. The tank was basically cycled in 4 days with <0.5ppm ammonia showing in the tests. I kept all my plants in a styrofoam box in high humidity for that time. On the 5th day when I added the plants back, I basically had 0% melt and all plants started growing like if nothing had happened. The plants I was most concerned about were my bucephalandra but they didn't skip a beat. All stems grew without waiting any further notice.

All I am saying is that you should not get too tight on the maturity of the substrate. It is important of course but most importantly is for plants to have food.


----------



## MichaelJ

Yugang said:


> Patience please, the long awaited journal will actually be @MichaelJ (second) PhD thesis🧑‍🎓


well, as long as my friends  @Hanuman, @GreggZ, @Tim Harrison and @LondonDragon are not on the board of examiners, I might have a sporting chance defending this one 



aquanoobie said:


> Before or after a third gigantic thread?


After... I guess. Might take a couple as these guys are very hard to convince!


----------



## Easternlethal

Hanuman said:


> I kept all my plants in a styrofoam box in high humidity for that time.



Why didn't you plant straightaway? Nh4 + softening is good no?


----------



## Hanuman

Easternlethal said:


> Why didn't you plant straightaway? Nh4 + softening is good no?


Not really. If you plant straight away in a fresh rich aquasoil that leaches excessive amounts of ammonia you can expect some level of melting. Plants do like ammonia or other macros for that matter but when ppm levels are way off from what they are used to, they need to adapt again and you can/will get some melting combined with algae proliferation. On fast growing plants, not a big deal. On epiphytes not so cool. What I did was a fast mini-cycle. My canister also helped as I didn't touch it during the reset. Once all was back to normal I did a quick clean of the filter.
Tank was left like this for 4 days without light. WC 2-3 times within that period to remove all ammonia excess.


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> well, as long as my friends  @Hanuman, @GreggZ, @Tim Harrison and @LondonDragon are not on the board of examiners, I might have a sporting chance defending this one
> 
> 
> After... I guess. Might take a couple as these guys are very hard to convince!


The only examiners/judges here are your plants. 🤓 We are mere spectators.😎


----------



## Tim Harrison

Hanuman said:


> The only examiners/judges here are your plants. 🤓 We are mere spectators.😎


Whilst we’re on that subject. This, not so unique idea, has already been discussed ad nauseam in two mammoth threads that differ only in title. Surely there can’t be that much more to discuss? Wouldn’t it be better to start a journal now and turn theory in to practice?

Then you’ll be able to test your hypothesis and see if it holds true with reference to an actual planted aquarium. Like @Hanuman has suggested the plants will be the ultimate arbitrators. I’m sure it’d make for a far better and  more productive discussion.


----------



## Hanuman




----------



## Easternlethal

Tim Harrison said:


> has already been discussed


just curious - as a mod do you prefer lots of traffic talking about the same ole or less of both?
journals are very tricky things to do especially if one fails then some ppl think you just lack skill


----------



## Kerrycarp

In my experience no one on this forum would think you have failed just because you lack the skills or knowledge.
A journal would show where your shortcomings are and most people here are only to happy to share their knowledge and skills as they don't want you to fail.
The people on this forum are coming along with you on your ride. They will experience the same joy (and heartache) as you do.
You will not be criticised but helped so that your own knowledge develops.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Easternlethal said:


> journals are very tricky things to do especially if one fails then some ppl think you just lack skill


That’s a pretty jaundice view of the UKAPS team and other members. Quite the contrary, Journals are often the best place to get constructive feedback and help when things don’t go according to plan for various reasons. Not least the history is there to reference for solutions. I’ve documented more than a few disasters in warts ‘n’ all journals; nobody criticised me for lack of skill.

As for your other question, don’t you think it’s a little disingenuous?


----------



## LondonDragon

MichaelJ said:


> well, as long as my friends @Hanuman, @GreggZ, @Tim Harrison and @LondonDragon are not on the board of examiners, I might have a sporting chance defending this one


Otherwise, you will turn into another Happi, that just talks about the theories but shows little evidence of the fact in over a decade! Like we said we encourage journals, if nothing else to show the pros and cons of doing such a planted tank.


Easternlethal said:


> journals are very tricky things to do especially if one fails then some ppl think you just lack skill


If people start a journal because they are not going fail, then UKAPS would have no journals. Journals are useful to document progress as a minimum, have input from other members when things go wrong, or highlight how you have overcome issues! Not just to post the pretty photos of when things are going well, thats how journals end up in the featured section!


----------



## erwin123

Easternlethal said:


> just curious - as a mod do you prefer lots of traffic talking about the same ole or less of both?
> journals are very tricky things to do especially if one fails then some ppl think you just lack skill


My journal is as much for my reference as for others to learn from my mistakes. I try to post a photo every week, good or bad,  and since algae doesn't really bother me, you'll see lots of algae in my journal photos. When it comes to algae farming, I definitely don't lack skill


----------



## Zeus.

Hanuman said:


>



'Do or do not, there is no try'- believe it or not this quote form empire strikes back help me to get my degree. I believed it was possible first, the rest was down to 'grit'


----------



## Sudipta

All 4 of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks, today's images.

Tank 1 - 20 gal; setup date - June 16, 2019. Notice the green dust algae on the left wall.

Tank 2 - 10 gal; setup date - Jan 4, 2020.

Tank 3 - 4 gal; setup date - Mar 1, 2021.

Tank 4 - 5 gal shallow; setup date - Oct 16, 2021.


----------



## Wookii

Sudipta said:


> All 4 of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks, today's images.
> 
> Tank 1 - 20 gal; setup date - June 16, 2019. Notice the green dust algae on the left wall.
> 
> Tank 2 - 10 gal; setup date - Jan 4, 2020.
> 
> Tank 3 - 4 gal; setup date - Mar 1, 2021.
> 
> Tank 4 - 5 gal shallow; setup date - Oct 16, 2021.
> 
> View attachment 187204
> View attachment 187205
> 
> View attachment 187206
> 
> View attachment 187207



Beautiful tanks - and even more incredible that you appear to be running them each with just a small HOB filter for each one, is that correct? If so, only minimal gas exchange and distribution.

May I ask what your lighting is on each of these tanks (light brand/model if known, wattage and setting level if dimmed)?


----------



## MichaelJ

Wookii said:


> Beautiful tanks - and even more incredible that you appear to be running them each with just a small HOB filter for each one, is that correct? If so, only minimal gas exchange and distribution.
> 
> May I ask what your lighting is on each of these tanks (light brand/model if known, wattage and setting level if dimmed)?



Hi @Sudipta ,  like @Wookii , I would definitely also like to know more about the lights you are using as well - the setup etc..  I think I _might_ want to switch my lights in my lean-experiment tank.  

Also tell us about the HOBs... what brand/model is it ?

Stunning tanks! 

Also, I am thinking about potting my stems into ADA Amazonia soil - although my stems are still doing fairly well,  I don't think my inert but _mature_ substrate is going to cut it in the longer run.  Big unknown.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Sudipta

Wookii said:


> Beautiful tanks - and even more incredible that you appear to be running them each with just a small HOB filter for each one, is that correct? If so, only minimal gas exchange and distribution.
> 
> May I ask what your lighting is on each of these tanks (light brand/model if known, wattage and setting level if dimmed)?





MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Sudipta ,  like @Wookii , I would definitely also like to know more about the lights you are using as well - the setup etc..  I think I _might_ want to switch my lights in my lean-experiment tank.
> 
> Also tell us about the HOBs... what brand/model is it ?
> 
> Stunning tanks!
> 
> Also, I am thinking about potting my stems into ADA Amazonia soil - although my stems are still doing fairly well,  I don't think my inert but _mature_ substrate is going to cut it in the longer run.  Big unknown.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Thank you @Wookii and @MichaelJ 
Here are the details:

Tank 1 (20 gallons)
Filter - Aquaclear 70 (300 gph max) - set at minimum flow rate (don't know the actual flow rate).
Light - Chihiros wrgb2 (60 cm, 67W) - 100% red, 50% green and 70% blue.

Tank 2 (10 gallons)
Filter - Aquaclear 30 (150 gph max) - set at minimum flow rate (don't know the actual flow rate).
Light - Chihiros rgb Aplus (45 cm, 35W) - 100% red, 55% green and 80% blue.

Tank 3 (4 gallons)
Filter - Dymax slim flo 120 (120L/h or roughly 32 gph max) - set at maximum flow rate (don't know the actual flow rate).
Light - Chihiros wrgb2 (30 cm, 33W) - 75% red, 35% green and 55% blue.

Tank 4 (5 gallons)
Filter - Dymax slim flo 120 (120L/h or roughly 32 gph max) - set at maximum flow rate (don't know the actual flow rate).
Light - Chihiros rgb (60 cm, 50W), older model - Full intensity.

You can get an idea about water flow and surface agitation from this video (I posted earlier). Keep in mind that some of the filters were not cleaned for almsot 3 weeks when I made this video, particularly the 4 and 5 gallons tanks.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Sudipta said:


> Thank you @Wookii and @MichaelJ
> Here are the details:
> 
> Tank 1 (20 gallons)
> Filter - Aquaclear 70 (300 gph max) - set at minimum flow rate (don't know the actual flow rate).
> Light - Chihiros wrgb2 (60 cm, 67W) - 100% red, 50% green and 70% blue.
> 
> Tank 2 (10 gallons)
> Filter - Aquaclear 30 (150 gph max) - set at minimum flow rate (don't know the actual flow rate).
> Light - Chihiros rgb Aplus (45 cm, 35W) - 100% red, 55% green and 80% blue.
> 
> Tank 3 (4 gallons)
> Filter - Dymax slim flo 120 (120L/h or roughly 32 gph max) - set at maximum flow rate (don't know the actual flow rate).
> Light - Chihiros wrgb2 (30 cm, 33W) - 75% red, 35% green and 55% blue.
> 
> Tank 4 (5 gallons)
> Filter - Dymax slim flo 120 (120L/h or roughly 32 gph max) - set at maximum flow rate (don't know the actual flow rate).
> Light - Chihiros rgb (60 cm, 50W), older model - Full intensity.
> 
> You can get an idea about water flow and surface agitation from this video (I posted earlier). Keep in mind that some of the filters were not cleaned for almsot 3 weeks when I made this video, particularly the 4 and 5 gallons tanks.



Jeez, in my high tech I struggled around 80% lol. I'm gonna have to try and inch up the strength of the lights when I beat the algae in my tank. spirogyra... nasty stuff.
at your values you should have around 150~200 par according to @reefaddict chihiros par readings.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @Sudipta   Thanks for the details! Even at minimum flow it doesn't look like your lacking circulation there - even at the substrate level I see leaves swaying...     I think I might pull the trigger and get one of those Chihiros wrgb2.  

Anyway,  I have to stop over soon to check out your tanks! Can't wait! Absolutely stunning!


Cheers,
Michael

PS:  Hey, 10 seconds in I see an Anubias with a yellow leaf and a leaf with some Green Spot Algae!?  This tank clearly got _CO2 and too much light _issues


----------



## erwin123

I am wondering how to improve my tank photographs... the plants in Sudiptas photos are evenly illuminated  

When I try to take photos, I find that plants that are nearer the water surface get more like and a 'brighter' while plants near the substrate are 'darker'   This is despite the fact that I am using 2 x WRGB2 - one in front and one at the back of the tank, which should reduce the amount of shadows etc.

When taking photos, do you add extra lights to evenly illuminate all the plants? Can you share your photography techniques?


----------



## Sudipta

plantnoobdude said:


> Jeez, in my high tech I struggled around 80% lol. I'm gonna have to try and inch up the strength of the lights when I beat the algae in my tank. spirogyra... nasty stuff.
> at your values you should have around 150~200 par according to @reefaddict chihiros par readings.



@plantnoobdude  these are some PAR measurements I did in early January this year.

Tank 1







Tank 2




Tank 3





Tank 4





Spirogyra is quite a stubborn algae. Tank 3 was pretty badly affected by spirogyra last summer (I was not doing regular water changes and tank maintenance). I tried to treat with excel and H2O2, it didn't work. I also lowered the light intensity but nothing happened. I even removed most of the badly affected plants along with doing all these chemical treatments and playing with light intensity, nothing worked for me. I finally tried API algaefix and it worked like magic, there was not even a single strand of spirogyra left after couple of weeks and it never returned back since then. I followed the guidelines on the bottle for dosing. I had some baby apistos in this tank and they were not affected by this treatment.


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> Even at minimum flow it doesn't look like your lacking circulation there - even at the substrate level I see leaves swaying...


Hello Michael,
Yes you are right. The flow and surface agitation in all my tanks are quite decent.




MichaelJ said:


> Anyway, I have to stop over soon to check out your tanks! Can't wait! Absolutely stunning!


Thanks 🙂. I guess then I have to hide all my CO2 cylinders. 🤣🤣


----------



## Sudipta

erwin123 said:


> I am wondering how to improve my tank photographs... the plants in Sudiptas photos are evenly illuminated
> 
> When I try to take photos, I find that plants that are nearer the water surface get more like and a 'brighter' while plants near the substrate are 'darker'   This is despite the fact that I am using 2 x WRGB2 - one in front and one at the back of the tank, which should reduce the amount of shadows etc.
> 
> When taking photos, do you add extra lights to evenly illuminate all the plants? Can you share your photography techniques?


Hello @erwin123
I use my cellphone camera most of the time when taking pictures of my tanks. I don't do anything special, no extra lights or whatsoever. I simply maintain some distance from the tank when taking pictures of the whole tank and try to angle (slightly up or down) the phone in such a way that the lights above the tank don't shine directly on the camera and change the exposure. This simple trick does the job for me.
You should also try to turn off other lights in the room, stray light from other sources will affect camera's auto exposure function.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Sudipta said:


> @plantnoobdude  these are some PAR measurements I did in early January this year.
> 
> Tank 1
> 
> View attachment 187347
> 
> 
> Tank 2
> View attachment 187349
> 
> Tank 3
> View attachment 187350
> 
> 
> Tank 4
> View attachment 187351
> 
> 
> Spirogyra is quite a stubborn algae. Tank 3 was pretty badly affected by spirogyra last summer (I was not doing regular water changes and tank maintenance). I tried to treat with excel and H2O2, it didn't work. I also lowered the light intensity but nothing happened. I even removed most of the badly affected plants along with doing all these chemical treatments and playing with light intensity, nothing worked for me. I finally tried API algaefix and it worked like magic, there was not even a single strand of spirogyra left after couple of weeks and it never returned back since then. I followed the guidelines on the bottle for dosing. I had some baby apistos in this tank and they were not affected by this treatment.


if all else fails, I will try some API algaefix. I was recommended it by @Happi as well. the problem with spiro is that its not affected at all by healthy growing plants lol, It'll happily attack the happiest of all plants in my tank. at this point, it's basically the only algae I have.light has been reduced to 40-25-40% that coupled with more floaters and lower collumn macro dosing seems to be helping.


----------

