# Lean dosing pros and cons



## Riverside Scaper

Hi all,

I’ve recently set up my new scape AS1200 and densely planted. Running CO2 with an in-line diffuser on both Oase 600 filters and dosing APT Complete daily as per instructions on the bottle. I’m still doing daily water changes for the first month and then will dial it back slowly until I am down to 2 water changes a a week. 

So far everything is going good and I don’t have any nuisance algae issues, just diatoms but I guess that’s to be expected. 

My question is what is the benefits or limitations of switching to APT Zero or just lean dosing in general? Would my epiphytes suffer if I switched to lean dosing? Would I possibly swap one type of algae issue for another? 

This is the scape currently, plants are growing in slowly and things are generally headed in the right direction. 

The only plant that isn’t doing well is the Staurogyne Repens. For some reason that I can’t figure out, it’s dropping leaves fast.


----------



## MichaelJ

Riverside Scaper said:


> My question is what is the benefits or limitations of switching to APT Zero or just lean dosing in general? Would my epiphytes suffer if I switched to lean dosing? Would I possibly swap one type of algae issue for another?


Hi @Riverside Scaper  Nice tank! I can't really think of any benefits from lean dosing (whatever that means, exactly). Your running a massive high energy tank with a huge plant mass (eventually) that is going to need a lot of nutrients. The fertilizers you dose won't cause algae problems, but the lack fertilizer very well might. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Kelvin12

Nice tank looks great.  Whatever you are doing now I would be sticking with it as is.  I only dose on demand myself but then I am only recently a convert to this method so not qualified to really offer firm advise here. 
Dirk


----------



## MichaelJ

Kelvin12 said:


> I only dose on demand


Hi @Kelvin12 , I am curious to know what that means?


----------



## Happi

@Riverside Scaper there is no issue with lean dosing and high lights. You can keep your co2 between 15-20 ppm and dose lean with high lights. This need for high light, high co2 and high fertilizer is a myth and mainly comes from EI concept. I can tell you this based on my experience and am sure you will find more people who have similar experience.


----------



## Mr.Shenanagins

I think “lean dosing” is misleading. Each tank has a sweet spot, and it also depends on the plants you have in that tank and how nutrient rich your substrate is. The only advantage I think would be getting deeper reds in plants that respond to nitrate limitation in that way. Your treading a fine line going that route, but there is nothing wrong with experimenting to see, just expect plant growth to suffer and even onset of algae. Looking the way your tank does, I wouldn’t change a gosh darn thing!


----------



## Kelvin12

Michael,  my on demand method is my own dosing method 1/2 recommended or thereabouts, then only as the plants seem to have dropped off a bit.   II am finding the few fish I keep, neon tetras especially don't  seem to be very happy even with this small doseage.  But plants are my priority not the fish.  

P.S. to above there are also 3 Siamese algae eaters in this tank that don't  seem to be effected maybe because they are a bigger fish.


----------



## Angus

Mr.Shenanagins said:


> I think “lean dosing” is misleading. Each tank has a sweet spot, and it also depends on the plants you have in that tank and how nutrient rich your substrate is.


Exactly this, like growing any plant there is a sweet spot, where if you provide light, you have to match the demands that light sets on the plant in regard to supplying the appropriate building blocks for growth.

In growing terrestrial plants you don't have the problem of co2 limitation, whereas in the aquarium this is an ever present concern for people running high metabolism high growth rate co2 injected tanks.

And most people who do planted tanks should know about NPK+trace, and what to provide your plants for best vegetative growth.


----------



## MichaelJ

Kelvin12 said:


> Michael,  my on demand method is my own dosing method 1/2 recommended or thereabouts, then only as the plants seem to have dropped off a bit.   II am finding the few fish I keep, neon tetras especially don't  seem to be very happy even with this small doseage.  But plants are my priority not the fish.
> 
> P.S. to above there are also 3 Siamese algae eaters in this tank that don't  seem to be effected maybe because they are a bigger fish.



Hi @Kelvin12 , Fertilizer won't harm your fish unless you are wildly overdosing (I have lots of different healthy Tetras, Oto's, Golden Rams and Angle fish and lots of Shrimps and shrimplets across my two tanks and I dose A LOT!).  Also, waiting for the plants to show stress from deficiency is not a good idea - you are starving off the plants and give room for algae, and from the time you start upping the dosing and until it works the plants will deteriorate even more. I personally think it's pointless to back down on nutrients (unless its for monetary reasons), as we now know that it won't cause algae or harm our livestock.


Happi said:


> @Riverside Scaper there is no issue with lean dosing and high lights. You can keep your co2 between 15-20 ppm and dose lean with high lights. This need for high light, high co2 and high fertilizer is a myth and mainly comes from EI concept. I can tell you this based on my experience and am sure you will find more people who have similar experience.


Hi @Happi , It would be great if you could add some insights to this from your experience. Given how many around here that follows and promotes the _myth_, as you call it, and have great success following it (i.e. high dosing / EI), I think it would be interesting for a lot of fellow hobbyists to understand why it is so in more details.  I just follow the advice given to me by the experts to see if it works... and it works! ... I do not know why it works in excruciating details - I don't need to.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123

> You can modify EI in a very simple way, without a "test kit".
> 
> How? Start with normal EI dosing and then slowly and progressively reduce the dosing rate till you note a negative plant growth response.
> Then simply bump back up to the last prior dosing level. This is the ideal dosing rate for your tank. This takes a few weeks of reduction to do it correctly and of course watching your plants and growth, but you will do this anyway.
> 
> Unlike lean methods, this approach does not stress the plant's full potential of growth, it targets what is called the "critical point".











						Hate water changes? EI can get you there with a small modification
					

Some assumptions often are discussed about dosing methods, EI is no different.   One of the main criticisms are water changes. Many hate doing them. Newbies are particularly easy to manipulate with such advice suggesting no or very little water changes.  The old fish breeder? Not so much, they...




					barrreport.com
				




Tom Barr's suggestion is an excellent one - instead of going from EI one day to lean dosing the other, *you slowly dial down the ferts until you see negative effects.*
The last 2 lines of his post are well worth remembering: 



> *EI is not rigid, it's what you make of it and then use your own brain to modify for your management goals.*
> It's just a starting place or a method to rule other factors out.


----------



## MichaelJ

erwin123 said:


> Hate water changes? EI can get you there with a small modification
> 
> 
> Some assumptions often are discussed about dosing methods, EI is no different.   One of the main criticisms are water changes. Many hate doing them. Newbies are particularly easy to manipulate with such advice suggesting no or very little water changes.  The old fish breeder? Not so much, they...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barrreport.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Barr's suggestion is an excellent one - instead of going from EI one day to lean dosing the other, *you slowly dial down the ferts until you see negative effects.*
> The last 2 lines of his post are well worth remembering:


Whats the point of this exercise? (Not asking you @erwin123 as your the messenger here...) Well, I get it, if your teetering on high TDS levels for certain livestock such as delicate shrimps etc. but otherwise not. The reason I do WCs is to get rid of waste - unrelated to my fertilizer dosing. Perhaps this advice was given back (almost 10 years ago actually) when fertilizer was super expensive, not well understood or something. Can someone explain why this is even a topic for discussion? 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Riverside Scaper

Thanks for all the replies, it’s much appreciated.

The tank has only been up and running for a month, 3 weeks of which it has been planted… so plenty of time to screw this up! 😅

With regards to the substrate, it’s a bottom layer of ada power sand and the rest is just regular Tropica soil and powder soil. I haven’t added any nutrient tabs to the substrate or anything like that and the only dosing is APT Complete at 9ml per day as per the bottle instructions.

I’m doing 80% water changes daily and between those and my clean up crew consisting of 7 ottos, Amano shrimp, cherry shrimp and horned nerite snails, I haven’t had any algae issues so far. I run the light for 6 hours per day, with CO2 starting 2 hours before lights on and stops and hour before lights off. I dose slightly more CO2 than normal so my drop checker is a lighter green, but my fish and shrimp all seem happy. There is plenty of surface agitation which is how I like it, I’d rather dose more CO2 and have some of it gas off than less surface agitation. 

The plant list is as follows:
Marsilea Crenata
Cryptocoryne Parva
Cryptocoryne Willisii
Anubias Nana Petite
Bucephalandra Biblis
Bucephalandra Theia
Bucephalandra Kedagang
Schismatoglottis Pretoi 
Hygrophila Auriguaia
Microsorum Pteropus Trident
Bolbitis Heudelotii
Hygrophila Pinnatifida 
Hemianthus Micranthemoides
Ludwigia Mini Super Red
Myriophyllum Mattogrossense
Rotala Indica Bonsai

The only positives I could find in nitrogen limitation is the more vivid colourations of the red, pink and orange plants such as Rotala Macrandra. Does this method impact epiphytes such as Trident ferns, Bolbitis or Buces?


----------



## Happi

@MichaelJ 
It's one of those debate which is a never ending debate and we are not going to get anywhere. I use to spend lot of time debating and it would go on back and forth without any outcome. So I just let people decide for themselves, if they were to use high light and lean fertilizer and succeeded then that's all the proof you need. 

The argument is not about weather EI or high dosing works. The argument is about we are told that high light mean we need to dose high fertilizer and add lot of co2, this is a myth. This myth is similar to high po4 solving GSA when GSA has nothing to do with this. If true then both myth should hold true when someone is using tropica fertilizer because not only it's lean, but it also adds very little po4.


----------



## Happi

Mr.Shenanagins said:


> I think “lean dosing” is misleading. Each tank has a sweet spot, and it also depends on the plants you have in that tank and how nutrient rich your substrate is. The only advantage I think would be getting deeper reds in plants that respond to nitrate limitation in that way. Your treading a fine line going that route, but there is nothing wrong with experimenting to see, just expect plant growth to suffer and even onset of algae. Looking the way your tank does, I wouldn’t change a gosh darn thing!


I dont see anything misleading about lean dosing, people think its misleading because they misunderstand it. When done correctly no plant suffer and there is no algae, not only plants look vibrant but they also do well under such condition. They might grow bit slower but other than that high light and lean dosing will not cause algae. Most modern lighting is producing much higher PAR than ever and majority of people are still dosing lean and have great looking tank and they run their tanks at 20 ppm or so CO2. Most people who have high lights and dosing higher nutrients seems to have more algae problems. In year of 2021 they are still trying to fix their co2.


----------



## John q

Mr.Shenanagins said:


> I think “lean dosing” is misleading. Each tank has a sweet spot, and it also depends on the plants you have in that tank and how nutrient rich your substrate is.





Riverside Scaper said:


> With regards to the substrate, it’s a bottom layer of ada power sand and the rest is just regular Tropica soil and powder soil.


@Riverside Scaper  the tank looks fantastic.

The substrate you're using is packed with nutrients, how much of that finds its way into the water column I couldn't say but would suggest its a fair amount. At this early stage to suggest the plants in this tank are lean dosed is slightly misleading. 

The substrate at some point will stop providing these nutrients and you'll have to start adding a complete fertiliser, this could be lean dosed, full ei, or something in-between, your plants will then answer the original question of pro's and con's of lean dosing.


----------



## Tom Delattre

I'm currently switching progressively (1ml + or - per week) from high dosage of tropica specialized to low dosage of Apt zero. What I see is redder plants, lower growth, and higher GSA. 
I have another tank that has always been under a no ferts, no CO2 regime (but prodibio aquasoil) and plants were very healthy, slow growing, super red. Recently I added Bucephalandra to that tank and they are getting BBA . I'll probably start dosing that tank... 
Just my 2 cents 

Envoyé de mon KB2003 en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## PARAGUAY

Mr.Shenanagins said:


> I think “lean dosing” is misleading. Each tank has a sweet spot, and it also depends on the plants you have in that tank and how nutrient rich your substrate is. The only advantage I think would be getting deeper reds in plants that respond to nitrate limitation in that way. Your treading a fine line going that route, but there is nothing wrong with experimenting to see, just expect plant growth to suffer and even onset of algae. Looking the way your tank does, I wouldn’t change a gosh darn thing!


I dont like the term lean dosing either it implies thats all whats given without mention for nutrient rich substrates like amazonia. In fact shops will adopt lean dosing for healthy plant growth but less faster meaning less work maintaining 30 or 40 planted CO2 aquariums. A bit different on low dosing regarding low energy no CO2. IME less dosing but dosing all nutrients when needed as Duckweed Index.


----------



## Angus

John q said:


> @Riverside Scaper  the tank looks fantastic.
> 
> The substrate you're using is packed with nutrients, how much of that finds its way into the water column I couldn't say but would suggest its a fair amount. At this early stage to suggest the plants in this tank are lean dosed is slightly misleading.
> 
> The substrate at some point will stop providing these nutrients and you'll have to start adding a complete fertiliser, this could be lean dosed, full ei, or something in-between, your plants will then answer the original question of pro's and con's of lean dosing.


Definitely correct in my opinion, amazonia allows me quite a lot of lee-way in my low-tech setups and means i can wait and increase stocking more slowly, because the plants are provided for without the fish waste being produced by a full stocking compliment, i also dose very lightly once a week or after a waterchange. (seachem flourish lol don't laugh at me i didn't buy it.)

But i know this will have to change after about 6 months of the tanks being set up from experience, and i will have to dose macro+micro.


----------



## Mr.Shenanagins

@Happi In regards to my comment about lean dosing being misleading, what I meant is that “lean” is not same amount for every tank. One tank may only need 5-10 ppm of nitrate a week based on that tanks needs. Another tank could attempt that same “lean” regimen and watch their tank crash, with the end user not understanding why it works for the first tank and not theirs.


----------



## Happi

Mr.Shenanagins said:


> @Happi In regards to my comment about lean dosing being misleading, what I meant is that “lean” is not same amount for every tank. One tank may only need 5-10 ppm of nitrate a week based on that tanks needs. Another tank could attempt that same “lean” regimen and watch their tank crash, with the end user not understanding why it works for the first tank and not theirs.


so lets say if 10 users are using Tropica fertilizer for example and out of those 10 users, 2 of them have the issues with plant growth. does that mean they need to increase their dosing or does that mean there is some user errors or water chemistry issue? 

now take another 10 users who are using higher dosing fertilizer for example and out of those 10 users, 2 of them have the issues with plant growth. does that mean they need to increase their dosing or does that mean there is some user errors or water chemistry issue? 

I have seen tank Crashes in both cases, but I don't blame the crash entirely on the nutrients, there are several factors from User errors to water chemistry and many more.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> @MichaelJ
> It's one of those debate which is a never ending debate and we are not going to get anywhere. I use to spend lot of time debating and it would go on back and forth without any outcome. So I just let people decide for themselves, if they were to use high light and lean fertilizer and succeeded then that's all the proof you need.


Hi @Happi I agree, these pro vs. con discussions tend to go nowhere fast and end up being unnecessarily heated - especially when its unclear what it is exactly that is being debated   I don't really know enough from experience to debate "lean" vs. high. What I do know from experience  is that lack of consistent fertilization is not working, and providing an abundance of ferts works and without any appreciable side-effects.



Happi said:


> This myth is similar to high po4 solving GSA when GSA has nothing to do with this. If true then both myth should hold true when someone is using tropica fertilizer because not only it's lean, but it also adds very little po4.


You know a lot more about this than most, but I have seen, again from experience, that high dosing of PO4 eradicating a GSA outbreak in both my tanks. Granted, this was combined with lowering the light intensity, thus lowering the demand for CO2, and upping my WC %... so which factor(s) that had the biggest impact I do not know. Also, battle-tested experts around here consistently make the case about the correlation between PO4 deficiency (and poor CO2) and GSA 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Mr.Shenanagins

Happi said:


> have seen tank Crashes in both cases, but I don't blame the crash entirely on the nutrients, there are several factors from User errors to water chemistry and many more.


Agreed. I just personally believe having more nutrients with room for error is better for most aquarists than not enough. You can root out nutrients as a limiting factor. Certainly the biggest factor of all is CO2 I think we can all agree on that.


----------



## MichaelJ

Mr.Shenanagins said:


> Agreed. I just personally believe having more nutrients with room for error is better for most aquarists than not enough. You can root out nutrients as a limiting factor.


This totally sums it up for me.


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi I agree, these pro vs. con discussions tend to go nowhere fast and end up being unnecessarily heated - especially when its unclear what it is exactly that is being debated   I don't really know enough from experience to debate "lean" vs. high. What I do know from experience  is that lack of consistent fertilization is not working, and providing an abundance of ferts works and without any appreciable side-effects.
> 
> 
> You know a lot more about this than most, but I have seen, again from experience, that high dosing of PO4 eradicating a GSA outbreak in both my tanks. Granted, this is was combined with lowering the light intensity, thus lowering the demand for CO2, and upping my WC %... so which factor(s) that had the biggest impact I do not know. And battle-tested experts around here consistently make the case about the correlation between PO4 deficiency (and poor CO2) and GSA
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Dear Michael,
I do agree with the consistent Dosing but it doesn't has to be the higher amounts that are being suggested.

far as GSA goes, just ask your self based on what I have explained earlier, is it really PO4 that is getting rid of the GSA or is it that adding more PO4 is doing something to the water chemistry that is doing the trick. because like I said PO4 itself has nothing to do with GSA if true then Tropica tanks should be fully covered with GSA.

I will give you another good example but its not related to this topic but it is related to Assumption and Myth.
have you ever seen a pin holes on hygrophila pinnatifida ? and most of these people were dosing 50+ ppm K and still had pin holes? they were suggested they don't have enough Potassium and they added even more potassium and still had the pin holes. it didn't make any sense but people been brainwashed to believe that they needed more potassium. on the other hand I have seen hygrophila pinnatifida growing well Under Tropica fertilizer without any pin holes and Tropica add very little Potassium. I added hygrophila pinnatifida in my tank while back to test this and it turned out I get the exact same results as Tropica while using the tropica clone. is it because Tropica is a better balanced fertilizer? Maybe. Is it because Tropica use different kinds of chemicals? Maybe. could it be Ratio? Maybe. but having a Pin holes at 50+ ppm and having none under less than 3 ppm is something to think about, Right?


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> or is it that adding more PO4 is doing something to the water chemistry that is doing the trick.


Hi @Happi Yes, that might be it I guess.


Happi said:


> because like I said PO4 itself has nothing to do with GSA if true then Tropica tanks should be fully covered with GSA.


In the past I have been running tanks (moderately stocked), only relying on the ferts from Tropica Premium and the NP from food and fish waste without encountering GSA as well, but got into all other sorts of other trouble due to excessive light intensity and poor maintenance. So from experience I don't have a reason to believe that GSA always will happen with low PO4...so by that measure I agree with you. But I suppose IF you get GSA upping the PO4 levels _might_ help - due to whatever happens to the water chemistry, as seen in my cases described above.   

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Mr.Shenanagins

Happi said:


> Dear Michael,
> I do agree with the consistent Dosing but it doesn't has to be the higher amounts that are being suggested.
> 
> far as GSA goes, just ask your self based on what I have explained earlier, is it really PO4 that is getting rid of the GSA or is it that adding more PO4 is doing something to the water chemistry that is doing the trick. because like I said PO4 itself has nothing to do with GSA if true then Tropica tanks should be fully covered with GSA.
> 
> I will give you another good example but its not related to this topic but it is related to Assumption and Myth.
> have you ever seen a pin holes on hygrophila pinnatifida ? and most of these people were dosing 50+ ppm K and still had pin holes? they were suggested they don't have enough Potassium and they added even more potassium and still had the pin holes. it didn't make any sense but people been brainwashed to believe that they needed more potassium. on the other hand I have seen hygrophila pinnatifida growing well Under Tropica fertilizer without any pin holes and Tropica add very little Potassium. I added hygrophila pinnatifida in my tank while back to test this and it turned out I get the exact same results as Tropica while using the tropica clone. is it because Tropica is a better balanced fertilizer? Maybe. Is it because Tropica use different kinds of chemicals? Maybe. could it be Ratio? Maybe. but having a Pin holes at 50+ ppm and having none under less than 3 ppm is something to think about, Right?


I will attest to this. I have come to the assumption that this problem is related to lack of flow, in turn the plant is not receiving enough nutrients AND CO2, and prob more importantly CO2. Both my 53B and kompakt varieties struggle with this especially in the lower leaves. They are also in areas that are more prone to dead spots. 

In terms of GSA I am not convinced with the po4 theory either, and I do does quite high. I have come to accept some GSA and I think it’s pretty much inevitable. These tanks you see online from top scapers look great from a distance, as do our own. But if you get up close you can see the GSA on old growth and hardscape in certain areas.


----------



## John q

Skimmed through the last few posts and sounds like a pissing contest tbh. Tom barr never proclaimed ei would suit everyone. If your ferts regime works..  it works..  why so much hate for ei??


----------



## jaypeecee

Happi said:


> I dont see anything misleading about lean dosing, people think its misleading because they misunderstand it. When done correctly no plant suffer and there is no algae, not only plants look vibrant but they also do well under such condition. They might grow bit slower but other than that high light and lean dosing will not cause algae. Most modern lighting is producing much higher PAR than ever and majority of people are still dosing lean and have great looking tank and they run their tanks at 20 ppm or so CO2. Most people who have high lights and dosing higher nutrients seems to have more algae problems. In year of 2021 they are still trying to fix their co2.


Hi @Happi 

Very interesting. What do you consider to be lean dosing? As a relative newcomer to aquatic plants, are you able to qualify/quantify what some of these terms mean? And, when it comes to aquarium lighting, most aquarists do not own a PAR meter. So, again, one person's idea of low lighting may be another person's cue to don the safety spectacles. And, what is the optimum photoperiod that we should aim for? I have a few more questions but that'll do for now.

JPC


----------



## Happi

@ Riverside Scaper

PROS:
Less CO2, Less Nutrients, Less Maintenance, Less water changes, Better plant growth, Better Coloration, No more Fish or shrimp death from High CO2 or Nutrients. Plant that were previously not growing will start growing better, plant that were previously stunted with twisted weird growth will start doing better. No More Algae, almost Non existing. No more GSA/GDA/BBA and tank overall algae free.

CONS:
Might require DSLR Camera


----------



## John q

Happi said:


> Better plant grow


See comment below


----------



## John q

Happi said:


> Less CO2, Less Nutrients, Less Maintenance, Less water changes, Better plant growth, Better Coloration, No more Fish or shrimp death from High CO2 or Nutrients. Plant that were previously not growing will start growing better, plant that were previously stunted with twisted weird growth will start doing better. No More Algae, almost Non existing. No more GSA/GDA/BBA and tank overall algae free.


I'm willing to listen to this. Please share your secrets.


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> Skimmed through the last few posts and sounds like a pissing contest tbh


Hi @John q  These conversations always ends up being that unfortunately... I guess the best way is to just let it go, and keep on giving the advice you (we) know from experience that works. Regardless of what anyone says I am not going to deviate from my general advice and my high dosing regime (EI+) - which works in both my densely planted very healthy growing low-tech tanks, where I keep seemingly thriving fish, shrimps and snails - and I haven't lost a fish or shrimp for ages - and I have zero algae to speak of - what more can I ask for?  Are their other approaches that might work? no doubt about it!

I think Darrel / @dw1305 recently summed up the situation very well, and his shades of gray reasoning seems productive as well. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

MichaelJ said:


> what more can I ask for?


The meaning of life 🥸


----------



## KirstyF

John q said:


> The meaning of life 🥸



……the universe and everything!? 
42 of course. 😊


----------



## Angus

John q said:


> The meaning of life





KirstyF said:


> ……the universe and everything!?
> 42 of course. 😊


Hardscape, Plant, Stock, Mature, Tear-down, Repeat.


----------



## KirstyF

You forgot….sneak in another tank whilst no-ones looking. 😂


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> The meaning of life 🥸


Thats the big one, isn't it?.... Well, I have a few suggestions... (driving a kit car is NOT one of them...)


----------



## Riverside Scaper

Alright, some of those posts went way over my head but I’m still new so don’t expect understand some of the more in depth stuff. I’m going to continue dosing APT Complete, keep my tank as stable as possible and continue with the maintenance. I’ll keep an eye on it and watch how the plants do. If any changes are made to switch to APT complete it will be once the tank is fully stocked with fish and it will be the only change I make so I can observe how the tank reacts.


----------



## MichaelJ

Riverside Scaper said:


> Alright, some of those posts went way over my head but I’m still new so don’t expect understand some of the more in depth stuff. I’m going to continue dosing APT Complete, keep my tank as stable as possible and continue with the maintenance. I’ll keep an eye on it and watch how the plants do. If any changes are made to switch to APT complete it will be once the tank is fully stocked with fish and it will be the only change I make so I can observe how the tank reacts.


@Riverside Scaper  That sounds like a plan. Again, your tank looks great.  Keep it up.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## PARAGUAY

As above post really. You have a great tank keep up keeping up with whatever your doing. Basically all plants require fertilising with the same nutrients Read posts by (in Fertilisers) @dw1305  @Zeus and others. Most of the well known named fertilisers are the same and help is there to make your own.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


PARAGUAY said:


> Basically all plants require fertilising with the same nutrients





PARAGUAY said:


> A bit different on low dosing regarding low energy no CO2. IME less dosing but dosing all nutrients when needed as Duckweed Index.





Happi said:


> I do agree with the consistent Dosing but it doesn't has to be the higher amounts that are being suggested.


Those ones really. Personally I don't want optimal plant growth (and lots of stems that need trimming every week), I just want some active  plant growth. It doesn't matter whether you use EI or the Duckweed Index, you need to supply all fourteen of the essential plant nutrients.

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> you need to supply all fourteen of the essential plant nutrients.


Hi Darrel, Are CO2 and O2 counting towards the 14 ? if So I guess its CO2, O2, Ca, Mg, N, P, K, S, Fe, Mn, B, Zn, Cu, Mo. ... What about Chloride?  I also noticed some trace ferts contains Nickel and Cobalt and one that I know of (Seachem Trace) some really exotic elements such as Rubidium and Vanadium. Nickel is an interesting one.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Angus

Chlorine (Cl).... well i didn't know that... thanks Darrel....


----------



## MichaelJ

Angus said:


> Chlorine (Cl).... well i didn't know that... thanks Darrel....


Haha thats funny. ....not Chlorine ... Chloride ... as in Potassium Chloride or Calcium Chloride.   ... Just making sure so no one starts to dose Chlorine in their tanks.     Chlorine is OK for a Hot-tub or pool ... but you will still have to go pretty lean with this nasty stuff  Chloride is in fact a negatively charged ionic version of Chlorine.

Cheers,
Mihael


----------



## Angus

MichaelJ said:


> Haha thats funny. ....not Chlorine ... Chloride ... as in Potassium Chloride or Calcium Chloride.   ... Just making sure so no one starts to dose Chlorine in their tanks.     Chlorine is OK for a Hot-tub or pool ... but you will still have to go pretty lean with this nasty stuff  Chloride is in fact a negatively charged ionic version of Chlorine.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mihael


As always this forum teaches me more than i ever learnt elsewhere... thanks Michael  this answered a lot of my subsequent questions. Aquatic plants fertilizer - Aquascaping - Aquatic plants - Aqua Rebel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


MichaelJ said:


> Are CO2 and O2 counting towards the 14


No, that is just the mineral ones, so you need to add, carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O). That number is surprisingly variable and more modern references may list up to seventeen mineral nutrients.


MichaelJ said:


> some trace ferts contains Nickel and Cobalt and one that I know of (Seachem Trace) some really exotic elements such as Rubidium and Vanadium. Nickel is an interesting one.


Even the "full" list of seventeen occasionally has other elements (silicon (Si) etc) added to it. The elements that plants need in <"trace amounts"> are often supplied as impurities in other salts. If you used DI water and had an inert substrate and didn't have any fish etc. you could conceivably end up with an "exotic" nutrient deficiency, but otherwise it is pretty unlikely, because fish feed etc will supply the trace elements plants need.


MichaelJ said:


> Chloride is in fact a negatively charged ionic version of Chlorine.


That is it. It is only ions in solution that we are interested in, so potassium (K) is only plant available as the K+ ion etc.  This often causes some confusion, particularly with <"iron (Fe) and silicon (Si)  etc">. Nitrogen (N) would be another example, where N2 gas is basically inert and we are only interested in <"fixed nitrogen">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## ceg4048

Happi said:


> so lets say if 10 users are using Tropica fertilizer for example and out of those 10 users, 2 of them have the issues with plant growth. does that mean they need to increase their dosing or does that mean there is some user errors or water chemistry issue?


This argument is not reasonable and giving an answer "yes" or "no" would also be unreasonable. Whenever someone has a problem in a tank it is first necessary to determine what it is that they are doing or not doing. The answer is not a choice of binary options. An analysis must be performed on the tank using as much data, provided by the poster, as possible. Only when the data is processed can the true answer be determined - and the answer might be a single nutrient issue or it may be any one of several possibilities having nothing to do with the nutrient dosing. I think you do agree with this based on the last statement.


Happi said:


> Most people who have high lights and dosing higher nutrients seems to have more algae problems. In year of 2021 they are still trying to fix their co2.


This premise is entirely speculative. There is real data here on this site where users reduce the lighting and doing this, problem is either greatly reduced or solved. In fact it can be clearly demonstrated that many hobbyists who subscribed to websites which support high light and who continued to experience problems solved their problems here when they reduced the lighting.


Happi said:


> The argument is about we are told that high light mean we need to dose high fertilizer and add lot of co2, this is a myth. This myth is similar to high po4 solving GSA when GSA has nothing to do with this. If true then both myth should hold true when someone is using tropica fertilizer because not only it's lean, but it also adds very little po4.


Again, these are _your _arguments, not ours. You also clearly have misread or have read from a poster who has not fully understood. GSA is highly correlated to any combination of poor CO2+ poor PO4. The data is clear and is available for review here in the Algae section. It can be seen that if the hobbyists CO2 is good, but if their PO4 is poor then adding PO4 resolves the issue. If the CO2 is poor then adding PO4 may not solve the issue, but fixing the CO2 will.

It is not necessarily an issue of whether the average CO2 is 20ppm or 30ppm. It is an issue of whether the gas is being distributed properly and whether it's being diffused and retained properly.

I agree with you that there are many user errors, from misinterpretation of information to inept application of the principles. I also fully agree with you that many posters who are answering the questions and who should know better, immediately suggest adding nutrients instead of performing a logical analysis and OK, perhaps this situation forms the basis of your arguments. I often find that I need to interject a correction into the thread to caution the OP and others that conclusions should not be jumped to and that "add more nutrients" is not always the answer to a particular problem.

Having said that however, it is clear that light intensity drives the demand for nutrients/CO2 and if you disagree then I suggest that your information is faulty. It may be that the person reporting is not adding as much nutrients to the water column but does have a rich sediment - and if so, this counts as high dosing, NOT lean dosing. Were you aware, for example that Amazonia contains 100X the EI nutrient levels? Anyone using new Amazonia and are not dosing the water column CANNOT claim lean dosing. Many households may have a high nutrient level in their municipal water supply. Hobby grade test kits are not a reliable source of information. Folks in these categories also cannot claim lean dosing. Also, most people do not have any idea about their PAR as they do not have access to a meter, nor do they have access to a CO2 meter. So this makes it very difficult to determine exact numbers.

So there are a lot of uncontrolled factors that may render your arguments false unless you have access to reliable information - and that may be the only thing that is usually in lean supply.

Cheers,


----------



## Happi

1 ppm Fe from Miller Micro weekly, Urea as N (Very High Dosing of Micros) PAR 100





















0.1 ppm Fe weekly custom Micro, Urea N, lean dosing, PAR 100




















0.1 Fe custom Micro weekly, Urea as N (Very Lean Dosing) PAR 80-100








0.07 Fe Custom Micro (lean dosing) Par 80-100










Osmocote, high Nutrients leaching into water, PAR 40-50




0.07 Fe weekly Tropica Clone, very lean dosing, PAR 40-50


















Lean dosing, different sources of Nitrogen, Algae everywhere, PAR 80-100





Very High Traces, High Dosing, plant damage, PAR 80-100


----------



## tiger15

Happi, you have demonstrated by pics that you can grow healthy red plants without algae by lean dosing.   But what is your definition of lean dosing?  Dosing is the input, not what is left in the water column which is input minus uptake.  Do you have N,P and iron concentration data to demonstrate your water column is   “lean”.   It appears you lean dosed iron and micros only, not macros.  If your macro source is primarily root tabs (urea and osmocote), then it may not necessarily be lean depending on how much NPK have leaked out to the water column.


----------



## Wookii

tiger15 said:


> Happi, you have demonstrated by pics that you can grow healthy red plants without algae by lean dosing.   But what is your definition of lean dosing?  Dosing is the input, not what is left in the water column which is input minus uptake.  Do you have N,P and iron concentration data to demonstrate your water column is   “lean”.   It appears you lean dosed iron and micros only, not macros.  If your macro source is primarily root tabs (urea and osmocote), then it may not necessarily be lean depending on how much NPK have leaked out to the water column.



Also all the tanks look to be using pre-enriched aqua soils, so again as Clive says@



ceg4048 said:


> It may be that the person reporting is not adding as much nutrients to the water column but does have a rich sediment - and if so, this counts as high dosing, NOT lean dosing.



Also what about source water change water. If RO, then the nutrients added are known. If tap water, then it is likely nutrients exist in the water supply. I couldn't hope to lean dose with my tap water which has decent quantities of nitrate, phosphate and potassium in it.


----------



## Happi

tiger15 said:


> Happi, you have demonstrated by pics that you can grow healthy red plants without algae by lean dosing.   But what is your definition of lean dosing?  Dosing is the input, not what is left in the water column which is input minus uptake.  Do you have N,P and iron concentration data to demonstrate your water column is   “lean”.   It appears you lean dosed iron and micros only, not macros.  If your macro source is primarily root tabs (urea and osmocote), then it may not necessarily be lean depending on how much NPK have leaked out to the water column.


Macros under lean dosing were 2 ppm K, 0.8 ppm Mg, 2 ppm N weekly, test kits showed No3 levels from 0-5 ppm and they never exceeded those levels. Some tank had very old aqua soil and some had a year old aqua soil. It was also 100% RO water used on all tanks. The more vibrant red coloration were observed under lean dosing under same setup. Lean dosing and higher lights were demonstrated right in front of you. Algae was also demonstrated right in front of you, all I had to do was change the source of Nitrogen compounds. Plant leave damages were demonstrated under varies dosing. I have tons of more pics which I could show but this is good enough to prove my point.

Clive can only twist things around to fool some of the people, but not everyone. Apparently he been falsifying everyone for decade now and ended up falsifying his own claims. His argument about aqua soil leaching nutrients into the water is only correct for some time but it too will fade away or become so little that your test kits will tell you, you are more than welcome to test it yourself. You have a choice to make here, weather you want to live in the darkness or get out of it and explore more things. You will be surprised that what you have been told till now could be easily falsified.

We had similar arguments here, since Clive has excluded the NH4/Urea from the fertilizer, his point about aqua soil leaching nutrients which is NH4 based is still in question





						Worsening algae after starting EI dosing
					

Hi guys,  I have been using EI dosing for 11 days now. I have followed all the instructions and made my macro and micro bottles and have been dosing according to the instructions.  I seem to be having a progressively worsening of this blue-green (my guess could be wrong) algae which is worst on...



					www.ukaps.org


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @Happi  Nice plants! You obviously knows how to grow plants - which is what this forum is all about and in my book commands respect! (I knew that already from your prior postings elsewhere...).   But what I am dying to understand is this concept of "lean dosing" ? What makes it lean? is just that you dose very "little" proactively and rely on very rich soil so you don't have to dose much of anything? Perhaps your water is very rich in certain nutrients etc. (I guess I am just repeating what @Wookii mentioned above  ... stop posting before me  ).      

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

Wookii said:


> Also all the tanks look to be using pre-enriched aqua soils, so again as Clive says@
> 
> 
> 
> Also what about source water change water. If RO, then the nutrients added are known. If tap water, then it is likely nutrients exist in the water supply. I couldn't hope to lean dose with my tap water which has decent quantities of nitrate, phosphate and potassium in it.


These tests are controlled test so obviously all the water parameters were under my control from adding nutrients to Co2, the starting water was 0 tds. We had some members test on inert substrate with lean dosing and results are no different from the above pics. These tanks were especially designed for such tests. So no excuses here


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> Clive can only twist things around to fool some of the people, but everyone. Apparently he been falsifying everyone for decade now and ended up falsifying his own claims.


This is totally unfair @Happi... Could we please stay civil here and refrain from personal attacks. No one is trying to fool anyone... Clive, among other experts here, have been helping a tremendous amount of people in this hobby over the years, you could as well ... Yes, I am big fan, but I am also a big fan of alternative approaches and new ideas... if they can be proved to work, that is.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi  Nice plants! You obviously knows how to grow plants - which is what this forum is all about and in my book commands respect! (I knew that already from your prior postings elsewhere...).   But what I am dying to understand is this concept of "lean dosing" ? What makes it lean? is just that you dose very "little" proactively and rely on very rich soil so you don't have to dose much of anything? Perhaps your water is very rich in certain nutrients etc. (I guess I am just repeating what @Wookii mentioned above  ... stop posting before me  ).
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I didn't mention much about the water parameters because I was waiting to see what other excuses people would come up with. Instead of accepting that it can be done, they will keep on throwing all kinds of excuses untill they get their way.


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> This is totally unfair @Happi... Could we please stay civil here and refrain from personal attacks. No one is trying to fool anyone... Clive, among other experts here, have been helping a tremendous amount of people in this hobby over the years ... Yes, I am big fan, but I am also a big fan of alternative approaches and new ideas...
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Well if Clive stop falsifying others then we can stop as well


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

The rules of this forum are below @Happi 

Please consider your comments, their intent and how they are received. Friendly debate is welcome, personal attacks are not.

1. Treat others how you would like to be treated yourself. Remain polite at all times and avoid aggressive styles of communication. Critisisms are often welcome but ensure they are constructive.

2. The written word can be easily misinterpreted so carefully consider your post's content before submitting. Consider how the post may be interpreted by others, especially if the content is directed towards a member, personally.

3. Try to avoid ambiguity and make an effort to use correct spelling and grammar. You will likely receive more constructive replies if you put some effort into your posts.

4. Abusive language, swearing and being aggressive will not be tolerated. See Rule 5.

5. A three strikes rule is in force. Any transgressors to these Rules and Guidelines will receive two warnings via PM. Further inappropriate behavior will result in a ban. Obvious 'spammers' and troublemakers will be banned immediately without warning.

6. Any complaints towards our Sponsors should be dealt with privately with the sponsor via PM, email or telephone, in the first instance. However, in the interest of maintaining transparency, a degree of free speech and to educate other members, you should feel able to leave feedback on products and service. Remember to be constructive in any feedback, as per Rule 1.

7. Any complaints regarding other, non-sponsor suppliers, manufacturers etc. should also be dealt with privately with the relevant party in the first instance. UKAPS do not wish to deal with potential libel cases.

8. The Sponsors are responsible for moderating their own sub-forums but the Moderating Team will take action if seen necessary.

9. The Sponsors are politely requested to post exclusively in their own sub-forums. We recognise that the Sponsors have a wealth of knowledge worth sharing with the UKAPS membership so would encourage the Sponsor to post under a pseudonym username.

10. Employees of aquatic retailers are not to promote or advertise their products and/or services without prior permission granted from the Administrators. However, they are welcome to contribute to the forum as a regular member.

11. Any personal issues with any UKAPS Member, Moderator, Admin or Founder should be dealt with privately via PM. Public displays of aggression and inappropriate comments are not acceptable. Refer to Rule 1 and 5.

12. UKAPS wish to operate under a positive environment for the benefit of its Members and the planted aquarium hobby. The Founders, Admin and Moderating Team reserve the right to edit/move etc. post/threads with this in mind. However, if the above rules and guidelines are followed then this should not be necessary.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> Well if Clive stop falsifying others then we can stop as well


What I think would be tremendously helpful is when we make controversial claims - something that goes again commonly accepted advice, that has proved to work, such as most of the advice given by the experts around here, we should state our case in great details to underpin our claim  with as little wiggle room for misunderstanding as possible. This will ensure a more fruitful debate on controversial matters.   We cant just rush in and call approaches a _myth _without making a good case for why it's a myth.  When Clive makes his cut and dry statements you can always do some searching around for posts (usually from years ago...) when he explains in much greater details why a certain issue, reaction or observation is so and qualify the advice to greater depth - and you can often validate from the feedback that it works as well. Just my 3 cents.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

You guys wanted to know if lean dosing is possible without algae right? With lower CO2 and high lights? The answer is YES

You guys wanted to know if you need to add more co2, fertilizer if you have a high light? The answer is NO


----------



## tiger15

Lean dosing means lean in the water column, not in the substrate.  With 0 to 5 ppm nitrate, Happi’s setup is indeed lean on macros as evidenced by intense red stems from nitrogen limitation.  Stem plants are most impacted as their root system is light relying heavily on foliage uptake.   If micros are dosed on top of Osmocote, micros may not be lean though.  The stunt stems in the last two pics may be attributable to trace  poisoning due to double dosing of micros.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

The OP’s original questions:



Riverside Scaper said:


> My question is what is the benefits or limitations of switching to APT Zero or just lean dosing in general? Would my epiphytes suffer if I switched to lean dosing? Would I possibly swap one type of algae issue for another?



Initial response:



Happi said:


> You can keep your co2 between 15-20 ppm and dose lean with high lights. This need for high light, high co2 and high fertilizer is a myth and mainly comes from EI concept. I can tell you this based on my experience and am sure you will find more people who have similar experience.



Awesome, experience. Definitely useful and most welcome.

However, the component about high light/Co2/fertiliser being a myth is self constructed then argued against. Abundantly, the advice on this site will be to run lower light (a matter of decreasing light in relation to a drop of 1pH - it’s in relationship), matching Co2 to this level of light and dose EI levels of comprehensive fertiliser in the water column.



Happi said:


> You guys wanted to know if lean dosing is possible without algae right? With lower CO2 and high lights? The answer is YES





Happi said:


> You guys wanted to know if you need to add more co2, fertilizer if you have a high light? The answer is NO



Cool. Have you tried this with anything other than stems? Epiphytes in general; Anubias, Bucephalandra, Java Fern, Bolbitis for example?

You’ve stated a generalised rule. Does it hold true to every example? 

The OP asked whether epiphytes would suffer under ‘lean’ dosing, which isn’t yet defined. In order to understand your argument, this requires clarification.

Would this approach work with a tank full of Cryptocoryne if it is truly universal?


----------



## MichaelJ

Well, most of this is semantics as far as I am concerned. If the substrate provides the fertilizer then its less meaningful, in my opinion, to talk about lean dosing, as there is nothing conceptually _lean_ going on here... what happens when the soil depletes its nutrients? If you start out with inert substrate, how long will this approach be sustainable.... The nutrients must come from somewhere...

Anyway, this discussion sort of reminds of the Richard Feynman paint mixing anecdote in Surely You're Joking... 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Angus

MichaelJ said:


> Well, most of this is semantics as far as I am concerned. If the substrate provides the fertilizer then its less meaningful, in my opinion, to talk about lean dosing, as there is nothing conceptually _lean_ going on here... what happens when the soil depletes is nutrients? If you start out with inert substrate, how long will this approach be sustainable.... The nutrients must come from somewhere...
> 
> Anyway, this discussion sort of reminds of the Feynman’s paint mixing anecdote in Surely You're Joking...
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


About 6-12 months from experience with amazonia and not dosing anything at all in a low tech tank.
Anecdotal of course, which i feel is very important to add as i'm not conducting studies with controls.


----------



## MichaelJ

Angus said:


> amazonia


Thats basically rocket fuel


----------



## Angus

MichaelJ said:


> Thats basically rocket fuel


Works for me.


----------



## Angus

MichaelJ said:


> Well, most of this is semantics as far as I am concerned. If the substrate provides the fertilizer then its less meaningful, in my opinion, to talk about lean dosing, as there is nothing conceptually _lean_ going on here... what happens when the soil depletes its nutrients? If you start out with inert substrate, how long will this approach be sustainable.... The nutrients must come from somewhere...
> 
> Anyway, this discussion sort of reminds of the Feynman’s paint mixing anecdote in Surely You're Joking...
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Ok looking back i read this wrong michael LOL! i thought you meant how long is a nutrient rich substrate sustainable without dosing not how long is a inert substrate sustainable with EI.
Happi did say other people have done lean with inert, i would like to see their work posted here.
I have already seen the AGA on the rotala kill tank but i really couldnt bring myself to do the whole thread.


----------



## MichaelJ

Angus said:


> Happi did say other people have done lean with inert, i would like to see their work posted here.


Me too! We can learn a great deal if so...  as always, claims that goes against the tide have to be held to a high standard.... or as the saying goes _Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence._

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

Hi @Happi , I've never thought my tanks require the full amount of ei, I dose about 75% and run low light and don't have eye watering levels of co2. Plant health is ok, but could be better.

I'd be quite happy to test your ideas, in the interests of science, even to the point of destroying one of my tanks.
What I'm struggling to get my head around is this.

When I first transitioned from low tech to high tech I waited about 4 weeks before increasing the lights or ferts (I was dosing 25% ei). In this period I could clearly see improvement in plant growth, however I also started seeing deficiencies appearing, I guessed these deficiencies were iron or magnesium related but couldn't be sure so increased the full ferts dosing to 50%, and slowly but surely the deficiencies seemed to disappear.

Fast forward 4 months and the light intensity is probably 30% higher than it was and ei dosing is 75% but with added phosphate, this was done to combat green spot algae, which seems to have worked.

If I now reduce this dosage and having personally experienced the above problems (rather than being programed to believe it by others) I suspect these problems will return. 

Maybe the problem lies with ratios, you mention this above.

So my burning question is what levels of each nutrient works, what levels should be targeted.

Again I'd be quite happy to follow any recipe and document the results.

Cheers.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Angus said:


> Happi did say other people have done lean with inert, i would like to see their work posted here.



Hugo Kamashi gravel, ADA Brighty K, ADA Brighty mineral and RO remineralised to 5dKH using JBL Aquadur.

12th January:










































A clean up, but carrying on:









12th February:









CRASH 💥 

Everything melted. This little setup is still producing questions.

@Happi , more than eager to discuss the concept of ‘lean’ dosing. Will reiterate, define what you’re referring to as it is important so we can have a civil dialogue about the evidence we put forward.

Your stems are gorgeous, no doubt. This little test makes no sense in my mind. It shouldn’t have lasted a month, but it did. Worth the chat…


----------



## Happi

Geoffrey Rea said:


> The OP’s original questions:
> 
> 
> 
> Initial response:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome, experience. Definitely useful and most welcome.
> 
> However, the component about high light/Co2/fertiliser being a myth is self constructed then argued against. Abundantly, the advice on this site will be to run lower light (a matter of decreasing light in relation to a drop of 1pH - it’s in relationship), matching Co2 to this level of light and dose EI levels of comprehensive fertiliser in the water column.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. Have you tried this with anything other than stems? Epiphytes in general; Anubias, Bucephalandra, Java Fern, Bolbitis for example?
> 
> You’ve stated a generalised rule. Does it hold true to every example?
> 
> The OP asked whether epiphytes would suffer under ‘lean’ dosing, which isn’t yet defined. In order to understand your argument, this requires clarification.
> 
> Would this approach work with a tank full of Cryptocoryne if it is truly universal?


If OP tried this lean approach with improper chemicals/fertilizer such as basic Kno3, kh2po4, csm+b approach, it will not work correctly. For example if OP tried this lean approach with fertilizer like Tropica, it will certainly work. As explained earlier it definitely does matter if you were to use KNO3 alone vs Urea or NH4NO3. It also matters what ratio and which chemicals are being used. We don't need to go much further, just take a look at plants grown under tropica, I believe they grow all kinds of plants including the one listed above. if not, you will find someone does under lean dosing. 

If somone truly want to explore lean dosing then they should start looking at how tropica dose their tanks, what ratio and what chemicals they use, you will get most of your answers there. It's also important to consider looking at Marchner ratio. But Tropica ratio would be more appropriate, dosing about 1-3 ppm N weekly depending on your setup, you might have to use little extra micros from tropica fertilizer if your water is rich in minerals or very hard. If you were to dose 1-3 ppm N from KNo3 or 0.1 ppm Fe from CSM+B, it will not produce the same result and this is where most lean doser fail because they are not doing it right to begin with. 

I dont think I need to explain to everyone about how to dose lean, because I already mentioned it several time unless you want me to hold your hand and dose the tank for you. 

Good luck


----------



## Happi

@Geoffrey Rea if you are dosing 30 ppm Potassium and very little Nitrogen, you are still not dosing lean, like I said please consider the ratio, read what I have written above. You can try the tropica and dose 1 ppm N weekly in that little tank and report back in a month or two, first thing that will dispear would be that algae on the glass. Break down the 1 ppm N into 3 to parts. Long as you would keep this routine on this tank with your water changes and trimming, I don't see why it should fail.
 Good luck


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Happi said:


> If OP tried this lean approach with improper chemicals/fertilizer such as basic Kno3, kh2po4, csm+b approach, it will not work correctly.



There is no defined approach. The basic concept of ‘lean’, with or without a nutrient rich substrate is still under debate. Lean water column? Is this what is being referred to? The OP also asked for the pros and cons. 



Happi said:


> I dont think I need to explain to everyone about how to dose lean



Yes, please do. Many others have also requested for this definition to be explicitly stated so far. It hasn’t been addressed. Define what you mean so the conversation can continue constructively.



Happi said:


> if you are dosing 30 ppm Potassium and very little Nitrogen, you are still not dosing lean



You’ve also misconstrued the example given, there was no intentionally dosed source of nitrate or phosphate. No livestock. No feeding. Standardised products. Nothing else for one month. That’s intentional. It is the extreme end, complete omission of any N or P input. Not ‘lean’.



Happi said:


> it will not produce the same result and this is where most lean doser fail because they are not doing it right to begin with.



Then given you’re advocating a method, one that we’re all eagerly asking to be explicitly laid out, the responsibility to make ‘it’ work for others rests squarely on your shoulders. If others don’t understand what you’re getting at, you can’t surely expect them to know how to operate this method. That’s equivalent to learning to bake a cake by looking at the final picture…



Happi said:


> We don't need to go much further, just take a look at plants grown under tropica, I believe they grow all kinds of plants including the one listed above. if not, you will find someone does under lean dosing.



Tropica have changed their formulation over time. The only Tropica formulation that is reliably known for DIY is on James’ Planted Tank for Tropica’s TPN+ that uses ammonium nitrate. Which time period are you referring to? 



Happi said:


> it definitely does matter if you were to use KNO3 alone vs Urea or NH4NO3.



Who said KNO3 vs Urea vs NH4NO3 exhibits no difference? No biologist would claim that. So who is making this claim that they’re all the same?


----------



## Angus

My biggest questions are:

Does the method require a nutrient rich substrate or leeching via this substrate into the water column, whichever you prefer as a mechanism.



Happi said:


> If you were to dose 1-3 ppm N from KNo3 or 0.1 ppm Fe from CSM+B, it will not produce the same result and this is where most lean doser fail because they are not doing it right to begin with.


What are we to dose if not our 1kg bag of KNo3 and our csm+b? 


Happi said:


> I dont think I need to explain to everyone about how to dose lean, because I already mentioned it several time unless you want me to hold your hand and dose the tank for you.
> 
> Good luck


It's not handholding, I would just like a bit more information laid out, it seems to be the same method i use in my low tech tanks anyway which is just fish waste, amazonia and CSM+B/flourish.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Angus said:


> Does the method require a nutrient rich substrate or leeching via this substrate into the water column, whichever you prefer as a mechanism.



The crew at Florestas Submersas would be the ones to email. They have an entire lab dedicated to monitoring that setup. It is massive and uses ADA’s soil with 160 tons of water with data across time.

Would allow for an understanding at scale, across time, given it runs a mixed planting with stems in great form and colouration. It’s their job to maintain precise numbers in the water column to achieve those results. They have desired outcomes, bit troublesome if the didn’t.


----------



## MichaelJ

Geoffrey Rea said:


> CRASH 💥
> 
> Everything melted. This little setup is still producing questions.


May I suggest a fundraise to get @Geoffrey Rea a pair of trimming scissors for Christmas  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## tiger15

Dennis Wong explains clearly what ADA lean dosing mean, and the pros and cons.









						Analysis of the ADA nutrient dosing approach
					

An overview of the ADA philosophy and approach to fertilization in planted tank or aquarium.




					www.2hraquarist.com


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> I dont think I need to explain to everyone about how to dose lean, because I already mentioned it several time unless you want me to hold your hand and dose the tank for you.


Hi @Happi,  I think you should try at least...  put as much details and specifics down as you can on this one... what's the prerequisites, when it will work and when it won't etc.  I for one, with my limited knowledge on this topic, would like to get my _hand hold _understanding this...  I think we can all learn something here either way and I think you already made quite a few people think hard about this topic - and that's always how progress is made.

Happy Thanksgiving @Happi ! 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi,  I think you should try at least...  put as much details and specifics down as you can on this one... what's the prerequisites, when it will work and when it won't etc.  I for one, with my limited knowledge on this topic, would like to get my _hand hold _understanding this...  I think we can all learn something here either way and I think you already made quite a few people think hard about this topic - and that's always how progress is made.
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving @Happi !
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Even though I have already given the answer but I Will work on this in free time to explain it more in detail. I need to spend some time with the family as well. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> I need to spend some time with the family as well. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well


Thanks Happi,   You bet! Way more important than anything else for sure.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Angus

Happi said:


> Even though I have already given the answer but I Will work on this in free time to explain it more in detail. I need to spend some time with the family as well. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well


Exciting!


----------



## John q

So for anybody that's interested I managed to find some of these recipes, without having my hand held. 








						Happi's Recipe with Micro/Macro and Everything
					

let me begin by saying i have put the last few years into the hobby by studying the plant health, nutrients, fish/shrimp health, i have obtained quite impressive results, i will try my best to post them here much as i could, i been busy with life and might not be posting much anymore, so...




					www.plantedtank.net


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Happi said:


> The more vibrant red coloration were observed under lean dosing under same setup. Lean dosing and higher lights were demonstrated right in front of you. ............ all I had to do was change the source of Nitrogen compounds.


I think <"high light and lean nitrogen dosing"> should definitely make red plants "redder". 

Purely anecdotally I've also found that urea (CO(NH2)2) provokes a <"quicker greening response"> than NO3- based plant fertilisers, possibly just because of kinetic considerations.  


Happi said:


> Algae was also demonstrated right in front of you,


That is an interesting one. I've never really understood why EI doesn't cause the growth of Green Algae, purely because the Green Algae and all "higher" plants (mosses, ferns, flowering plants) <"form a clade">. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## KirstyF

The post on plantedtank makes interesting reading, however, what I am picking up is that there are multiple possible recipes for this ‘lean dosing’ method that are dependent upon multiple factors, water, plants etc and that any deviation from the specified ingredients and ratio’s may lead to failure, even the use of tap water rather than RO could do this.
This seems to make it an interesting topic for the scientific community on this and other forums and those that tinker and test purely to extend their own understanding and enhance their outcomes, but I’m not seeing anything that would make this a practical solution for the majority. (I could be missing it) 
The ‘tiny margin of error’ that appears to be inherent in the method would certainly be a red flag for many and I’m guessing (I mean totally guessing) that, even assuming it worked perfectly, there are minimal circumstances where results would be better than those achieved by EI for example, which is pretty much designed to remove the ‘margin of error’ in its entirety. 

So, there are many roads to Rome and nothing wrong with a different route or expansion of knowledge but my first question @Happi isn’t how would you use it, it’s why would you use it? Or perhaps, under what circumstances would it be a preferred method?


----------



## tiger15

KirstyF said:


> The ‘tiny margin of error’ that appears to be inherent in the method would certainly be a red flag for many and I’m guessing (I mean totally guessing) that, even assuming it worked perfectly, there are minimal circumstances where results would be better than those achieved by EI for example, which is pretty much designed to remove the ‘margin of error’ in its entirety.
> 
> So, there are many roads to Rome and nothing wrong with a different route or expansion of knowledge but my first question @Happi isn’t how would you use it, it’s why would you use it? Or perhaps, under what circumstances would it be a preferred method?


There is no margin of error if you do lean dosing along with rich substrate and root tabs.  It’s only precarious if you use inert substrate with no nutrients reserve.   Tom Barr is aware of nitrogen limitation to bring out color of some red stems, but recommended against lean dosing in EI setup with inert substrate.  He even worked out daily EI dosing amounts to assure excess at all time.   Not all stems respond to nitrogen limitation, and there are enough stems and red cultivars that stay red in EI dosing as demonstrated in majority showcase Dutch.


----------



## tiger15

Lean dosing in inert substrate may hurt some plants.  Greggz 120g Rainbow Dutch reported stunt stems after cutting back macros dosing under the assumption that heavy fish load will supply more than enough macros.  I keep a cichlid planted tank with inert substrate, lot of epiphytes and only a few easy rosette and stem plants.  I will start cutting back on N and P dosing to see if it hurts or helps. I have Rotala rotundifloria and Ludwegian reopens  known to be responside to nitrogen limitation, and it appears that only easy stems do, not the difficult ones. 



​​


----------



## ceg4048

Happi said:


> Macros under lean dosing were 2 ppm K, 0.8 ppm Mg, 2 ppm N weekly, test kits showed No3 levels from 0-5 ppm and they never exceeded those levels. Some tank had very old aqua soil and some had a year old aqua soil. It was also 100% RO water used on all tanks. The more vibrant red coloration were observed under lean dosing under same setup. Lean dosing and higher lights were demonstrated right in front of you. Algae was also demonstrated right in front of you, all I had to do was change the source of Nitrogen compounds. Plant leave damages were demonstrated under varies dosing. I have tons of more pics which I could show but this is good enough to prove my point.
> 
> Clive can only twist things around to fool some of the people, but not everyone. Apparently he been falsifying everyone for decade now and ended up falsifying his own claims. His argument about aqua soil leaching nutrients into the water is only correct for some time but it too will fade away or become so little that your test kits will tell you, you are more than welcome to test it yourself. You have a choice to make here, weather you want to live in the darkness or get out of it and explore more things. You will be surprised that what you have been told till now could be easily falsified.
> 
> We had similar arguments here, since Clive has excluded the NH4/Urea from the fertilizer, his point about aqua soil leaching nutrients which is NH4 based is still in question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worsening algae after starting EI dosing
> 
> 
> Hi guys,  I have been using EI dosing for 11 days now. I have followed all the instructions and made my macro and micro bottles and have been dosing according to the instructions.  I seem to be having a progressively worsening of this blue-green (my guess could be wrong) algae which is worst on...
> 
> 
> 
> www.ukaps.org


Well this sounds like a lot of twisting to me. Are you claiming that Amazonia does not leach nutrients into the water?
Are you also now hiding behind twisted words?
No one claims that NH3/NH4 doesn't fertilize.
When we say that nutrients do not cause algae we are specifically referencing NO3 because KNO3 is the nitrogen source in EI.
Which way is your flag waving? You attack the principle of EI and the statement that dosing EI does not cause algae, yet you reference NH3/NH4, which is not used in EI.
The standard EI recipe specifically avoids any ammoniacal sources of N. Therefore, we can add as much of KNO3, KH2PO4, K2SO4 (if desired) and traces as we wish without fear of any algae.
Ammoniacal sources of N can be toxic and can result in algae, so EI gets around this issue by using NO3 as the N source.
Either you understand this position or you are pretending not to.

So lets look at your so-called lean dosing:


Happi said:


> 1 ppm Fe from Miller Micro weekly, Urea as N (Very High Dosing of Micros) PAR 100





Happi said:


> 0.1 Fe custom Micro weekly, Urea as N (Very Lean Dosing) PAR 80-100



Sorry, but this is not lean if using urea.
In the tank urea converts to ammoniacal nitrogen and therefore delivers 4 times the level of N than does NO3.
Additionally, when urea is converted it produces CO2, which is an additional source to what you are injecting.



Happi said:


> Lean dosing, different sources of Nitrogen, Algae everywhere, PAR 80-100





Happi said:


> Very High Traces, High Dosing, plant damage, PAR 80-100


These statements are also ridiculous. I assume you are implying high dosing is problematic. Were you dosing only KNO3? If you used ammoniacal sources of N then you are simply proving my point that KNO3 is safer than urea or ammonium nitrate.

OK, allow me to retort:
100ppm NO3, 5ppm PO4, 120ppm K, 5ppm Fe dosed weekly for 4 years. Not one trace of algae. No damage whatsoever:










So yes, your claim is falsified.
If you are going to try to disprove EI then you really need to follow the recipe and to avoid the pitfalls.
You seem to love ammonia. Well bully for you, but please stop talking rubbish, because ammonia is not the same as nitrate.
Anyone willing to follow the EI recipe and the philosophy can have success. If you decide, however, to deviate and to use nitrogen sources other than KNO3 then you may pay the penalty. That is specifically why EI uses KNO3 in order to avoid the pitfalls.

Cheers,


----------



## JoshP12

Since < everyone is right >, I will just answer the OP's questions.


Riverside Scaper said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I’ve recently set up my new scape AS1200 and densely planted. Running CO2 with an in-line diffuser on both Oase 600 filters and dosing APT Complete daily as per instructions on the bottle. I’m still doing daily water changes for the first month and then will dial it back slowly until I am down to 2 water changes a a week.


I'm not going to get specific but on a weekly basis APT Complete vs EI is virtually the same aside from the amount of N it delivers. So right away, notice that relative to EI water column dosing targets, your system will be less resistant to inconsistent feeding and will be less demanding on CO2/flow demands.

That aside, you can expect nearly similar growth rates - but slightly less. On some species, you will have smaller leaves and shorter internodes relative to EI targets for water column dosing.

For the moment, we won't discuss GH/the differences between dosing frequency - but it will make a difference to overall stability of the tank.



Riverside Scaper said:


> So far everything is going good and I don’t have any nuisance algae issues, just diatoms but I guess that’s to be expected.


People seem to expect them, but they need not assemble - as the tank matures, the higher order life will outcompete the diatoms, provided there is enough oxygen in the system to sustain it.


Riverside Scaper said:


> My question is what is the benefits or limitations of switching to APT Zero or just lean dosing in general?


First, let's define lean dosing as putting minimal "stuff" in the water column. APT Zero just leans out nitrogen and phosphate further (but not K ... and that is an important observation). Establishing the latter, APT Zero is simply a leaner version of APT Complete and EI is simply a set of "rich" targets for the water column.

Benefits (relative to a richer dosing regime):
1) Slower growth (since N/P can bottleneck metabolism via leidbig) for maintenance purposes,
2) smaller leaf sizes and petite plant forms,
3) shorter internodes,
4) lower demand on CO2 making it easier for CO2 to be in excess and reducing the demand on flow perfection (i.e. the turnover of water need not be so fast since the specific plant areas don't require as much CO2 to maintain growth)
5) A potential for less water changes - but not really since you are dosing a comprehensive fert and nutrient accumulation from the non N/P contributors will cause an issue eventually. If you dose dry salts and reduce N or P on your own while accommodating your dosing regime within targets then yes you can postpone water changes within reason - but I'm not going to go on about this.

Limitations (relative to a richer dosing regime):
1) Huge reliance on consistency in feeding (any fluctuation in N from waste will skew your "CO2 setting" and cause fluctuations in metabolic demand and as such lead to unhealthy plants
2) Slower growth for farming purposes
3) Less stability
4) Heavier reliance on substrate nutrition (each species requires a unique amount of all nutrients ... the substrate tops this up via the roots as the plants needs) - if the substrate depletes (remember K is going to be driving growth rates here -- hence my original note on K being at EI levels and being an important observation -- so the N and P etc in unique amounts will be topped up from the substrate for each species).



Riverside Scaper said:


> Would my epiphytes suffer if I switched to lean dosing?



There are 2 cases:
 1) The roots have access to "substrate"
2) The roots don't have access to "substrate"

In case 1, no, they will be fine as they fall into a "rooted" category.

In case 2, yes, they will use up their stores in due time and eventually deteriorate.

Benefits: you can use epiphytes to gauge when you need to dose. How do we dose to fix them? Large water change, dose EI levels of N and P into the column (could keep lights off don't matter), force feed the plants and leaves with N and P (by going to have a drink and then coming back), 100% water change (back to back to remove any excess) and then move on with your day. This is utilizing the luxury uptake and the nutrient pathways of the plant. Get the N and P in there, the next morning, let the CO2 in excess do it's thing (recall it has been dialed in easier due to lower N demand) --> as a cushion, micro turn up JUST for the day, any sickness to fish, drop it down. You'll be good for another month.



Riverside Scaper said:


> Would I possibly swap one type of algae issue for another?


Certainly.

Suppose you induce N fluctuations by inconsistent feeding, then yes.
Suppose you wait to long to luxury dose the tank and lower leaves start to deteriorate and cause a mess, choking the system and starving it of oxygen, yes new algaes
Suppose you drain your substrate and don't catch it, yes different algaes.

Algaes are simply a clue to the instability in the system -- the cause of algae is an imbalance in the zone of the unique nutrient acquisition portfolio of the tank at that moment in time.


Riverside Scaper said:


> This is the scape currently, plants are growing in slowly and things are generally headed in the right direction.


Yes beautiful.


Riverside Scaper said:


> The only plant that isn’t doing well is the Staurogyne Repens. For some reason that I can’t figure out, it’s dropping leaves fast.


It's a new set up. If you pull up S. Repens it has a root structure like a tree. Suppose that your microbial assemblage in the substrate has not developed + the roots aren't developed? Then the rhizosphere does not have the micro organisms to facilitate nutrient acquisition as a result, S. Repens is relying exclusively on the water column until it can get it's stuff sorted out.

Now, each species has a different demand on nutrients (and the ratios of those nutrients) and the ability to acquire those nutrients (it can store them and etc but still unique) ... in my eyes it is simply redirecting resources from leaves to roots, get the root structure, let the bacteria grow, then the things are going to explode. Give it a month. Let it melt if you want. It will be fine.

As a test - pick 1 stem and every week pull it out of the dirt and notice if the roots have grown relative to the week before and the leaves (I've done it ... you will learn a lot).


Riverside Scaper said:


> View attachment 177438


Beauty tank.

And great questions.

Josh


----------



## erwin123

After reading through this thread about "lean dosing" and "EI dosing" I'm wondering whether there is a middle ground, which are the dosing levels provided by 'all-in-one' (some say diluted water) ferts.

For example, there are various 'followers' of Dennis Wong's technique where their water column is dosed at APT complete levels + enriched substrate.


----------



## Happi

@ceg4048 thanks for falsifying me again. I been seeing those same pictures from the last 15 years, do you have anything new to post? Am not surprised to see a stunted stems next to one decent one and am not surprised to see that there is a black algae of some kind growing on some of them. So you use EI and KNO3 because it doesn't cause algae? this is another false claim made by you. Unfortunately there are more algae threads on EI user forums than anywhere else. Your claim regarding urea is also incorrect because I dose enough so plant quickly uptake them and urea to NO3 conversion is very minimum. 

Don't get me wrong but your statements might sound good to many people as they too are confused hobbyists or they fully don't understand everything yet. But those who do understand it, they won't agree with you at all. If someone been dosing EI all their life, then this makes them even more stubborn to accept new ideas, they start to see everything else is false. I did the EI for several years and I use to feel the same way, I became close minded and stubborn but once I started trying new ideas, I was proven wrong. I strartred exoring more ideas and am glad I did, I don't even recommend EI to anyone if they come and ask for my suggestions. 

Why not let the user explore new ideas instead of preventing them from trying? Let them decide for themselves. There is still plenty of space available on the algae section on this forum if something goes wrong.

Once again thank you for falsifying me


----------



## JoshP12

Hi all,

My definition above of lean is trash.

It’s intuitive frankly what lean means because it’s a moving target. It’s like a field in physics … we use words like fluids and it’s just as abstract … .

It’s also not so simple due to nutrient acquisition avenues (roots and shoot system) but at the risk of being barraged with obvious retorts that I’ve outlined above, define lean in terms of water column input daily dosage.

I want us to understand that to associate numbers is even harder since everything has to scale or you skew the balance of the system (the substrate can only top up your inconsistencies for so long AND REMEMBER each species has unique demand), and just to throw a wrench the largest influencer is nitrogen which has two forms ammonia and nitrate and these two forms can be converted between eachother but require energy to do so that’s why EI should prescribe heavy feeding and stocking so they can get more waste and that will counterbalance the input of nitrate.

If you don’t balance it you need even more co2 to convert it since the plants have adapted pathways for the seperate forms.

So to give a lean number is asking for a series of targets that have the highest probability of success.

We already have them. On the shoulders of giants utilizing heavy empirical methods.

Plunk in some linear combination of ammonia and nitrate such that you hit around a total of those additions MAYBE 1 ppm a day. … around 1/3 of EI a week. Surprise surprise that’s Tropicas target and surprise again it’s PPS pro.

Scale down PO4 to .5 and voilla lean dosing.

But that’s still mega rich Marcel G attempted to show that.

There is nothing wrong with EI but it drives the metabolic rates of plants so high that some species simply need so much co2 under those conditions that either they look like trash or you kill your livestock. Simple. Or use wet/dry with high bore size on output for massive turnover and low velocity to eliminate the typhoon effect. 20-30x turnover yes please. Oxygen top up, yes please. (Ring a bell?)

But why not use a canister and just tone down the dosing? Lol. That’s what Amano thought when he made an empire because the hobbyist needs to be considered and the ease of application.

Lower N as a scale with everything was and plants can handle the co2 you put and the fish don’t die.

I’m talking Macrandra, mini butterfly, you know the ones.

Even APT complete MAY be too rich for some of these species WHEN the fish choice isn’t “appropriate”

Josh



erwin123 said:


> After reading through this thread about "lean dosing" and "EI dosing" I'm wondering whether there is a middle ground, which are the dosing levels provided by 'all-in-one' (some say diluted water) ferts.


There are lots. Dennis Wong APT complete, PPS-Pro by Edward, Happi's, etc. 1/2 EI. 1/3 EI. Seachem full line and follow instructions. Tropica.

Even ADA says look at your plants and if they turn yellow dose nitrogen. That's the extreme observation. EI says pour it in and focus on other things.

The system adapts to your inputs but if you go willy nilly and change crazy things (and here is where GH comes into the mix), you will crash.

The only way to understand what happened in this hobby is to look at the history and I'll post that soon.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


KirstyF said:


> what I am picking up is that there are multiple possible recipes for this ‘lean dosing’ method that are dependent upon multiple factors, water, plants etc and that any deviation from the specified ingredients and ratio’s may lead to failure, even the use of tap water rather than RO could do this.


That is the real advantage of the <"Duckweed Index">, you base your fertiliser addition on the <"leaf colour and growth"> of your "Duckweed". You just <"watch the plants">, rather than being reliant on <"micro-managing nutrient addition"> or needing a <"specific type of water chemistry etc">.


dw1305 said:


> After a bit of searching I found a floating plant that:
> 
> Shows a linear response to nutrients,
> has a "leaf green" leaf,
> will grow in hard and soft water,
> persists in low nutrient situations,
> and that plant is my both my "Duckweed" and "Rice",
> <"*Amazon Frogbit (Limnobium laevigatum)*">.........





dw1305 said:


> ............. Initially I focused on _Lemna minor (_hence the "Duckweed Index"_)_, _Eichornia crassipes_, _Salvinia_ "auriculata group" and _Pistia stratiotes, _because they were all plants that were being used for <"phytoremediation">.
> 
> None of them <"were ideal in the tank">, _Pistia_ and _Salvinia_ are hairy, and this hides their leaf colour. _Eichornia_ is a <"turned up to 11"> plant, and _Lemna_ isn't happy in very soft water and goes yellow however much nitrogen you supply...........


I don't try and guess which is Liebig's limiting nutrient, I just add a <"complete fertiliser mix">.

The only time this approach is distinctly sub-optimal is with iron (Fe) deficiency, because of the <"non-mobile nature of iron in the plant">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

On the history

You have a Pre-Tom and Post-Tom era.

Pre-Tom, the Germans and the Dutch, with the confines of their tech, mastered plant growth. The issue in their thinking was an observation that an influx of nutrients caused algae. We now know why. Go read my posts. Tom came along and showed that nutrients did not cause algae and piloted the EI targets -- he understood the relationship in the system (intuitively). Amano created an Empire around the same time and used Japanese inspiration in terms of fertilization etc. He claimed that within the ADA system any additional input of said nutrients will be related to algae (and the caveat is unless you increase your CO2) ... along with this, you have a whole generation of people who feared Iron etc ... and those same people may not have been able to afford proper co2 injection systems. The best avoidance to algae WAS to limit nutrients since CO2 systems sucked.

I mean it's pretty clear. To create a new era, we need to rise above "This causes that" nonsense and "this is correlated with that" nonsense ... we need to think of this as a system. We need to find all of the things that will solve a problem. Turning down your light, increasing your flow distribution, turning up your co2, lowering nutrients all do the exact same thing to the system. And when you see the several roads to Rome, and can implement them, you have mastery.

Those people that don't want to do that, go follow a complete prescribed system and pay the money. The issue with EI is that it is the cheapest - and the most appealing in that way - but it is hardcore mode to get the results that lean dosed systems have. To get ADA/Green aqua/APT plant forms under EI, you need high light, great flow, massive turnover, etc etc etc and you need to be smart. You need to watch your plants and gain experience.

Why not advocate for dry salts to make copycat fertilizers ... we have a calculator on the forums for this ... then let the hobbyist buy into a system. The economic benefit of EI has nothing to do with 3ppm nitrate a day. It has to do with dry salts.

Off my soap box now.


----------



## MichaelJ

ceg4048 said:


> OK, allow me to retort:
> 100ppm NO3, 5ppm PO4, 120ppm K, 5ppm Fe dosed weekly for 4 years. Not one trace of algae. No damage whatsoever:


Thats probably one of those along the way that made me _Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb _(metaphorically speaking)... It doesn't matter how old this finding is or these pictures are.


Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

erwin123 said:


> I'm wondering whether there is a middle ground


Heck no, this is the internet. On the internet we don't deal in nuances... its either Black or White. One or Zero.... in real life its different of course 



JoshP12 said:


> My definition above of lean is trash.


Thanks... after spending the better part of an hour to understand the post and summon the local Amish to raise a barn in your honor you tell me the definition is trash!


----------



## JoshP12

Hi all,

Think it’s important to illustrate when It makes sense to use EI. 

Suppose you want to sell plants, use lean dosing and rich substrate to get sexy plant forms, the sexiest in all the land and gain a monopoly on the local market. Then to keep up with the demand add more N and P up to EI (in these tanks probably run fishless and high co2 and keep the same forms with max co2 to maintain the sexy forms). If you like fish, ride your popularity and it will be ok to sell slightly less compact plants and/or a couple stunts that you just cut away and move on with your life. 

That’s from a business perspective. EI is also good for information. If you dose EI, you can find the max co2 (lowest pH) required for that moment in time to be completely stable and then use that as a barometer (maybe you have a pH probe or use bromothymol blue every now and then). 

EI is also good to force feed your plants lots of nutrients following a water change right after. They’ll take what they can, then distribute it where it needs to go eh voilla - you have a lean column but an EI dosed plant from the water column . As a result, POTENTIALLY, less co2 and demand on flow perfection required  in real time 👌.

I see EI as a tool. I would say keeping the water column as “minimal” as possible is going to have the highest probability of yielding the most admirable results. 

But what happens? People dose lean with strong substrate and tear down the tank in under a year … BEFORE they have to implement EI tricks. Or they dose EI with strong substrate and tear it down under a year. The substrate has run out and is unable to top up our inadequencies and inability to implement flexible dosing regimes to maintain the system long term.

When lights are on I’ll post a picture of my current tank - you know get some photo credibility. 😂


@MichaelJ 
Thanks... after spending the better part of an hour to understand the post and summon the local Amish to raise a barn in your honor you tell me the definition is trash! 

Hehe - sorry about that! I said Lean dosing is minimal water column dosing … sigh lol … had to fix it!


----------



## Mr.Shenanagins

I read through Happi’s thread on TPT, and what I find interesting is how you can be helpful and answer questions there, but only want to be opaque when questioned on here? The simple answer would have been, “here check out my thread on this forum and I can clarify from there.” 

I don’t think anyone is denying your results, but it’s hard to quantify pictures and statements without the blueprints of how said results were achieved. I get responding to the same questions over and over Can get tedious, but if your not willing to elaborate why bother posting at all, right?


----------



## MichaelJ

JoshP12 said:


> People dose lean with strong substrate and tear down the tank in under a year …


Hi @JoshP12  I think that is a good point. Many scapers do not really run their tanks for a very long time... they tear down, rebuild and experiment. The sustainability have to be taken into account when we discuss dosing regimes. Personally, I want my tanks to run for years if possibly - they will evolve over time, such as me getting tired of certain plants, plants I cant get to thrive or thrive too well etc. but a complete teardown for me usually means taking a break from the hobby.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @JoshP12  I think that is a good point. Many scapers do not really run their tanks for a very long time... they tear down, rebuild and experiment. The sustainability have to be taken into account when we discuss dosing regimes. Personally, I want my tanks to run for years if possibly - they will evolve over time, such as me getting tired of certain plants, plants I cant get to thrive or thrive too well etc. but a complete teardown for me usually means taking a break from the hobby.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


i had a neglected tank but a little more time due to WFH. A complete teardown was too daunting to me.

So I refreshed my aquasoil progressively by scooping up the top inch or so and laying down a new layer, but at least half of the substrate at the bottom is 10+ years old.  Previously, i didn't even bother to refresh the aquasoil, I just dumped a new layer on. As a result the substrate in the front my tank is 10cm deep.  😅


----------



## MichaelJ

erwin123 said:


> i had a neglected tank but a little more time due to WFH. A complete teardown was too daunting to me.
> 
> So I refreshed my aquasoil progressively by scooping up the top inch or so and laying down a new layer, but at least half of the substrate at the bottom is 10+ years old.  Previously, i didn't even bother to refresh the aquasoil, I just dumped a new layer on. As a result the substrate in the front my tank is 10cm deep.  😅


Hi @erwin123 Yeah, I guess that approach is possible...


----------



## JoshP12

Hi all!

Perhaps my original everyone is right thread is a titch lofty -- had to be.

The bottom line:
1) Plants need nutrients
2) They get it from substrate or water column
3) Water column is more sensitive since the plant has "less autonomy" from the water column vs the root system

So, the plant get's what it needs as a combination of the two!

A good exercise is to explain why Happi has his position and why Clive has his position. Consider the water chem GH/KH of both (EI calls for GH booster and it isn't due to Leidbigs - GH allows more wiggle room in autonomy from the column ... within reason, as if you don't hit the sweet spot, ugly plants - NOT NOT HEALTHY (healthy is a flawed concept and I believe this word causes confusion among hobbyist - the plant adapts and exists in a particular way based on the conditions ... it's preference is to live not to look pretty for you - you should be thanking it for reducing it's chlorophyl under nitrate limited conditions or high light because if it didn't it would die). Also consider the age of the tank, microbial assemblage, nature of the plants themselves, stability etc and most of all consider the time (a timelaps of years would be invaluable - even better, paint a mental picture and try to guess what it would look like ... which species would deteriorate first, if you don't match the rate of deterioration - all else constant - with plants gaining aerial advantage to keep up with the influx of N in the system, what will happen?)

What we really need is the log of observational thoughts that went through Clive and Happi's brain.

Everyone asks for the data - but we will NEVER get accurate data and we will NEVER know what the plant used even with weight analysis. It's all trash. You have no idea what choices the plant made. For example, if you switch to a ketogenic diet paired with fasting and are able to maintain muslce mass and/or grow muscle mass with minimal protein intake, you can't say that the minimum protein you need to grow muscle is _____. It's nonsense - recycled amino acids, autophagy, etc etc etc etc ... you need blood stream analysis and so on you need to know which cells adapted to ketogenic pathways and which ones didn't -- you need to know WHY the brain was prioritzed with glucose, were mitochondria priortized in growth first - blah blah blah. You literally cannot get the data - and sorry that's why EI targets aren't real ... it's just a truck load of nutrients. So as long as you dose a bit more than the minimum, guess what, you are EI.

The concept of ratios and ratio ranges HAS to exist. And the less stuff in the column, the larger the influence - that's why the lean dose advocates ALWAYS use soft water. Go ahead and dose 100 ppm in your RO system with 3Ca and 1Mg ... the system will crash with substrate or not (maybe not in the first 10 minutes, but give it a month of consistent -- why is this? the substrate MAY be able to top up the system ... ONLY if the roots and rhizosphere are established.

I am getting more ballsy these days since I don't think anyone reads my posts 😂.

Photo credibility:







Not those ones? But that's nature.











That fish is happy:




Natural succession!!! The Crypt Keeper!




maybe these ones:





(I induced the crinkling on the wallichi by the way!)










(throw back ... the good ol'
 days of rich substrate and 3x EI dosing with 80K in the column at water change ---> then it crashed suddenly ... then pulled an Erwin ... substrate still in the bottom of my tank now.







I think I'll be the only one at the barn raising ... 😂.




*On a very serious note: *I joined UKAPS a couple years ago and learned so much from each and every one of you -- probably would have never found success in the hobby had I not found this site. My sincerest thanks.

Josh


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


erwin123 said:


> After reading through this thread about "lean dosing" and "EI dosing" I'm wondering whether there is a middle ground, which are the dosing levels provided by 'all-in-one' (some say diluted water) ferts.


If you are using dry salts, you can dose nutrients at any level you like. This is what <"I do at the moment">, but using a <"terrestrial fertiliser">. When I run out of "Miracle-Gro" I'm going to invest ~£10 in a kilo of <"Solufeed 2 : 1 : 4"> mix.


JoshP12 said:


> Why not advocate for dry salts to make copycat fertilizers ... we have a calculator on the forums for this ... then let the hobbyist buy into a system. The economic benefit of EI has nothing to do with 3ppm nitrate a day. It has to do with dry salts.


That it is it really. If you use dry salts you can make your own <"bespoke fertiliser mixes"> (like EI was originally) and play around with nutrient ratios etc. if you so wish.

Some people will always prefer to use <"a "system" of Seachem, ADA etc nutrients"> on grounds of <"ease of use">, but once you know that every potassium ion (K+) is the <"same as every other one">,  proprietary fertilisers become a <"very expensive option">.

You need all the <"essential nutrients for plant growth">, but plants don't know how much they cost, or where they came from, all they care about is <"the amount supplied">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


JoshP12 said:


> Even ADA says look at your plants and if they turn yellow dose nitrogen. That's the extreme observation. EI says pour it in and focus on other things.
> 
> The system adapts to your inputs but if you go willy nilly and change crazy things (and here is where GH comes into the mix), you will crash.
> 
> The only way to understand what happened in this hobby is to look at the history and I'll post that soon.


That is why I suggest just <"look at the plants">, it is <"simple and it works">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

John q said:


> So for anybody that's interested I managed to find some of these recipes, without having my hand held.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Happi's Recipe with Micro/Macro and Everything
> 
> 
> let me begin by saying i have put the last few years into the hobby by studying the plant health, nutrients, fish/shrimp health, i have obtained quite impressive results, i will try my best to post them here much as i could, i been busy with life and might not be posting much anymore, so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.plantedtank.net


those recipes would be a good starting point, that thread is also bit old now and there is always new finding and new updates to share. we tested the Marcher Ratio starting with 0 TDS water, Marcel have done the same experiment, in that same video Vin has talked about Marcel's experiment, I believe Vin listed it as "half EI" which is also incorrect, because the formula is completely different from that. this is what Marcel have to say:

There was the following concentration of nutrients in That tank:
20 ppm CO2, 15 ppm NO3, 4.4 ppm NH4, 2.8 ppm PO4, 4.6 ppm K, 2.3 ppm Ca, 0.9 ppm Mg, 0.14 ppm Na, 12.8 ppm HCO3, 3.6 ppm SO4, 0.05 ppm Cl
(dGH = 0.54, dKH = 0.59, conductivity = 60 µS/cm)

I tested the same with the given formula and I too achieved the same good results using the exact same recipe and the chemicals, I tested it on several different plant which are hard to grow, I tried using different chemical for the same ratio and the results were different, taking out NH4 from the list and replacing with all NO3 didn't have the same results, Urea gave good results too but it was not same as when NH4 used in the recipe. during these tests I changed the ratio around, for example: changed the K from 1 ppm to 3, 5, 10 etc. and even though plant grew but some of them started to show the weird growth and some of them were stunted, made the same changes to the NO3 and same thing occurred. it was quite clear that every time I made the change to these ratio or chemicals, the plant reacted differently.  

further more I did several other tests beside the Marchner ratio, the Marchner ratio test was Marcel Idea and it was based on "Marschner's Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants" and these numbers are based on Terrestrial plant, not aquatic plant. there were time when we agreed or disagreed with each others, but we continued to explore more ideas. for me personally, even if you didn't follow the exact recipe, ratio etc. and started adding little urea/NH4 and reduce the overall NO3 in the water, you would achieve similar results if not perfect. 

but what does those numbers tell us from the Marcher ratio?
K should be lower then N? Yes
do we need to add lots of Micro Nutrients? NO
do we need to add lot of Fe? NO (we never had to go over 0.1 Fe proxy using Tenso Cocktail) even at 3 ppm N weekly
do we need to have a good lights for coloration? YES
do we need to add lot of Fe to achieve the red color? NO

Tropica Follow lower K and Higher N for a reason. Tobi follow similar approach, Tobi is also using similar numbers to Marchner ratio for N, K, Ca, Mg. Tobi has very well explained the K causing issue and these issues are more related to this kinds of ratio rather than directly related to K itself. but let me tell you one thing, you will never be able to achieve the same ppm or use the same ratio in your aquarium due to water chemistry if you were using tap water. but at least you get an idea about the importance of these ratio. 

under the following recipe:
#1    1000ml solution, 20 ml per 50 g 

Dosed daily: 
Urea (7 gram)
N    0.3450319
calcium nitrate (10 gram)
Ca    0.1793358
NO3    0.5549027
Magnesium nitrate (10 gram)
Mg    0.1001645
NO3    0.5110625

3 ppm PO4 weekly, 20-30 ppm K from GH Booster, very rich dosing of Micro/Fe with this ratio, I had very fast plant growth on many plant species, but not all plant grew well. some of them were severely stunted and some just turned black and disappeared. co2 diffused by reactor, max CO2. 

#2 Tropica Plant Growth Specialized Modified Clone, used 1 to 3 ppm N weekly, used varies chemicals, switching from Non chelated to chelated, switching from N urea to N NH4 to N NO3 etc. following numbers dosed at such ratio produced great results, very fast growth, No algae. GH was less than 1-2 DGH, KH 0-0.5
N    1
P    0.074
Mg    0.3
K    0.77
S    0.68
Fe    0.0515
Mn    0.03
B    0.003
Cu    0.0044
Mo    0.0015
Zn    0.0015

#3 Marchner Ratio (starting with 0 tds water), dosed at 1-3 ppm N weekly. plant from Ammania family did even better under such condition, they did not stunt even at 3 ppm N proxy with Marchner, however they still got stunt with the recipe #2, #1 they wouldn't even survive. 
N    1
P    0.133
K    0.668
Ca    0.334
Mg    0.133
S    0.066
Cl    0.0063
Fe: 0.01-0.02 (Tenso Cocktail Clone)

as I have explained earlier that most plant will continue to grow fine with any given ratio but you will experience some plant being stunted and some growing fast, some not growing at all. #2 and #3 should give you an idea about lean dosing and how I dose my tanks. if I were to dose #3 and raised the K from 0.66 to 5 ppm, I start to see Ammania twist and start to look weird. I have also seen people growing most of these plant without any issues even if they don't use the same ratio/recipe, but they all had one thing in common, they used high GH such as 5-6 DGH Ca,Mg, 0-2 KH, lower NO3, but higher Micro/Fe, take Marian Tank for example. I have seen people grow these plant with 5-6 DGH, 0-4 KH, decent Micro/Fe, K but no P or N added. they seems to keep the N quite low for some reason. but then how do you explain Ammania growing well even at 3 ppm N ? maybe because the N is in both form of Nitorgen N-NH4 and N-NO3? very likely. but at the same time once the doses were increased there was some plant damage, you can see it on the leaves. but we cannot ignore #3 and why did it produce such a great results, there is something about it, something special. 

but do we have all the answers to all the questions? NO
are these above recipes or ratio going to solve all your problems? NO
Will EI going to solve all your problems? NO
is CO2 going to solve all your problems? NO

based on several experience, talking to others who conducted similar experience, gathering what people dose in there aquarium, it appear these people are dosing Lean or started switching to Lean dosing. 

My thought on Lean Dosing is that lean dosing is an approach which is based on your plant needs rather than dosing excessive nutrients, if you have very little plants in your aquarium the need for daily dose should be very minimum. Lean dosing shouldn’t have any problem weather it is used under low or Under High Lights, weather its under 15 ppm CO2 or 30 ppm CO2. if you were to dose 3 ppm NO3 daily and only half of it is being used that would mean 0.34 ppm N daily, now lets say if you added 0.34 N from Urea/NH4 daily, you would have met all the plant needs while you have 0 NO3 in your water. 

there is a book by Kramer that high Nitrates causes several issues, plant damage etc. this very well could be true, because most people who have great looking tanks keep very little NO3 in their water. 

here's Barr tank with same plant under EI (am sure he have enough CO2)







Here's Mine Under Marchner #3 (15-20 ppm Co2)





like I said not all problems are CO2 related and not all plant will grow equal. Barr might be growing other plants well and so are the other people, but not all people are able to grow some of these plants, either they are stunted or not growing at all.


----------



## John q

Thanks @Happi  for taking the time to give that detailed response, I'm familiar with the postings of Marcel, Tobi, and dare I say Sol, all interesting stuff, in its own way. 

I probably need to re read this post a few times and digest it but genuinely interesting to hear your thoughts~findings... and glad we can at least discuss these ideas in a grown up, thought provoking manner.


----------



## sparkyweasel

Happi said:


> the Marcher Ratio


What's that?


----------



## Happi

sparkyweasel said:


> What's that?


its a Ratio of Nutrients that are considered optimal for growing terrestrial plants. you can google:
 "Marschner's Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants"


----------



## sparkyweasel

Ah, that explains why Google couldn't help me with "Marcher Ratio".


----------



## medlight

For more than a year I have been working with more variant nitrogenous sources from, Mg (NO3) 2, NH₄NO₃, CH₄N₂O, Kno3, so so far it seems to be going well, only at the beginning I had a Fuzz outbreak, which solvent reducing NH₄NO₃ , CH₄N₂O, I follow this thread I find it interesting 
I currently dose nitrogen:
  Mg (NO3) 2: 0%
  NH₄NO₃: 70% = 1.32 NO3
  CH₄N₂O: 8% = 0.15 NO3
  KNO3: 22% = 0.42 NO3


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


medlight said:


> I currently dose nitrogen:
> Mg (NO3) 2: 0%
> NH₄NO₃: 70% = 1.32 NO3
> CH₄N₂O: 8% = 0.15 NO3
> KNO3: 22% = 0.42 NO3


I think a few people have used <"urea (CO(NH2)2) as their nitrogen source">, most people haven't been down the ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) route, purely because of the <"toxicity of ammonia (NH3) to fish">.

You might be interested in an old thread <"Spezial N - Nitrogen Fertilizer">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## medlight

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I think a few people have used <"urea (CO(NH2)2) as their nitrogen source">, most people haven't been down the ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) route, purely because of the <"toxicity of ammonia (NH3) to fish">.
> 
> You might be interested in an old thread <"Spezial N - Nitrogen Fertilizer">.
> 
> cheers Darrel


Thanks Darrel, I know Tobias's formula


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


medlight said:


> I know Tobias's formula


I guessed you probably would. We have a few threads on non-aquarium fertilisers, <"Miracle-Gro"> and <"Solufeed 2 : 1 :  4"> mix. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## erwin123

Happi said:


> #3 Marchner Ratio (starting with 0 tds water), dosed at 1-3 ppm N weekly. plant from Ammania family did even better under such condition, they did not stunt even at 3 ppm N proxy with Marchner, however they still got stunt with the recipe #2, #1 they wouldn't even survive.
> N    1
> P    0.133
> K    0.668
> Ca    0.334
> Mg    0.133
> S    0.066
> Cl    0.0063
> Fe: 0.01-0.02 (Tenso Cocktail Clone)
> 
> as I have explained earlier that most plant will continue to grow fine with any given ratio but you will experience some plant being stunted and some growing fast, some not growing at all. #2 and #3 should give you an idea about lean dosing and how I dose my tanks. if I were to dose #3 and raised the K from 0.66 to 5 ppm, I start to see Ammania twist and start to look weird. I have also seen people growing most of these plant without any issues even if they don't use the same ratio/recipe, but they all had one thing in common, they used high GH such as 5-6 DGH Ca,Mg, 0-2 KH, lower NO3, but higher Micro/Fe, take Marian Tank for example. I have seen people grow these plant with 5-6 DGH, 0-4 KH, decent Micro/Fe, K but no P or N added. they seems to keep the N quite low for some reason. but then how do you explain Ammania growing well even at 3 ppm N ? maybe because the N is in both form of Nitorgen N-NH4 and N-NO3? very likely. but at the same time once the doses were increased there was some plant damage, you can see it on the leaves. but we cannot ignore #3 and why did it produce such a great results, there is something about it, something special.



Ammannias are an interesting challenge. I got a couple of Pedicatellas from another hobbyist but my tank conditions were likely to be different so the new growth started to wrinkled. But one of the stems put out a sideshoot that grew perfectly normally even if the original plant was wrinkled. But when it grew too large, and I cut and replanted, it started to wrinkle after replanting. Your formula #3 is 'food for thought', especially the very low "K".


----------



## JoshP12

That thread was great Darrel. Thanks.

All the speculation around K and NO3 … isn’t it possible that K accumulates, driving growth, NO3 cost too much to convert as sole N source … plant has to convert to ammonia source - cost energy … CO2 …. Drive demand of CO2 too high … deficiency.

N ain’t gonna get deficient when compared to CO2.

CO2 can’t keep up … Toss in ammonia source or feed harder or use better substrate … cheat co2 indirectly especially with urea yielding internal co2 … co2 demand keeps up beauty growth.

At the same time - this keeps K from accumulating and staying in the constant zone which fixes water chemistry to a stable balance … plant can engineer acquisition expression to suit the situation … .

Everyone in that thread has pieces of the framework - and Tom specifically illustrates when he says probably be fine if you just use better substrate and stock heavier where the Germans say we do.

But who has better flow/distribution/localized concentration/oxygen/turnover/system design. I’m not touching that one.

But we know the answer.

We can rationalize where everyone is coming from with some thought.

I just need to put it out there: can we find a pattern between those who have more success with ammonia based fertilizer? (Hint - look at the flow mechanism!!)

Head guard and shield up.


----------



## JacksonL

JoshP12 said:


> Since < everyone is right >, I will just answer the OP's questions.
> 
> I'm not going to get specific but on a weekly basis APT Complete vs EI is virtually the same aside from the amount of N it delivers. So right away, notice that relative to EI water column dosing targets, your system will be less resistant to inconsistent feeding and will be less demanding on CO2/flow demands.
> 
> That aside, you can expect nearly similar growth rates - but slightly less. On some species, you will have smaller leaves and shorter internodes relative to EI targets for water column dosing.
> 
> For the moment, we won't discuss GH/the differences between dosing frequency - but it will make a difference to overall stability of the tank.
> 
> 
> People seem to expect them, but they need not assemble - as the tank matures, the higher order life will outcompete the diatoms, provided there is enough oxygen in the system to sustain it.
> 
> First, let's define lean dosing as putting minimal "stuff" in the water column. APT Zero just leans out nitrogen and phosphate further (but not K ... and that is an important observation). Establishing the latter, APT Zero is simply a leaner version of APT Complete and EI is simply a set of "rich" targets for the water column.
> 
> Benefits (relative to a richer dosing regime):
> 1) Slower growth (since N/P can bottleneck metabolism via leidbig) for maintenance purposes,
> 2) smaller leaf sizes and petite plant forms,
> 3) shorter internodes,
> 4) lower demand on CO2 making it easier for CO2 to be in excess and reducing the demand on flow perfection (i.e. the turnover of water need not be so fast since the specific plant areas don't require as much CO2 to maintain growth)
> 5) A potential for less water changes - but not really since you are dosing a comprehensive fert and nutrient accumulation from the non N/P contributors will cause an issue eventually. If you dose dry salts and reduce N or P on your own while accommodating your dosing regime within targets then yes you can postpone water changes within reason - but I'm not going to go on about this.
> 
> Limitations (relative to a richer dosing regime):
> 1) Huge reliance on consistency in feeding (any fluctuation in N from waste will skew your "CO2 setting" and cause fluctuations in metabolic demand and as such lead to unhealthy plants
> 2) Slower growth for farming purposes
> 3) Less stability
> 4) Heavier reliance on substrate nutrition (each species requires a unique amount of all nutrients ... the substrate tops this up via the roots as the plants needs) - if the substrate depletes (remember K is going to be driving growth rates here -- hence my original note on K being at EI levels and being an important observation -- so the N and P etc in unique amounts will be topped up from the substrate for each species).
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 cases:
> 1) The roots have access to "substrate"
> 2) The roots don't have access to "substrate"
> 
> In case 1, no, they will be fine as they fall into a "rooted" category.
> 
> In case 2, yes, they will use up their stores in due time and eventually deteriorate.
> 
> Benefits: you can use epiphytes to gauge when you need to dose. How do we dose to fix them? Large water change, dose EI levels of N and P into the column (could keep lights off don't matter), force feed the plants and leaves with N and P (by going to have a drink and then coming back), 100% water change (back to back to remove any excess) and then move on with your day. This is utilizing the luxury uptake and the nutrient pathways of the plant. Get the N and P in there, the next morning, let the CO2 in excess do it's thing (recall it has been dialed in easier due to lower N demand) --> as a cushion, micro turn up JUST for the day, any sickness to fish, drop it down. You'll be good for another month.
> 
> 
> Certainly.
> 
> Suppose you induce N fluctuations by inconsistent feeding, then yes.
> Suppose you wait to long to luxury dose the tank and lower leaves start to deteriorate and cause a mess, choking the system and starving it of oxygen, yes new algaes
> Suppose you drain your substrate and don't catch it, yes different algaes.
> 
> Algaes are simply a clue to the instability in the system -- the cause of algae is an imbalance in the zone of the unique nutrient acquisition portfolio of the tank at that moment in time.
> 
> Yes beautiful.
> 
> It's a new set up. If you pull up S. Repens it has a root structure like a tree. Suppose that your microbial assemblage in the substrate has not developed + the roots aren't developed? Then the rhizosphere does not have the micro organisms to facilitate nutrient acquisition as a result, S. Repens is relying exclusively on the water column until it can get it's stuff sorted out.
> 
> Now, each species has a different demand on nutrients (and the ratios of those nutrients) and the ability to acquire those nutrients (it can store them and etc but still unique) ... in my eyes it is simply redirecting resources from leaves to roots, get the root structure, let the bacteria grow, then the things are going to explode. Give it a month. Let it melt if you want. It will be fine.
> 
> As a test - pick 1 stem and every week pull it out of the dirt and notice if the roots have grown relative to the week before and the leaves (I've done it ... you will learn a lot).
> 
> Beauty tank.
> 
> And great questions.
> 
> Josh


really interesting post, thanks for taking the time! 


JoshP12 said:


> The system adapts to your inputs but if you go willy nilly and change crazy things (and here is where GH comes into the mix), you will crash.


can you expand on how GH helps with lean dosing?


----------



## JoshP12

JacksonL said:


> really interesting post, thanks for taking the time!


My pleasure. Glad it was useful. Just my thoughts .


JacksonL said:


> can you expand on how GH helps with lean dosing?


Can try! GH relates to Ca and Mg. Plants need Ca and Mg so that’s one reason we need GH.

The other - which I don’t have scientific study/physiology of plants proof for - is based on common observations and then linking them into the framework I mentioned.

It seems that higher GH (within reasonable Ca and Mg relative concentrations - can safely say anything from 4:1 - 1:1 … if this is too skewed some people report issues - there is more words can be said to qualify all this but I think it’s clear what I mean) .

Ok, for example, when GH is around 5-7 instead of 1-2, people notice plants grow “nicer”  and “easier to achieve same results”… better coloration and so on. It seems that it moderates the input from water column into leaf - like a bouncer.

Less N/P primarily that is force fed, the easier co2 demand is to hit - no deficiency! Ok more words can be put, but we get it .

It’s important to note that you can get nice plants in low GH - just be aware that on the reasoning above, each N you dose or each extra you feed may have larger impact than in the case of higher GH.

Edit note: it’s probably why those very challenging plants - which just means have high metabolic rate per N/P so need more co2 - often people who grow them say they look better in higher GH. The soft water component refers to KH and in nature often linked to GH but not in our cubes — the KH increase co2 acquisition efficiency the lower it is.

Low KH more co2
Higher GH less N and P 

Combo - co2 demand met easier - plant grows “easier”.


----------



## JacksonL

Happi said:


> #3 Marchner Ratio (starting with 0 tds water), dosed at 1-3 ppm N weekly. plant from Ammania family did even better under such condition, they did not stunt even at 3 ppm N proxy with Marchner, however they still got stunt with the recipe #2, #1 they wouldn't even survive.
> N    1
> P    0.133
> K    0.668
> Ca    0.334
> Mg    0.133
> S    0.066
> Cl    0.0063
> Fe: 0.01-0.02 (Tenso Cocktail Clone)
> .


thanks for such a detailed post. Are the numbers above ppm per day?


----------



## JacksonL

JoshP12 said:


> My pleasure. Glad it was useful. Just my thoughts .
> 
> Can try! GH relates to Ca and Mg. Plants need Ca and Mg so that’s one reason we need GH.
> 
> The other - which I don’t have scientific study/physiology of plants proof for - is based on common observations and then linking them into the framework I mentioned.
> 
> It seems that higher GH (within reasonable Ca and Mg relative concentrations - can safely say anything from 4:1 - 1:1 … if this is too skewed some people report issues - there is more words can be said to qualify all this but I think it’s clear what I mean) .
> 
> Ok, for example, when GH is around 5-7 instead of 1-2, people notice plants grow “nicer”  and “easier to achieve same results”… better coloration and so on. It seems that it moderates the input from water column into leaf - like a bouncer.
> 
> Less N/P primarily that is force fed, the easier co2 demand is to hit - no deficiency! Ok more words can be put, but we get it .
> 
> It’s important to note that you can get nice plants in low GH - just be aware that on the reasoning above, each N you dose or each extra you feed may have larger impact than in the case of higher GH.
> 
> Edit note: it’s probably why those very challenging plants - which just means have high metabolic rate per N/P so need more co2 - often people who grow them say they look better in higher GH. The soft water component refers to KH and in nature often linked to GH but not in our cubes — the KH increase co2 acquisition efficiency the lower it is.
> 
> Low KH more co2
> Higher GH less N and P
> 
> Combo - co2 demand met easier - plant grows “easier”.


Great, thanks for the information


----------



## erwin123

Happi,

When I looked at #3 and #2, is the main difference that #3 has double the P dose?

If you doubled the P for #2, isn't it virtually the same as #3?

I have A. Pedicatellas in my tank, some have the wrinkled leaf problem, some don't. I had a beautiful sideshoot that looked totally normal even though the 'mother' stem was wrinkled., but it got too tall and was sprouting lots of aerial roots, so I cut it and replanted, and the new leaves promptly wrinkled.  Am trying to reduce my water column dosing to see if it can help the Pedicatellas.


----------



## Happi

JacksonL said:


> thanks for such a detailed post. Are the numbers above ppm per day?


we used N as our Proxy, it would be good to start with 0.25-0.5 N daily depending on plant mass, but 0.5 N daily is recommended for tank full of plants, I used 3 N weekly which is about 0.42 N daily.


----------



## Happi

erwin123 said:


> Happi,
> 
> When I looked at #3 and #2, is the main difference that #3 has double the P dose?
> 
> If you doubled the P for #2, isn't it virtually the same as #3?


nope not the same. one recipe is Tropica based and the other one is Marchner based. both recipes uses different ratio of overall nutrients, its not just N : P ratio. doubling the P might make the N : P ratio similar to each others but then overall the ratio of other nutrients are still different from each others.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Hi, @Happi . I used to use tropica specialised nutrition with very good results. Co2 was lower but plants still did well, co2 was maybe 20-25ppm. but when I switch to EI with micros EDTA. first month or so was ok, but then I have continuos issues with plants such as ammania, eriocaulon, tonina, Rotala Wallichi, Macrandra. I have good O2 from skimmer and very good flow from 1200lph from 3 pumps placed in a circle in 45liter tank, and very high co2 over 40ppm. Despite this I still struggle with plant health issues with Lythraceae family and even the easier plants are showing issues.
No matter how much flow/co2 I throw at the tank I still have plant health issues and algae. to even have the tank looking semi-decent i must clean the filter twice a month and vacuum substrate like crazy, any minor hiccup and everything goes wrong very quickly. I want to switch back to leaner dosing and get back my colourful healthy plants I used to have with tpn, but this time from dry salts. what recipe would you recommend?  I have some ada aquasoil ready for the tank when I swap to lean dosing, as my current soil is already exhausted.

I was thinking tropica micro clone with 0.1ppm Fe dtpa proxy and
2ppm N (1/2 urea-N 1/2 Kno3-N). per week
3ppm K per week
and 0.8ppm ppm po4 per week.

do you think above recipe would work well? if not what else do you suggest? and what Calcium and magnesium ppms do you aim for (target dose).
my light is chihiros wrgb2.
any input would be greatly appreciated, cheers.


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> Hi, @Happi . I used to use tropica specialised nutrition with very good results. Co2 was lower but plants still did well, co2 was maybe 20-25ppm. but when I switch to EI with micros EDTA. first month or so was ok, but then I have continuos issues with plants such as ammania, eriocaulon, tonina, Rotala Wallichi, Macrandra. I have good O2 from skimmer and very good flow from 1200lph from 3 pumps placed in a circle in 45liter tank, and very high co2 over 40ppm. Despite this I still struggle with plant health issues with Lythraceae family and even the easier plants are showing issues.
> No matter how much flow/co2 I throw at the tank I still have plant health issues and algae. to even have the tank looking semi-decent i must clean the filter twice a month and vacuum substrate like crazy, any minor hiccup and everything goes wrong very quickly. I want to switch back to leaner dosing and get back my colourful healthy plants I used to have with tpn, but this time from dry salts. what recipe would you recommend?  I have some ada aquasoil ready for the tank when I swap to lean dosing, as my current soil is already exhausted.
> 
> I was thinking tropica micro clone with 0.1ppm Fe dtpa proxy and
> 2ppm N (1/2 urea-N 1/2 Kno3-N). per week
> 3ppm K per week
> and 0.8ppm ppm po4 per week.
> 
> do you think above recipe would work well? if not what else do you suggest? and what Calcium and magnesium ppms do you aim for (target dose).
> my light is chihiros wrgb2.
> any input would be greatly appreciated, cheers.


it would be hard to give the perfect working recipe because everyone's water is different. if you look at those recipes and how Marchner and Tropica ratio works, you will already have most of your questions answered. the reason you might see the problem are likely due to the following:

1. using KNO3 alone as N, not using NH4/Urea liquid fertilizer or NH4 based soil.
2. using CSM+B or something similar
3. not having enough Mn, Mg but too much Fe
4. too much potassium

things you can try:
1. try using Tropica Premium for your Micro/Fe
2. use any of the Macro recipe that I have posted or something similar, the goal is to focus on Urea/NH4 based N rather than NO3
3. try to use similar ratio to either Marchner or Tropica
4. if you want to clone the micros, give Tropica or tenso cocktail clone a try.
5. Calcium and Magnesium, if you have more than 1 ppm Ca and 0.4 ppm Mg in your water, its already enough to handle one week of plant growth even when fully planted. 
6. if the GDA appear with KNO3+Urea recipe, take out the KNO3 and replace it with Urea and K2OSO4 instead. 
7. Tenso Cocktail can be found in UK and aim for 0.1 Fe weekly with Tropica clone Macro made from Urea+K2SO4+MgSO4+KH2PO4 and report back. plant like Rotala Wallichi will respond within day or two and it might even become weed, you will observe that it grows normal without any deformation which some people believe its lack of Calcium, you will observe the same for several other plant species. Ammania family is little tricky to work with, it grew best under Marchner ratio and grew somewhat ok under Tropica clone. keep in mind that we can only clone the listed ppm from tropica or other brand, the true ratio or chemical they use are unknown, we can only guess on what they use or possibly what they likely to use. 
8. if everything fails, you can always go back to Tropica if you want beautiful plant


----------



## John q

JoshP12 said:


> Low KH more co2
> Higher GH less N and P


I'm confused.. Currently going down the rabbit hole of lean dosing (that's my perogative) and will report my findings. 
What I can't understand is why most  folks with soft water (low gh as well) seem to do well  with this regime. In layman's terms, is nutrient uptake reduced in hard water?  Or is the nutritional availability via water chemistry reduced in harder water. 

@JoshP12 

In soft water should one be dosing more or less npk?


----------



## JoshP12

John q said:


> I'm confused.. Currently going down the rabbit hole of lean dosing (that's my perogative) and will report my findings.
> What I can't understand is why most  folks with soft water (low gh as well) seem to do well  with this regime.


This is good sign. I'm always confused!

We need to establish something: ferts in water does not mean ferts in plant. They are different. Just because you put 4N in, it doesn't mean that the 4N is going into the plant.

KH --> infuence the ability for the plant to get CO2 from the water column. If it is lower, then CO2 is more easily extracted. Most costly solution to all problems with plant health is to switch to RO - hands down. The reason people remineralize RO to KH ~ 3 instead of leaving it at 0 is because it makes each adjustment on your CO2 regulator "less". KH is a buffer. So you can use very poor machinery in high high high KH because so much CO2 is required to shift the carbonate equilibrium and obtain enough free CO2 in the water such that it can be acquired by the plant (because of relative salt concentrations).

In other words, lower KH, easier to get CO2 into the plant. The GH component is extremely nitpicky and just let GH=KH -- the difference it makes is when you are obsessed with plant forms. AND fish aren't used to 1KH and 7 GH. It doesn't make sense with nature. If your fish is used to 10GH, they probably have specific organ adaptations that need the KH as well.

The entire game of a plant is to get enough CO2. The rest doesn't matter (within reason right?)? Everything you can do to make CO2 acquisition easier the better. Grow plants emersed. LOL.

So the reason it's easier is because the demand for CO2 is easier to fill.


John q said:


> In layman's terms, is nutrient uptake reduced in hard water?  Or is the nutritional availability via water chemistry reduced in harder water.
> 
> @JoshP12


I'd say ya. I don't have the studies on hand (it would take a long while to curate since there is so much involved in it), but its consistent with every conversation, finding, report, I have ever read AND if you use the concept, you can predict problems with certainty ... . And I get what you mean when you say those words. Someone who is reading this, out of the context of this conversations, may start poking into it (and even half the stuff I write, that's why I go on qualifying everything because I don't want obvious retorts). But I get it. And if I understand what you mean, then I agree with it.


John q said:


> In soft water should one be dosing more or less npk?


 For sure. Happi's targets are good. PPS-Pro is rich dosing too. ADA is bang on. EI is good too -- you just need more CO2. 

Remember you can just pump more CO2 in to compensate for any NPK. I've dosed EI targets in soft water. 

There is the other piece of using a Urea source and feeding your fish in conjunction with KNO3 ... the ammonia has it's own uses in the plant and urea will yield CO2. And when you don't give Ammonia, the plant has to convert NO3 to it ... and that uses CO2 as energy so you increase your demand on CO2 even further. 

*The entire game of the planted tank is to get enough CO2 into the plant. *
1) Gas <-- Flow 
2) Ferts <-- this will lead you to 3 
3) Different N sources  <-- that's why all the "experiments" that people down the rabbit hole find stuff about N. 

The plant can adapt to less N/P AND it can pull it from the substrate. It cannot pull the amount of CO2 it needs from the substrate.  CO2 and light are the main drivers of all growth - but we need to make our lives easier by playing with 1-3. 

The most obvious thing is to grow plants under candle light. The problem is plants look ugly without high light - it's just a fact. They can turn red and other pretty colors to moderate light intake -- and light makes dialing in CO2 easier (when you have ruled out flow). 


Hope I answered it without rambling too much.

EDIT:
I don't think you need to be using laboratory scales to measure things. tsp etc are fine. And so is CSM. 

But what you need to realize with CSM is that to get the right relative ratios, you need to use a super concentrated solution. 1/64 of a tsp just isn't good enough. You need to use a solution with like several tsp and then dose a little bit of that. It just makes all of the ions in the desired ratios available in the water due to the error of your scoop. 

KNO3 and KH2PO4 is fine. I'd never put urea in my house - it was banned for a reason. Urea Formaldhye. If I went urea, I'm buying Tropica. 

Ammonium Nitrate I haven't looked into.


----------



## Happi

@John q 
 "is nutrient uptake reduced in hard water? Or is the nutritional availability via water chemistry reduced in harder water."

Its both, this is why it gets much more complicated when you give the same working recipe to everyone, it will work for some and fail for some. while it will work well for 75% with soft water and it wont work for the rest 25% with hard water. however, if those 25% make some small changes, say 75% soft water people had no Fe and Mn deficiency but 25% hard water people did, they might need to make some small changes to their Fe and Mn, they might also need to Chelate their Micro/Fe, where 75% soft water people will be fine even if their stuff is not fully chelated or not Chelated at all. this is why I have always said that those using CSM+B and adding 0.5 or more Fe as proxy might not have Fe deficiency but might be suffering from Mn deficiency, this case is even worse if your water is hard.


----------



## John q

JoshP12 said:


> Hope I answered it without rambling too much.


Answered my questions perfectly Josh, thank you.


JoshP12 said:


> For sure. Happi's targets are good


Time will tell, I'm going to put faith in this approach and see where it takes me. 

Was unsure about adding the full 6g of urea out of fear over the livestock @Happi  Went with 2.5g and increased kno3 to 30g, other than that I've followed recipe to the letter.


----------



## Happi

John q said:


> Answered my questions perfectly Josh, thank you.
> 
> Time will tell, I'm going to put faith in this approach and see where it takes me.
> 
> Was unsure about adding the full 6g of urea out of fear over the livestock @Happi  Went with 2.5g and increased kno3 to 30g, other than that I've followed recipe to the letter.


Try using good Micro/Fe such as tropica premium with this approach. I know csm+b won't  be very effective from my personal experience. If that is what you are using. 

I know people don't give much importance to micros but it could make a day and night difference in plants.


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> Currently going down the rabbit hole of lean dosing (that's my perogative) and will report my findings.


Hi @John q  ... care to hold hands while we descent? 

I am essentially cutting my very high NPK dosing in half in one of my tanks for starters (not exactly _amazonian_ lean but gotta start somewhere...) - the tank where I keep shrimps as I want to make a big dent in my TDS for the sake of my livestock and possibly enable some more challenging shrimps - if it works for my plants I will apply the same to my other tank and possibly dial it down further... (I have two extremely similar densely planted tanks and will keep the other tank as is for now).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


John q said:


> Or is the nutritional availability via water chemistry reduced in harder water.


Yes, it is for a lot of nutrients. 

The large excess of calcium (Ca++) ions can interfere <"with the uptake of other cations">.
Many <"calcium compounds"> are insoluble, so Ca+= ions can remove orthophosphate (PO4---) ions etc. from the water column.
Hard water has a high pH and will remove ferric iron ions (Fe+++) from the water column. Some plants will be very good at sequestering iron ions (and using HCO3-) as their carbon source, <"but some won't">.



JoshP12 said:


> In other words, lower KH, easier to get CO2 into the plant. The GH component is extremely nitpicky and just let GH=KH -- the difference it makes is when you are obsessed with plant forms. AND fish aren't used to 1KH and 7 GH. It doesn't make sense with nature. If your fish is used to 10GH, they probably have specific organ adaptations that need the KH as well.


I believe that as well dGH and dKH are nearly always linked in natural waters because <"they both come from dissolved limestone"> (CaCO3) and that gives a 1 : 1 ratio of dGH : dKH.

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> The large excess of calcium (Ca++) ions can interfere <"with the uptake of other cations">.


By those metrics, would 30 ppm of Ca be considered "large excess" ?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


MichaelJ said:


> By those metrics, would 30 ppm of Ca be considered "large excess" ?


I'd think that should work for most plants, real blackwater plants would probably be better with less. @Roland is <"the person to ask">.

I don't have any experience of starting with RO water and then adding calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg). I've always <"used rainwater"> and then cut it <"with some hard tap water"> to get a consistent conductivity value. In recent years I've added <"magnesium and iron (Fe) on a more regular basis">, mainly because I've been using a fertiliser mix without much of either.

cheers Darrel


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> it would be hard to give the perfect working recipe because everyone's water is different. if you look at those recipes and how Marchner and Tropica ratio works, you will already have most of your questions answered. the reason you might see the problem are likely due to the following:
> 
> 1. using KNO3 alone as N, not using NH4/Urea liquid fertilizer or NH4 based soil.
> 2. using CSM+B or something similar
> 3. not having enough Mn, Mg but too much Fe
> 4. too much potassium
> 
> things you can try:
> 1. try using Tropica Premium for your Micro/Fe
> 2. use any of the Macro recipe that I have posted or something similar, the goal is to focus on Urea/NH4 based N rather than NO3
> 3. try to use similar ratio to either Marchner or Tropica
> 4. if you want to clone the micros, give Tropica or tenso cocktail clone a try.
> 5. Calcium and Magnesium, if you have more than 1 ppm Ca and 0.4 ppm Mg in your water, its already enough to handle one week of plant growth even when fully planted.
> 6. if the GDA appear with KNO3+Urea recipe, take out the KNO3 and replace it with Urea and K2OSO4 instead.
> 7. Tenso Cocktail can be found in UK and aim for 0.1 Fe weekly with Tropica clone Macro made from Urea+K2SO4+MgSO4+KH2PO4 and report back. plant like Rotala Wallichi will respond within day or two and it might even become weed, you will observe that it grows normal without any deformation which some people believe its lack of Calcium, you will observe the same for several other plant species. Ammania family is little tricky to work with, it grew best under Marchner ratio and grew somewhat ok under Tropica clone. keep in mind that we can only clone the listed ppm from tropica or other brand, the true ratio or chemical they use are unknown, we can only guess on what they use or possibly what they likely to use.
> 8. if everything fails, you can always go back to Tropica if you want beautiful plant


all 4 of the problem points apply to me.
my substrate is quite old and i dose KNo3 Exclusively. because I am using Kno3 my water has a lot of oPttasium, 20ppm per week. am using something similar to csmb, and too much fe but very little Mn in ratio, not even close to 2:1 that i see suggested.


1.I think I would like to try making micros because I think there would be a lot to learn.
2.  the macro numbers I planned above were from a post on TPT made by you a while ago
Simple Macro Recipe Version #1, based on 500 ml solution, 20 ml per 50 gallon
"17.08 grams KNO3
NO3 2.2100
N 0.4992
K 1.3935

5.072 grams Urea CO(NH2)2
N 0.5000

2.765 grams KH2PO4
PO4 0.4
P 0.133
K 0.17

N 1
P 0.13
K 1.56"

do you think this is too much K? i can swap out the kno3 for some CaNo3 and add pottasium sulphate. and reduce CaCl. so to my understanding K should follow marschner ratio?
1ppm N, 0.13ppm P, 0.66ppm K. with N as proxy and 2-3ppm N per week.
for marschner ratio I understand i need different micro than tropica clone? any recipe suggestions? and i assume this is 0.1ppm fe proxy per week?
5. am using RODI water so i need to dose atleast a little calcium and magnesium. how much do you suggest? to my understanding more Ca:Mg allows a bit more flexibility w/ ratios.

6. noted, i will do this if i run into problems.
7. any leads on where to find tenso? if price is reasonable I may try it, but I can't seem to find it.
8. this is really a last resort as tropica is quite expensive haha


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> all 4 of the problem points apply to me.
> my substrate is quite old and i dose KNo3 Exclusively. because I am using Kno3 my water has a lot of oPttasium, 20ppm per week. am using something similar to csmb, and too much fe but very little Mn in ratio, not even close to 2:1 that i see suggested.
> 
> 
> 1.I think I would like to try making micros because I think there would be a lot to learn.
> 2.  the macro numbers I planned above were from a post on TPT made by you a while ago
> Simple Macro Recipe Version #1, based on 500 ml solution, 20 ml per 50 gallon
> "17.08 grams KNO3
> NO3 2.2100
> N 0.4992
> K 1.3935
> 
> 5.072 grams Urea CO(NH2)2
> N 0.5000
> 
> 2.765 grams KH2PO4
> PO4 0.4
> P 0.133
> K 0.17
> 
> N 1
> P 0.13
> K 1.56"
> 
> do you think this is too much K? i can swap out the kno3 for some CaNo3 and add pottasium sulphate. and reduce CaCl. so to my understanding K should follow marschner ratio?
> 1ppm N, 0.13ppm P, 0.66ppm K. with N as proxy and 2-3ppm N per week.
> for marschner ratio I understand i need different micro than tropica clone? any recipe suggestions? and i assume this is 0.1ppm fe proxy per week?
> 5. am using RODI water so i need to dose atleast a little calcium and magnesium. how much do you suggest? to my understanding more Ca:Mg allows a bit more flexibility w/ ratios.
> 
> 6. noted, i will do this if i run into problems.
> 7. any leads on where to find tenso? if price is reasonable I may try it, but I can't seem to find it.
> 8. this is really a last resort as tropica is quite expensive haha


this recipe will work fine too if your water already have some N to begin with, usually its present in form of NO3, in most cases 5 ppm NO3 is almost always present. if you were to keep the N:K ratio at 1:0.8 or less, you will notice several plant will grow better.

*1. I think I would like to try making micros because I think there would be a lot to learn. *
you will be glad that you did, not only you will learn new things, but not all the micro nutrients are in your control and you can add however you want and at whatever ppm.

*2.  the macro numbers I planned above were from a post on TPT made by you a while ago. do you think this is too much K? i can swap out the kno3 for some CaNo3 and add pottasium sulphate. and reduce CaCl. so to my understanding K should follow marschner ratio?*
N 1, 0.13, 1.56 this one works very well too, but you will see better results if this was lower to something like N:K at 1:0.6 or 1:0.8, you should also observe that there is almost no more GDA or GSA under this scenerio.
long as the K remain lower than N, that is the ultimate goal. remember its not only K that need to balanced but other nutrients too. but, as of now lets focus on the one that can be easily corrected. you can use CaNO3, CaCl etc if you want but it cannot mixed with this recipe because it will form CaSO4 if they are in the same solution, Ca and P together is also a No No. keep it simple with Urea+KNO3+Kh2PO4 or Urea+K2SO4+KH2PO4

*1ppm N, 0.13ppm P, 0.66ppm K. with N as proxy and 2-3ppm N per week.
for marschner ratio I understand i need different micro than tropica clone? any recipe suggestions? and i assume this is 0.1ppm fe proxy per week?*
keep in mind that Marchner ratio might be influenced by your tap water and some small ppm of nutrients might need some adjustment, especially the Micros.

Fe 0.1
B 0.014
Mn 0.067
Zn 0.014
Cu 0.014
Mo 0.003

I never had to cross this limit per week, but again your tap water might influence these numbers, but this weekly dose should provide you with all the Micro/Fe you need, if anything we might have to adjust it would be  Fe/Mn at some point.
*5. am using RODI water so i need to dose at least a little calcium and magnesium. how much do you suggest? to my understanding more Ca:Mg allows a bit more flexibility w/ ratios.*
if you only added some Ca from Cacl/CaSo4 then thats all your truly need, you can add anywhere from 2-10 ppm Calcium if you want but like i said the plant will only need very little. in some cases i add 5-10 ppm Calcium and my Mg and K comes from my Macro or micro mix. honestly there is no need to add Mg at water changes if you choose that. i choose to add the Ca at this level because i dont do much water changes and its ok to have Calcium at this level. less the better
*6. noted, i will do this if i run into problems.*
yes, you should observe the same
*7. any leads on where to find tenso? if price is reasonable I may try it, but I can't seem to find it. *
someone from this forum might have to help you on this, if you were in the USA, i would have sent you all the needed chemicals to make your own.
*8. this is really a last resort as tropica is quite expensive haha*
yes, but your results already suggest that there is something going on after making the switch. so going back to tropica at some point could help if everything else fails.


here is the recipe for Tenso cocktail, the true Tenso cocktail use both EDTA and DTPA Fe but i feel the recipe with DTPA Fe alone works even better.

500ml solution, 20ml per 50 gallon or 189.27 liters
start with 400ml of Disitilled water, add Vinegar and potassium sorbate, Mix. now add 20 ml from Recipe #2 into Recipe #1 and mix, add more distilled water till 500 ml,

Recipe #1
Add 5-10 ml white vinegar
Add 0.2 gram potassium sorbate
Add 4.3 Gram of Fe DTPA 11%
Add 0.38 Gram H3BO3 17.48%
Add 2.44 Gram Mn EDTA 13%
Add 0.44 Gram Zn EDTA 15%
Add 0.44 Gram Cu EDTA 15%
Add 3.08 Gram Ca EDTA 10% (optional)

Recipe #2
500ml solution, add 20 ml from this solution to Recipe #1
Add 5 ml white vinegar
Add 0.2 gram potassium sorbate
Add 0.9 gram Na2MoO4*2H2O 39.658%
Add 0.53 gram NiSO4*6H2O (optional)

Fe 0.1
B 0.014
Mn 0.067
Zn 0.014
Cu 0.014
Ca 0.065 (ignore)
Mo 0.003
Ni   0.001 (Optional)

for those who are in the USA, all chemicals can be found here:
MBFerts Bulk Wholesale Hydroponic Equipment Dealer | Mbferts | Wholesale Hydro Store | Indoor Garden Equipment Plant Foods
Welcome to Custom Hydro  - Water Wise Hydroponic and Organic Fertilizers and Bio-Stimulants


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @Happi  I am following this with interest - and cant wait to hear what people who go down this route thinks. I can't really go all-in myself as I am mostly in it for the lowering of my TDS but my shrimps needs quite a bit of Ca and Mg...  Anyway, what level is your TDS at? Just curious.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi  I am following this with interest - and cant wait to hear what people who go down this route thinks. I can't really go all-in myself as I am mostly in it for the TDS and my shrimps needs quite a bit of Ca and Mg...  Anyway, what level is your TDS at? Just curious.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



my TDS vary on the experiment that I am doing but its anywhere from 40-100, in most cases it stays around 40-60. 

I am not a shrimp keeper but I do keep on hearing that TDS for shrimps needs to be this or that, but sometime I wonder if its the TDS that is important or the mineral that the shrimps needs that are important, such as Calcium, Magnesium, Iodine, Chloride etc. because if the goal was to raise the TDS to 100,200,300 ppm. we could have just done that by adding KNO3 alone. again am not a shrimp expert but this shrimp and TDS thingy doesn't make any sense to me, at least not from the chemistry point of view.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> my TDS vary on the experiment that I am doing but its anywhere from 40-100, in most cases it stays around 40-60.


Geez thats almost amazonian levels 


Happi said:


> I am not a shrimp keeper but I do keep on hearing that TDS for shrimps needs to be this or that, but sometime I wonder if its the TDS that is important or the mineral that the shrimps needs that are important, such as Calcium, Magnesium, Iodine, Chloride etc. because if the goal was to raise the TDS to 100,200,300 ppm. we could have just done that by adding KNO3 alone. again am not a shrimp expert but this shrimp and TDS thingy doesn't make any sense to me, at least not from the chemistry point of view.


Well, I think in general the idea is that shrimps needs quite a bit of Ca and Mg to build their exoskeleton and help with the molting process, but they also prefer relatively low TDS for osmotic regulation (which unlike fish, shrimps have a very hard time doing) - especially bee, cardinal or crystal shrimps are sensitive. My goal is great plant health and be able keep sensitive shrimps. That's all 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12

You have to be careful switching to lean right after EI.

1) nutrient stores from rich dosing will give error in observation 
2) co2 may be too high so be careful when you drop 
3) nutrient stores in substrate are reduced from time - especially if you dosed hard, proper balance may be skewed in substrate 
4) the first to be depleted is potassium because potassium is of the utmost important (it regulates photosynthesis related enzymes)

I would be careful pulling K down to nothing. There is a reason ADA doses it daily and/or to targets at water change. If you don’t have enough in substrate, the top up effect from roots will only last so long.


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Geez thats almost amazonian levels
> 
> Well, I think in general the idea is that shrimps needs quite a bit of Ca and Mg to build their exoskeleton and help with the molting process, but they also prefer relatively low TDS for osmotic regulation (which unlike fish, shrimps have a very hard time doing) - especially bee, cardinal or crystal shrimps are more sensitive. My goal is great plant health and be able keep sensitive shrimps. That's all
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I understand that Michael, I was talking about in general. I see people talking about raising TDS for shrimps but no one ever wondered is it the TDS or the other minerals that are important. some people add Calcium Sulphate and Magnesium Sulphate for shrimps but they are more focused on TDS which is mostly coming from SO4 in this case.


----------



## Happi

@plantnoobdude
can you calculate how much K were you dosing when you were using Tropica? weekly dose


----------



## Happi

JoshP12 said:


> You have to be careful switching to lean right after EI.
> 
> 1) nutrient stores from rich dosing will give error in observation
> 2) co2 may be too high so be careful when you drop
> 3) nutrient stores in substrate are reduced from time - especially if you dosed hard, proper balance may be skewed in substrate
> 4) the first to be depleted is potassium because potassium is of the utmost important (it regulates photosynthesis related enzymes)
> 
> I would be careful pulling K down to nothing. There is a reason ADA doses it daily and/or to targets at water change. If you don’t have enough in substrate, the top up effect from roots will only last so long.


This is the question for Tropica as well, why they choose to dose little K way before they even came up with the root tabs and why they choose to dose higher N than the K. Tropica never said to dose more K if you have a high tech setup, they simply said to dose more of the Tropica dose, which still ends up with less K than the N. its best to hear from Tropica why they choose to go this route.


----------



## JoshP12

Happi said:


> This is the question for Tropica as well, why they choose to dose little K way before they even came up with the root tabs and why they choose to dose higher N than the K. Tropica never said to dose more K if you have a high tech setup, they simply said to dose more of the Tropica dose, which still ends up with less K than the N. its best to hear from Tropica why they choose to go this route.


👍

Soil. Nature doesn’t have high K in water either. It’s in the soil.

You don’t need root tabs to do a planted tank.

But once the soil is depleted, and the scape goes downhill, you need to bring it back somehow or proactively.

All I’m saying is K is very important. And unlike N and P, you can’t get it from the system. We aren’t running our water through rocks on the way back remineralizing it.

What you put in is what you put in. But not for N and P.

I know locals who hate Tropica ferts - they have to top off with seachem K.


----------



## erwin123

If you follow his instagram feed he has photos with Dennis Wong... but when it comes to Ammannia Golden, he has to use dilute "Tropica levels"... (i.e. he's probably modifying APT dosage to Tropica levels of K)

Myself, I am slowly dialing back the dosing to see whether A. Pedicatella can 'unwrinkle/uncrumple' itself - so far I have one crumpled stem that is able to uncrumple itself - and that is at  7.7ppm N and 10ppm K.


----------



## JoshP12

erwin123 said:


> If you follow his instagram feed he has photos with Dennis Wong... but when it comes to Ammannia Golden, he has to use dilute "Tropica levels"... (i.e. he's probably modifying APT does to Tropica levels of K)
> 
> Myself, I am slowly dialing back the dosing to see whether A. Pedicatella can 'unwrinkle/uncrumple' itself - so far I have one crumpled stem that is able to uncrumple itself - and that is at  7.7ppm N and 10ppm K.



The root tabs with micro won’t toxicify substrate if you pull them out with rich water column N and P like EI.

Everything he has said is consistent with the framework. 

Thanks for sharing - appreciated - hadn’t seen this post before. And pretty photos. .


----------



## Happi

at this point people are also interested in making their own fertilizer to save money, which is a good thing, I am always down to help people whenever i can. the more people we have working on this as a team the better for this hobby. i know for fact those who are trying these approaches, some will fail and some will succeed. whenever that does happen, i hope we don't just give up and immediately come to some kind of conclusion. at that point we need to explore why it worked for some and why it didn't for others and see how we could improve things. the final goal is to keep the plant happy along with those living in the water, also reducing the waste of water and fertilizer, which is also a problem for our world.


Soil of your choice (preferbily ADA Aqua soil or similar) with added root tabs:
TROPICA NUTRITION CAPSULES
N    21,000%
P      7,000%
K     11,000%
MG      2,000%
Cu     0,010%
 Fe      0,100%
 Mn     0,060%

weekly Dose:
N  1.34
P   0.1
K   1
Mg 0.4
Fe 0.1
B 0.014
Mn 0.067
Zn 0.014
Cu 0.014
Mo 0.003

am quite confident that this approach will give you very good results. if someone is down to try this one.


----------



## Happi

erwin123 said:


> If you follow his instagram feed he has photos with Dennis Wong... but when it comes to Ammannia Golden, he has to use dilute "Tropica levels"... (i.e. he's probably modifying APT does to Tropica levels of K)
> 
> Myself, I am slowly dialing back the dosing to see whether A. Pedicatella can 'unwrinkle/uncrumple' itself - so far I have one crumpled stem that is able to uncrumple itself - and that is at  7.7ppm N and 10ppm K.



we have talked about the Micro toxicity for some time now in the water and in the substrate, but people never truly believed in it. the soil truly should be enriched with NPK that's all and Trace/Fe etc. should be added to the water and should be avoided in the substrate. except Fe/Mn in the substrate can be beneficial.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> I understand that Michael, I was talking about in general. I see people talking about raising TDS for shrimps


Hi @Happi, Not sure I've seen many shrimp keepers wanting to raise their TDS... but anyway let me not askew the conversion... The key for me is to lower my TDS but keep fairly high Ca and Mg dosing, but everything else can go as low as possible while maintaining great plant health. How can I dose my Ca, Mg, N, P and K without getting all those "unnecessary fillers" ... such as SO4, Cl, CO3.  I tried with Ca Gluconate, Mg Gluconate but it turned my tank water into _skim milk_.

Ok, I get that this is not exactly part of this lean dosing conversion, so perhaps we can discuss this at another time or here for instance.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123

unfortunately, i don't have access to the type of osmocote that only has NPK. So I have to do my own cost-benefit analysis - is my osmocote/starxcote helping the plants NOW. If yes, I'll continue with it.


JoshP12 said:


> The root tabs with micro won’t toxicify substrate if you pull them out with rich water column N and P like EI.
> 
> Everything he has said is consistent with the framework.
> 
> Thanks for sharing - appreciated - hadn’t seen this post before. And pretty photos. .



I'm leaning towards agreeing with you over Happi's view - but that is based on the use of Terrestrial gardens to filter water runoff in order to reduce stress on the water treatment system. I have spoken to someone working on the project and they do not see the soil toxicity increasing, so presumably the plants are pulling it out.  On the other hand this also means we shouldn't overdose the Osmocote (too much and the plants can't pull it out).... instead of a capsule full of osmocote, we should be inserting one pellet per square inch.

For those interested in this area: https://www.pub.gov.sg/Documents/ABC_Waters_Design_Guidelines.pdf


----------



## Hufsa

Just wanted to say im following this thread with great interest, even if I am not doing lean dosing right now. I am pretty sure I will experiment with it at some point, theres too many things about it that makes sense for me not to.
Thank you for the micro ratios in particular @Happi 

This is partially off topic but especially @erwin123's work with the Lythraceae family is of great interest, as I find this family of plants difficult to grow well under EI (or my implementation of EI anyway).
This is a long thread and it might have been mentioned already, but I assume everyone here has seen Vin Kuttys AGA2019 presentation? I feel like it fits into this framework in a way.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> Urea+K2SO4+KH2PO4


in this case having N fully from urea will not bring any issues? if I make a different solutions for calcium salts can i dose them at same time in to the tank? is the issue because cacium salt will precipitate with so4?



Happi said:


> 2-10 ppm Calcium if you want but like i said the plant will only need very little.



i forgot to mention i have crystal red shrimps so i think minimum 3-4 gh? maybe i should move the shrimps to a different tank...
how much Mg do you add to macro/micro?


Happi said:


> keep in mind that Marchner ratio might be influenced by your tap water and some small ppm of nutrients might need some adjustment, especially the Micros.


well i use RO so the marschner number should work well with minimal adjustments?
if i use this number: 
Fe 0.1
B 0.014
Mn 0.067
Zn 0.014
Cu 0.014
Mo 0.003
 with 1ppm N, 0.6ppm K and 0.12 P, should work well? also how about Nickel for Urea uptake. 
thank you very much for helping happi.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> can you calculate how much K were you dosing when you were using Tropica? weekly dose


it was 3-4ppm K per week. i was dosing quite high over recommended dose.


----------



## JoshP12

Hufsa said:


> but I assume everyone here has seen Vin Kuttys AGA2019 presentation?


Please share!! Don’t recall seeing it.


----------



## Hufsa

@JoshP12 took me a hot minute to find it again 😁 
tiger15's original post + direct link


----------



## Happi

@plantnoobdude

3-4 K is more than enough per week and that is why you were seeing great results, also the way tropica works, it mainly uses NH4 or urea and 0 NO3. far as the calcium goes, you can always dose it separately on the same day if you like, I usually keep the calcium and Po4 solution separately just like you see in the recipe below.  

again, am not a shrimp expert and not sure about their requirement but these recipes are more focused on plants. if you were to add some minerals for your shrimps such as Ca, Mg, Cl, S etc. these recipes will still give you good results similar to Tropica which you were using previously. far as urea goes, it is completely safe to use even if you were adding high doses of it, I sometime dose 1 ppm N from urea in a single dose, but you will see better results when this is dosed daily in smaller amount such as 0.4 ppm N from it. Nickel can be added to the recipe if you want, I can edit my post to add some nickel in those recipe if you like. 

like I said even if someone had 30 ppm Ca or the Marchner ratio is completely off in their aquarium, they should still get good results if they were to switch to Urea/NH4 based ferts and reduce their over all NO3 and K.  *Marchner ratio is not mandatory 

if someone truly want to explore while using 100% RO water and doesn't have any fish or shrimps, they can use this recipe as a good starting point, this is all you will be adding to your 100% water, do not add anything else except the following :*

500 ml solution, 50 ml per 100 liter (26.41 Gallon) water
Solution #1 
4.27 g NH4HCO3
 2.85 g K2CO3
0.23 g NaHCO3

Solution #2
4.64 g NH4NO3
 2.88 g MgSO4*7H2O
 1.19 g MgCl2*6H2O 

Solution #3
 6.38 g Ca(NO3)2*4H2O

Solution #4
1.84 g KH2PO4

This will give you the following concentrations of nutrients:
4.72 ppm HCO3 (= 0.27°dKH), 3.14 ppm N (= 2 NH4 + 7 ppm NO3), 2.14 ppm K, 1.1 ppm Ca (= 0.15°dGH), 0.43 ppm Mg (= 0.1°dGH), 0.42 ppm P (= 1.3 ppm H2PO4), 0.38 ppm S (= 1.1 ppm SO4), 0.41 ppm Cl, 0.06 ppm Na
*you need to add 0.02-0.05 ppm Fe from Tenso Cocktail weekly or use Tropica Premium to reach similar dose while using this recipe, start with smaller doses at a time, such as 10-20 ml per 100 liter. keep in mind that this is a experimental recipe which worked well for us and you can play with it if you like.*​


----------



## Happi

Hufsa said:


> @JoshP12 took me a hot minute to find it again 😁
> tiger15's original post + direct link


we already talked about it in one of the thread not even few weeks ago. we also talked about why they are seeing the good results, which is strongly linked to NH4/Urea


----------



## Happi

@plantnoobdude the guy below used the same recipe posted in your post #132, he didn't have good light, used Seachem trace and Fe DTPA at 0.1 ppm weekly​
Post #32 (the first picture)
AGA 2019 Vin Video Presentation


----------



## Parablennius

Hufsa said:


> Just wanted to say im following this thread with great interest,


Me too!!


----------



## John q

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @John q ... care to hold hands while we descent?


Lol, why not..  although I suspect we're both passed the hand holding stage. 🥴

Ei has worked well for me, let's not suggest it doesn't. I just want to see if other ways work. All roads lead to Rome, there's more than one way to skin a bullfrog with elongated feet. 

Take a deep breath @MichaelJ ... the truth is out there..


----------



## Wookii

John q said:


> Lol, why not..  although I suspect we're both passed the hand holding stage. 🥴
> 
> Ei has worked well for me, let's not suggest it doesn't. I just want to see if other ways work. All roads lead to Rome, there's more than one way to skin a bullfrog with elongated feet.
> 
> Take a deep breath @MichaelJ ... the truth is out there..


----------



## JoshP12

Lean to nature - the soil in nature has it all.

The water flushes by rocks and those also slow release - based on equilibrium which dictates need. So the water has + stuff constantly flushing by and being replenished to a pseudo-steady state —— the organic stuff presumably dictates the rate that this dictating equilibrium forces + stuff to release.

So you have a perfect balance where stuff moves equilibriums, equilibriums get corrected, stuff stays in a balance.

Those plants have adapted to the balance and top up whatever they need from water column.

Constant chaos, constant adapting.

Toxicity is another word for nutrients not been used or accumulation interfering with uptake. It just means Coulomb’s law.

The easiest way to circumvent toxicity, more light or more water changes. Toxicity in the soil will be alleviated via stronger growth - the best cleanse is plants. Turn the toxicity into plant matter by driving growth rates with light and co2. Turn up temperature - metabolism - bacteria will go crazy and use oxygen so you need to pair it with light and photosynthesis.

You can see why EI works now. Josh sim 3x weekly back to targets inert substrate. Of course it will work. Do 7x weekly 100s back to targets that work - the perfect values - and everyone is happy. 


I spent a lot of the past year extremely confused. And I hope in this compilations of the thoughts that I shared you can see that my conclusion is a hybrid of EI and anti-EI. Because EI teaches us about growth, water changes, husbandry, co2 application. And anti-EI teaches us to think about nature. 

Amidst all this is a set of words that are poorly defined: toxicity, deficiency, healthy, excess, lean, limited, high, low etc 

It’s a system. Each piece is interconnected. 

Each thing you do triggers a cascade of responses contingent on the history of what you’ve done. And the influences that all your historical actions - and inactions - have on the tank. 

Try all these things but find ways of thinking that allow you to predict properly. 

Those of you with very poor substrate health/old/spent/depleted right now who use low K in column will have issues. And if you don’t, I am sure we can trace back and explain why. 

It won’t be in a week or even a month (you have e nutrient stores), but in time, you will need to intervene. 

And those of you who ease of N to nill and don’t feed high fish loads, will end up with gorgeous plants and then finally cyano. This will be exacerbated if K is not dosed. 

I am not trying to confuse anyone by sharing these thoughts and you need not accept my thoughts. I simply want to share so if these experiences happen, they are validated.


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> Lol, why not..  although I suspect we're both passed the hand holding stage. 🥴





John q said:


> Ei has worked well for me, let's not suggest it doesn't.


Agreed. I have had zero issues with my abundant NPK/trace dosing.



John q said:


> I just want to see if other ways work. All roads lead to Rome, there's more than one way to skin a bullfrog with elongated feet.


When I set up my current tanks a couple of years ago my dosing regime was Tropica Specialized and Tropica Premium a couple of times a week and that was it - moderately hard water (KH/GH 6/6). That actually worked well for quite a while.  When the GSA arrived I started upping my P dosing with Seachem Phosphorus and dialing down my light intensity. Totally worked for me and I kept the Tropica dosing as well...  Eventually, I got tired with Tropica, not because it didn't work but because it was expensive and not that easy to find here in the US and I decided to roll my own with cheap dry salts which eventually became full EI with extra PO4 and K (due to my KCl softened water)...



John q said:


> Take a deep breath @MichaelJ ... the truth is out there..



I can't really go all in on the _homeopathic fertilization _approach  ... at least not yet - I do not doubt it works given the right circumstances.  I do have the perfect setup for it with two very similar tanks. For now I am just reducing everything in half except for Ca and Mg, which I only reduced a bit, in my shrimp tank. If I don't see any adverse effects on my plants over the course of 2-3 weeks, I will reduce everything again... and so forth... eventually I will get down there unless I see things starting to go south.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12

Hufsa said:


> @JoshP12 took me a hot minute to find it again 😁
> tiger15's original post + direct link


What an excellent video! Love that guy. Rotala kill tank.

It’s all consistent. You can actually a lot of the observations. My favourite is this photo:

This is exactly what we just said:






With the root tabs, it’s stunting. You can argue toxicity. Or you can simply say turn up the light keep your co2 because the guy is using loads of it.

High column dosing can pull that nutrition out but it needs a stronger driver it can only go as far as the light.

With low column and root tabs it’s taking its fill properly.

Low column and tabs is sexier because it’s not being force fed. I’ve already linked the N and P pathway at plant interface. And he refers to gavage feeding of foie gras. It has longer internodes because it needs more co2 to keep up and wants to get to the top. Fix the problem with more light and more co2. The left photo will look like the right.

Thanks for sharing that. Much appreciated. 


Another piece is the CEC of the gravel - why we use root tabs instead of soil? Acidic soil, decaying humus, microbial assemblage - the partnership of biology - micro and macro - Bacter 100? 

Use soil and root tabs. Real dirt. Go back to the old days. Your base layer needs to mimic kilometres of nutrients that the earth has. Fake it with clay and miracle gro/Osmocote or power sand. Then top it a bit more with dirt. Cap it with aquasoil or something inert. Literally mimics nature.

Load the traces, load the npk in the soil - replenish your + stuff daily because there are no remiwnralizkng rock we run to. And don’t bother dosing N and P — stock hard and feed your fish. 

Dose the negative stuff N and P if you feel like it. Keep co2 in excess. Crank the lights. 

Make it nature.

I’m off my soapbox! Lol 


And I’m still going!!!

 I’ve induced Mn deficiency with CSM and fixed it with CSM. The edta chelate accumulation does play into things but change your water and reset it because we don’t have billions of years of evolution in our substrate.


----------



## Happi

@JoshP12

Pic #1 already have high nutrients in the water to begin with. root tab made no difference unless water column dosing was reduced or eliminated.  
Pic #2 with root tabs and without root tabs, in pic #2 both are doing quite well, very likely due to leaching of Nutrients into the water, likely Urea/NH4 playing major role. fish will also add some NH4, furthermore if NO3 test for 0, this suggest there is small amount of NH4/NO3 being taken away rapidly by the plant before it becomes detectable by the test kits. I would expect plant in the left to suffer in the #2 pic in this case if this was not the case. but at the same time it appear as the plant on the left in pic #2 didn't grow much where it grew quite big in the Pic#2 with root tabs. now the question is what happened to the plant in the left in #2 without any root tabs if this experiment was to kept going. 

far as the Toxicity goes, we will be going off topic but it will depend on how much root tabs are being used, how deep they are and weather they are mainly NPK based or weather they include Trace/Fe as well. am not concerned about the root tabs that are mainly NPK. but we do need to be bit more careful with root tabs that include Trace/Fe etc. as well, usually this is not a problem if you are adding them deep enough and leaching become less minimum. the heavy metal toxicity is a real thing, at least for those who are into farming or terrestrial plant. i had a serious problem once where i added so many root tabs osmocote plus into aqua soil, most of the plant went downhill which were previously doing well. in the terrestrial plant soil case, these heavy metal can go further down into the soil but in our aquarium they have to stay in minimum area and they cannot go anywhere unless you do lot of water changes or change the entire soil at some point.

many people watched his video and still ignoring this:
1. Vin, also talked about co2 is not always the case
2. Vin saw a strong relationship with nutrients and plant stunting


----------



## JoshP12

All these observations are valid.

I’m explaining routes to fixing the stunting and illustrating the relationships.

The high nutrients are EI and it is possible that the acquisition of those unbalanced nutrients is harder in root tabs soil because of the soil interactions and relative ratios. This is coulombs and is the premise of toxicity.

The explanation of the stunting has to do with the ability to acquire a particular nutrient. It jams the system.

Vins observation on nutrients and stunting is valid. And even on co2 not being the case.

But we have to stop thinking co2 this nutrient that. It’s all connected. Pull back a nutrient, increase another, add light, reduce the interactions , change more water — it’s all the same thing. So yes more co2 will always fix an issue (this is a statement that requires several paragraphs of qualifying but anyone reading this will get what I mean)

Grow it emersed in the same dirt and spray it with the same water. The thing won’t be deficient. With enough light and enough co2 you literally have access to an abundance of energy  and the plant can use that energy however it wants - create anti toxins, transport nutrients etc etc etc. but I mean this isn’t even valid since the pressure of water and leaf formation it’s all different since you need differ t morphology for atmospheric co2 - anyways. 


Does that mean turn up your nozzle and kill your fish? No. Reduce your water column fertilization or change your N source to indirectly reduce the co2 demand to ensure the plant can fill it with what you provide.

There is a relationship with co2 and stunting to. Go turn off your co2 and watch everything crash. To think that it is nutrients or co2 is naive. It’s both. And both are connected. And both can be used  achieve the same goal.


----------



## Happi

@JoshP12 I understand what you saying but my point is Vin also demonstrated that some of these hard to grow plant grew well un stunted even when CO2 wasn't applied. meanwhile people are still battling their CO2 system to grow them.


----------



## JoshP12

Happi said:


> @JoshP12 I understand what you saying but my point is Vin also demonstrated that some of these hard to grow plant grew well un stunted even when CO2 wasn't applied. meanwhile people are still battling their CO2 system to grow them.


I agree. Glad we are on the same page.

But we don’t need co2 to grow them. You simply reduce the co2 demand indirectly by using urea and ammonia and feeding fish - but this isn’t because these things are better for plants than nitrate - it’s that they allow the plant to reduce their co2 requirement which is the hardest thing to get into a plant since the nutrient source doesn’t need to be converted and isn’t forcing growth too high. And also redirect fertilization in water to substrate where the plant can pick what it wants. Urea gives a bonus co2 and even glut can help alleviate co2 requirement. The plant doesn’t care how it gets co2 - but it needs it. And if a way is by indirectly reducing what it needs, it’s happy.

Agree with this?

Need to edit and say this is where changing GH etc also Ifluence this - and time and rhizosphere and microbiology etc and lowering KH too


----------



## medlight

Happi said:


> @JoshP12 I understand what you saying but my point is Vin also demonstrated that some of these hard to grow plant grew well un stunted even when CO2 wasn't applied. meanwhile people are still battling their CO2 system to grow them.





This is an example of a tank without co2, 2.5 years old


----------



## Happi

medlight said:


> View attachment 179646
> This is an example of a tank without co2, 2.5 years old


it looks better than most of the tanks with 100 ppm CO2


----------



## JoshP12

medlight said:


> View attachment 179646
> This is an example of a tank without co2, 2.5 years old


Looks beautiful mate.

High light, lean column, rich substrate (edit: potential varying N source, glut etc — low KH water all this stuff inadvertently influences how the co2 demand on the system is being met). Is also old … 2.5 years of microbiology, adaptations, stability etc. 

You can also see HOB positioning favors flow pattern … conscious decisions.


Clearly people are skimming what I write.


----------



## medlight

JoshP12 said:


> Se ve hermosa compañera.
> 
> Columna delgada, muy luminosa, sustrato rico.
> 
> 
> Claramente, la gente está echando un vistazo a lo que escribo.


@Happi ,@JoshP12   I follow this post very carefully, I find their studies and their points of view very interesting, you are making a good post


----------



## Happi

medlight said:


> @Happi ,@JoshP12    I follow this post very carefully, I find your study and your points of view very interesting, you are making a good post


according to google translate you are swearing at both of us


----------



## JoshP12

Happi said:


> it looks better than most of the tanks with 100 ppm CO2



Imagine if we added co2 to his tank. What would happen?

Those internodes will tighten.


----------



## Hufsa

medlight said:


> View attachment 179646
> This is an example of a tank without co2, 2.5 years old


This is not your tank though, correct?


----------



## medlight

Hufsa said:


> This is not your tank though, correct?


no, it belongs to a fellow hobbyist


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> like I said even if someone had 30 ppm Ca or the Marchner ratio is completely off in their aquarium, they should still get good results if they were to switch to Urea/NH4 based ferts and reduce their over all NO3 and K. *Marchner ratio is not mandatory *


so, you say that even with gh around~4dgh. (18ppm Ca, 6ppm Mg) I can still use tropica OR Marschner ratio Macro nutrients as long as N is from Nh4/ urea and k levels are in balance.

for dosing i should do micros and macros everyday? any issue with iron and po4? or is that not an issue with stronger chelator such as dtpa+lower ph.

so far i think my plan is marschner macro and your micro numbers.
N 3ppm from UREA only.
K 2ppm  from k2s04
P 0.36ppm     from kh2po4
Fe 0.1             Fedtpa
B 0.014         h3bo3
Mn 0.067     mn edta
Zn 0.014    zn edta
Cu 0.014    cu edta
Mo 0.003   (NH4)6Mo7O24

weekly numbers with 50% water change. macro and micro separate solutions but dosed every day at the same time.
calcium and magnesium 18ppm:6ppm
how much nickel do you think i should add?
once again thank you for all the help, your personal experience is extremely helpful.


----------



## Happi

anyway, I grew up in India and we use to use cow dung for some of our gardening. we would let it dry first and then add it to our dirt. we used the well water to feed our garden and we never had to add any fertilizer, plant grew like crazy. I guess you can call this a organic gardening.

I personally think we don’t even need to add any root tabs If you were to use organic soil, cow manure under your substrate, I personally know some people in Asia who are into planted aquarium, and they use this approach. Some people add osmocote along with organic soil, truly the soil is doing the major work providing NPK than the root tabs.


Maybe some of us should try this approach again but this time we will modify it as needed. We can start with:

1” cow manure/Organic soil

sprinkle Some kind of root tabs rich in NPK with small amount of Fe/Trace

cover with aqua soil 4” to 5”

use RO water

Add Ca and Mg to the water

Run the tank with High lights and CO2 (15-20 ppm)

add small amount of Micro/Fe in the water such as Tropica Premium or DIY

Keep an eye on TDS

Only top off the evaporated water

Only change water if TDS goes really high


For those who already have a running tank, they can add the organic soil and few pellets into the empty capsule and add it deep down into the substrate.


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> so, you say that even with gh around~4dgh. (18ppm Ca, 6ppm Mg) I can still use tropica OR Marschner ratio Macro nutrients as long as N is from Nh4/ urea and k levels are in balance.
> 
> for dosing i should do micros and macros everyday? any issue with iron and po4? or is that not an issue with stronger chelator such as dtpa+lower ph.
> 
> so far i think my plan is marschner macro and your micro numbers.
> N 3ppm from UREA only.
> K 2ppm  from k2s04
> P 0.36ppm     from kh2po4
> Fe 0.1             Fedtpa
> B 0.014         h3bo3
> Mn 0.067     mn edta
> Zn 0.014    zn edta
> Cu 0.014    cu edta
> Mo 0.003   (NH4)6Mo7O24
> 
> weekly numbers with 50% water change. macro and micro separate solutions but dosed every day at the same time.
> calcium and magnesium 18ppm:6ppm
> how much nickel do you think i should add?
> once again thank you for all the help, your personal experience is extremely helpful.


I use to use 0.0005 to 0.001 ppm Ni with that micro. am not too worried about PO4 and Fe reaction while using DTPA, so you can dose them on the same day. its best to dose the tank daily but if you choose to dose like EI style 3x a week, that is fine too, its your choice. weekly water changes are not needed with this approach, but its up to you. 

dose something like 0.05 Fe with Micro on day 1 and day 3
dose something like 0.42 N daily with Macro


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> I use to use 0.0005 to 0.001 ppm Ni with that micro. am not too worried about PO4 and Fe reaction while using DTPA, so you can dose them on the same day. its best to dose the tank daily but if you choose to dose like EI style 3x a week, that is fine too, its your choice. weekly water changes are not needed with this approach, but its up to you.
> 
> dose something like 0.05 Fe with Micro on day 1 and day 3
> dose something like 0.42 N daily with Macro


I think i will dose everyday, otherwhise I forget haha. if not doing weekly water changes accumulation will be much higher no? how often and how much do you change water, and do you adjust dosing according to how much you change water? 
and for Calcium and magnesium, 18ppm and 6ppm will work well with marchner macro and your micro numbers?


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> I think i will dose everyday, otherwhise I forget haha. if not doing weekly water changes accumulation will be much higher no? how often and how much do you change water, and do you adjust dosing according to how much you change water?
> and for Calcium and magnesium, 18ppm and 6ppm will work well with marchner macro and your micro numbers?


I use to change water as needed, maybe once a month. the accumulation is very little due to the chemicals being used and also they are much leaner. the dosing for Micro and Macro stays the same weather i do 50% water change or more. there is very little accumulation happening with this approach.

am not too worried about the Ca and Mg levels at this point. down the road, we can work on them if needed. at this point add your Ca and Mg to the water and forget about the Ca and Mg, focus on NPK and Fe/Micro mainly.

#153 take a look at this post if you truly want to Experiment something similar to Marchner.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> use to change water as needed, maybe once a month. the accumulation is very little due to the chemicals being used and also they are much leaner. the dosing for Micro and Macro stays the same weather i do 50% water change or more. there is very little accumulation happening with this approach.
> 
> am not too worried about the Ca and Mg levels at this point. down the road, we can work on them if needed. at this point add your Ca and Mg to the water and forget about the Ca and Mg, focus on NPK and Fe/Micro mainly.
> 
> #153 take a look at this post if you truly want to Experiment something similar to Marchner.



Ok, perfect, i will use these numbers and water change 50% per week at first but slowly reduce to see the affect it has on the system.

i will go with these numbers:
N 3ppm from UREA only.
K 2ppm from k2s04
P 0.36ppm from kh2po4
Fe 0.1 Fedtpa
B 0.014 h3bo3
Mn 0.067 mn edta
Zn 0.014 zn edta
Cu 0.014 cu edta
Mo 0.003 (NH4)6Mo7O24
Ni 0.001 Niso46h20
do the micro salts seem alright? worried about the Mo because i couldn't find a reasonable amount of sodium molybdate. 
will order the salts some time next week and start the dosing maybe a week or two from then. cheers!


----------



## Happi

@plantnoobdude 
so you couldn't find the sodium molybdate? everything else looks good.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> so you couldn't find the sodium molybdate? everything else looks good.


well, i could. but i could only buy ~500g and that was like 20 pounds.... more than the rest of the salts which im not willing to pay. (NH4)6Mo7O24 should work though right?


----------



## sparkyweasel

Happi said:


> cow manure under your substrate,


Many years ago, people used to use dried rabbit droppings as root tabs.


----------



## Happi

sparkyweasel said:


> Many years ago, people used to use dried rabbit droppings as root tabs.


that will do too


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> well, i could. but i could only buy ~500g and that was like 20 pounds.... more than the rest of the salts which im not willing to pay. (NH4)6Mo7O24 should work though right?


you can use that as well, just take off the "Add 0.9 gram Na2MoO4*2H2O" from the recipe and replace it with "Add 0.615 gram (NH4)6Mo7O24"

I have updated the post #133 and added the NiSO4*6H2O to the list


----------



## erwin123

Vin's AGA presentation is great, I think it was Happi that provided the link to me (others may have also posted the lnik). But I had started off by reading Vin's original Rotala Kill Tank thread and yes, I have gone through every page  pity some of the photo links are no longer working.  Rotala Kill Tank

Regarding the issue of stunting... i have stunted and unstunted stems in my tank at the same time, as well as wrinkled and unwrinkled Ammannia Golden. I can also occasionally stunt Wallichii in my high tech tank through too much fiddling with the parameters while Wallichii grows perfectly normal in my low tech with boring stable parameters 😅
My working thesis is that it is possible for plants to adapt (within a certain range) but sometimes its just luck (or complex interactions).

For example, Happi mentioned that Ammannias will stunt with the Tropica clone formula - but I believe that Tropica dosing is 'low enough' such that even if several stems stunt, there will be some stems that mysteriously do not. (The instagram link showed the user saying that he uses Tropica levels of dosing)

Focus on those stems that do not stunt, propagate them, and you should end up with a whole tank full of stems that can 'accept' Tropica levels of dosing?


----------



## JoshP12

erwin123 said:


> Vin's AGA presentation is great, I think it was Happi that provided the link to me (others may have also posted the lnik). But I had started off by reading Vin's original Rotala Kill Tank thread and yes, I have gone through every page  pity some of the photo links are no longer working. Rotala Kill Tank
> 
> Regarding the issue of stunting... i have stunted and unstunted stems in my tank at the same time, as well as wrinkled and unwrinkled Ammannia Golden. I can also occasionally stunt Wallichii in my high tech tank through too much fiddling with the parameters while Wallichii grows perfectly normal in my low tech with boring stable parameters 😅
> My working thesis is that it is possible for plants to adapt (within a certain range) but sometimes its just luck (or complex interactions).
> 
> For example, Happi mentioned that Ammannias will stunt with the Tropica clone formula - but I believe that Tropica dosing is 'low enough' such that even if several stems stunt, there will be some stems that mysteriously do not. (The instagram link showed the user saying that he uses Tropica levels of dosing)


Think you illustrate the concept of localized nutrition: substrate, water (contingent on flow), light.


erwin123 said:


> Focus on those stems that do not stunt, propagate them, and you should end up with a whole tank full of stems that can 'accept' Tropica levels of dosing?


Surely that’s what Tropica does. This is what a lot of people do actually - heard this a few times: “I grow plants I can grow and scape with them”. Others are obsessed with growing every single one 😂.


----------



## MichaelJ

medlight said:


> View attachment 179646
> This is an example of a tank without co2, 2.5 years old


Pretty amazing IMHO. High light, no CO2... +2 years... would love to know in great details what's going on here... water parameters, dosing etc.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123

MichaelJ said:


> Pretty amazing IMHO. High light, no CO2... +2 years... would love to know in great details what's going on here... water parameters, dosing etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



If it has been running for +2 years with such success, one would expect there to be other 'followers' of the method who are able to reproduce his results with some consistency.  I do follow the instagram etc feeds of various aquascapers who follow established methods like Tom Barr (EI) or Dennis Wong (APT Complete+substrate) with success but haven't come across this non-CO2 technique yet.

 Otherwise, as Vin Kutty put it in his AGA 2019 presentation, its just that guy in Cedar Rapids....😅


----------



## Hufsa

MichaelJ said:


> would love to know in great details what's going on here...


Maybe not great detail but I found a comment on one of the facebook groups that outlines his setup.
You may have to be a member of the group High-Tech Planted Tanks
I'll take the liberty of posting the text of the comment here:



> Sudipta Shaw - Author
> I have listed some of the key things about this setup below which all play an integrated role to keep the plants healthy for longer period of time.
> I setup this tank on June 16, 2019.
> I use remineralized ro-di water, the pH is about 5.75; GH - 5-6 and KH - 0-1. Most plants in the hobby prefer softwater.
> I regularly maintain the tank by gently removing the debris from the substrate (Amazonia light) and perform about 40% weekly water change.
> I have a decent light (chihiros wrgb2 60cm) which helps as well. I leave the lights on for 7 hours per day (100-55-70% of red-green-blue) including 30 minutes of ramp up and down times during the start and end of photo period.
> 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 which circulates the water pretty efficiently throughout the tank and also provides decent surface agitation. I try to clean the filter every month.
> Last but not the least, I don't have a heater in this tank which helps to maintain a relatively lower temperature for most of the year (72-76 F). Higher temperature not only decreases the solubility of gases such as O2 and CO2 but it also increases the metabolism rate of plants. Since there is no pressurized CO2 injection, the availability of already low dissolved CO2 decreases significantly. This along with higher metabolism rate of plants make it very difficult to grow them nicely. I didn't conduct a scientific experiment to prove my last point but I have observed my plants struggling in all of my non-CO2 supplemented tanks (I have 5 various sizes of non-CO2 supplemented tanks) during summer when temperature increases to 80 and sometime even surpasses 80F.
> Let me know if you want to know anything else.



Seems like hes doing pretty by-the-book lean non-CO2 from this comment. It does sound like he knows what hes doing though.
Disclaimer: I do not know this person, only saw the tanks on facebook at a passing glance.


----------



## JoshP12

Hufsa said:


> Maybe not great detail but I found a comment on one of the facebook groups that outlines his setup.
> You may have to be a member of the group High-Tech Planted Tanks
> I'll take the liberty of posting the text of the comment here:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like hes doing pretty by-the-book lean non-CO2 from this comment. It does sound like he knows what hes doing though.
> Disclaimer: I do not know this person, only saw the tanks on facebook at a passing glance.





JoshP12 said:


> High light, lean column, rich substrate (edit: potential varying N source, glut etc — low KH water all this stuff inadvertently influences how the co2 demand on the system is being met). Is also old … 2.5 years of microbiology, adaptations, stability etc.
> 
> You can also see HOB positioning favors flow pattern … conscious decisions.







It's all there. There's no skimping on potassium. The efficacy of CO2 acquisition. Moderating metabolic rates.


----------



## Happi

I was talking to my friend Marian and this is what his opinion is on plant stunting. He also said this is based on his own observations and doesn't have to be 100% correct.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> I was talking to my friend Marian and this is what his opinion is on plant stunting. View attachment 179737View attachment 179738


Marian is the guy behind masterline products?


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> Marian is the guy behind masterline products?


Yes, he is the guy behind masterline


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> Yes, he is the guy behind masterline


very good stuff, if anyone hasn't seen marian's tanks, please do yourself a favour and check out his youtube channel


			https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV-S3IIGINIi2wobi-5ZL5w


----------



## Happi

One of my other friend from Vietnam who also have his own line of fertilizer. Pham Thanh Van from Vietnam, in case you want to see what he does. 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV5f1UzoCiW56qNUMQKOEug


----------



## erwin123

When it comes to all-in-one, my preference is to get whichever is the 'cheapest' (based on the amount of nutrients per ml). In my country APT EI has an ok price so thats my choice. For UK, TNC Complete looks relatively cheap while I understand USA there is Nilocg.

If the All-in-one fert doesn't disclose how much fert they contain, a comparison is impossible, in which case I wouldn't even want to consider it.


----------



## Happi

erwin123 said:


> When it comes to all-in-one, my preference is to get whichever is the 'cheapest' (based on the amount of nutrients per ml). In my country APT EI has an ok price so thats my choice. For UK, TNC Complete looks relatively cheap while I understand USA there is Nilocg.
> 
> If the All-in-one fert doesn't disclose how much fert they contain, a comparison is impossible, in which case I wouldn't even want to consider it.


Which information you looking for? Usually they do list their numbers in ppm on back of the Bottle. 

Making all in one of your own is very simple, I don't see the reason to purchase any of those listed fertilizer when all in one can be easily made at home.


----------



## Wolf6

Happi said:


> Making all in one of your own is very simple, I don't see the reason to purchase any of those listed fertilizer when all in one can be easily made at home.


Laziness. I hated having to take a few minutes to make new ferts instead of 2 mouseclicks and wait a day. Its insane I know. That is the sort of society we are becoming. I'm paying a lot extra to not have that minor hassle, yet I pay it with a smile knowing I wont have to make new ferts at a moment that I dont really have time for it (which to be fair is always since I hate doing it).


----------



## erwin123

Wolf6 said:


> Laziness. I hated having to take a few minutes to make new ferts instead of 2 mouseclicks and wait a day. Its insane I know. That is the sort of society we are becoming. I'm paying a lot extra to not have that minor hassle, yet I pay it with a smile knowing I wont have to make new ferts at a moment that I dont really have time for it (which to be fair is always since I hate doing it).


I have the same sentiments... One bottle a year isn't going to break the bank for me (500ml bottle, 1.2ml a day - probably going down to 1ml a day).

Furthermore, the stock market has been very kind to me in 2021 so I'm ok with spending a bit more for convenience. (globally, stock markets rose by 18.5% while USA and Europe rose by more than 20%. FTSE100 lagged a bit with only a 17.5% gain)


----------



## JoshP12

To be honest, if I’m buying ferts, I’m paying for the genius of composition within the system that has been created. I don't base my cars decision on raw materials used - pay for that R n D!


----------



## medlight

plantnoobdude said:


> N 3ppm from UREA only.


I think basing the N with only urea could lead to problems
I quote this link where @Happy quotes this problem
"Adding an excessive amount of urea can result in BBA and Cyano at the top of the plant appearing to have a dark color and the same odor as Cyano."


----------



## MichaelJ

Wolf6 said:


> Laziness. I hated having to take a few minutes to make new ferts instead of 2 mouseclicks and wait a day. Its insane I know. That is the sort of society we are becoming. I'm paying a lot extra to not have that minor hassle, yet I pay it with a smile knowing I wont have to make new ferts at a moment that I dont really have time for it (which to be fair is always since I hate doing it).


I hear you... When I started out doing my own macros an remineralization I thought it would be daunting. However, measuring out the 4-5 salts I'm using and dumping them into the tanks after my weekly WC has become 2nd nature - takes me a fraction of the overall time I spend on the weekly maintenance. I would feel differently about traces though - I cant imagine myself mixing my own traces from the 7-8 odd raw materials that typically goes into traces... So for traces I am just mixing a 500 ml water solution using Nilog Plantex CMS+B. It will typically last 5-6 weeks.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

medlight said:


> I think basing the N with only urea could lead to problems
> I quote this link where @Happy quotes this problem
> "Adding an excessive amount of urea can result in BBA and Cyano at the top of the plant appearing to have a dark color and the same odor as Cyano."


hi, @Happi. thoughts? also 3ppm N per week is a good start right?


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> hi, @Happi. thoughts? also 3ppm N per week is a good start right?


Based on my observations the 3 ppm N urea will only cause that issue and the cyano on the tip is if you were dosing it excessively along with high po4. 3 ppm N split into small doses such as 0.2-0.5 N daily is no issue at all. I don't see the point dosing 3 ppm N from urea in a single dose.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> Based on my observations the 3 ppm N urea will only cause that issue and the cyano on the tip is if you were dosing it excessively along with high po4. 3 ppm N split into small doses such as 0.2-0.5 N daily is no issue at all. I don't see the point dosing 3 ppm N from urea in a single dose.


perfect, i struggle with cyano on tips of cuphea and other stems so i don't want to make it worse.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Hi, @Happi, just a few (hopefully) final questions before i jump right into my new dosing scheme
I have some ADA amazonia type 1. it will have been soaking for about 1 month by the time I use it. should I dose starting straight away? or wait a while untill deficiencies pop up and start fertilising again.

My ultimate goal is to grow pantanal ,ammania gold, cuphea, wallichii well at the same time along with various eriocaulaceae+ buces.
do these numbers work well with such species?
N 3ppm from UREA only.
K 2ppm from k2s04
P 0.36ppm from kh2po4
Fe 0.1 Fedtpa
B 0.014 h3bo3
Mn 0.067 mn edta
Zn 0.014 zn edta
Cu 0.014 cu edta
Mo 0.003 (NH4)6Mo7O24
NI 0.0001
cheers,


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> Hi, @Happi, just a few (hopefully) final questions before i jump right into my new dosing scheme
> I have some ADA amazonia type 1. it will have been soaking for about 1 month by the time I use it. should I dose starting straight away? or wait a while untill deficiencies pop up and start fertilising again.
> 
> My ultimate goal is to grow pantanal ,ammania gold, cuphea, wallichii well at the same time along with various eriocaulaceae+ buces.
> do these numbers work well with such species?
> N 3ppm from UREA only.
> K 2ppm from k2s04
> P 0.36ppm from kh2po4
> Fe 0.1 Fedtpa
> B 0.014 h3bo3
> Mn 0.067 mn edta
> Zn 0.014 zn edta
> Cu 0.014 cu edta
> Mo 0.003 (NH4)6Mo7O24
> NI 0.0001
> cheers,



I would recommend starting with Micro and K only if the soil is almost new, I don't see the point of adding Urea and P at early stage when there is plenty of N will be present in the water.  you can slowly start adding Urea and P once the tank is fully established 

Fe 0.1 Fedtpa
B 0.014 h3bo3
Mn 0.067 mn edta
Zn 0.014 zn edta
Cu 0.014 cu edta
Mo 0.003 (NH4)6Mo7O24


----------



## erwin123

plantnoobdude said:


> My ultimate goal is to grow pantanal ,ammania gold, cuphea, wallichii well at the same time along with various eriocaulaceae+ buces.
> do these numbers work well with such species?


Coincidentally thats my goal too... but (EI-loving) Pantanal and (doesn't like EI) Ammannia Gold in the same tank is going to be a challenge - if you scroll back earlier and see Happi's very lean recipe for Ammannia, you wonder how Pantanal is going to be able to display its full form with that kind of dose

I am still experimenting and hoping that a middle ground is possible.


----------



## Happi

erwin123 said:


> Coincidentally thats my goal too... but (EI-loving) Pantanal and (doesn't like EI) Ammannia Gold in the same tank is going to be a challenge - if you scroll back earlier and see Happi's very lean recipe for Ammannia, you wonder how Pantanal is going to be able to display its full form with that kind of dose
> 
> I am still experimenting and hoping that a middle ground is possible.


I had no problem growing Pantanal, Ammannia, Wallachi under lean approach. Pantanal is actually very easy to grow compare to the other two.


----------



## erwin123

Happi said:


> I had no problem growing Pantanal, Ammannia, Wallachi under lean approach. Pantanal is actually very easy to grow compare to the other two.


thats great to hear... does Pantanal under lean dosing take on a smaller form compared to Pantanal under EI (eg: Tom Barr's tanks) where their leaves seem to grow pretty big?


----------



## Happi

erwin123 said:


> thats great to hear... does Pantanal under lean dosing take on a smaller form compared to Pantanal under EI (eg: Tom Barr's tanks) where their leaves seem to grow pretty big?


bigger leaves have nothing to do with Higher dosing or lean dosing, it has more to do with proper dosing. plant dosed with Urea will always obtain much bigger leaves if you are going after bigger leaves, some plant under Urea form Oval shaped leaves which some people might not like. I will try to find some pictures for you in my free time.


----------



## JoshP12

Hi all,

Chasing magic water column targets to appease all plants when using non-inert substrate is futile.

An “n’th” of a ppm isn’t going to matter since your substrate will top it up - epiphytes without root exempted.

There is no such thing as proper water column dosing - the plant doesn’t actually care. If you are aiming for plant mastery (a concept I have only heard @Geoffrey Rea talk about), then you need to adopt this thinking.

Plants grow bigger when there is more of everything. Something drives growth and if the rest is there, it will top itself up to the limiting nutrient - this is @dw1305 with leidbig and the assembly line —- it is not obvious and you can’t recite the words to understand this law. You need to sit and painstakingly think about it over and over — if you don’t, people will seem like special cases and they are not.

Urea is the special nitrogen. It gives co2 and nitrogen localized in the plant. I reckon if you dosed glut instead of urea with active substrate, plants grow bigger too … co2 from glut - localized - drives growth, roots top up the stuff from substrate … game over.

Turn to emersed growth - why are they so big? You can leave the column lean lean lean yet they are massive. Why?

***if you increase your protein intake, you get bigger and your metabolism increases … (yes thermic effect of digestion but ignore this), why? more N and P in amino acids! It’s the same. We have the gases unlimited. But the acquisition of those gases will affect respiration … we can turn to treatments to increase hemoglobin in blood so we get more oxygen in each breath.

Here’s a riddle - what is the limiting factor in leidbigs laws … it exists and it extends into system thinking (you need to get out of the nutrient tunnel vision, think big picture, think acquisition).


You need magic targets with inert substrate or it won’t work. That comes with experiment and choosing compatible plants.


----------



## erwin123

JoshP12 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Chasing magic water column targets to appease all plants when using non-inert substrate is futile.



I would keep an open mind. Happi has given a recommendation/recipe, plantnoobdude is going to follow it, I'm keen to see the 'real-life' results whatever the "theory" is.


----------



## JoshP12

erwin123 said:


> I would keep an open mind. Happi has given a recommendation/recipe, plantnoobdude is going to follow it, I'm keen to see the 'real-life' results whatever the "theory" is.


My mind is always open .

I’m a huge advocate for trying things to obtain results and learning: you won’t understand anything unless you actually see it.

I’ve run all of this personally - the issue is we will confirm our bias unless we monitor longitudinally … you need the substrate to wear out.

There are targets that you should aim for to extend the life of your substrate and assist plant growth - they are the known: low KH, GH5, low N, low P, .1 Fe over the week as proxy for micro (I’ve already said how to circumvent the csm issue), K at golden ratio to Mg and Ca with daily addition of K based on uptake/observation. K and Micro daily.

Dosing is dynamic. It changes with the life of the tank. You don’t dose the same on day 1 that you dose on day 100.

The reason I was so blunt is because if we don’t follow it fully - like hundreds of threads - we fall into dogma.

Perhaps I’m dogmatic!

Side note: I’m keen for results too — I have predictions on what will happen.


----------



## plantnoobdude

JoshP12 said:


> Side note: I’m keen for results too — I have predictions on what will happen.


care to share? interested to hear your predictions


----------



## Happi

@plantnoobdude

let me predict few things which I already covered in one of my post. lets assume you made the recipe and added all the chemicals and recipe didn't work you. does that mean you made an error somewhere? very well could have been. are you going to give up immediately and go back to whatever works best for you or do you have enough patience to keep on trying? because I can already predict that you will face some challenges and it will come down to you weather you accept those challenges or give up. once you overcome those challenges, you will gain much more knowledge and become more successful. 

now that you have a access to Make or Modify the recipes, you can even dose them the way you want, for example: if you ever felt like that you really want to add more K to your recipe, you can easily modify that, same goes for N or P. we can also say the same for Micro/Fe as well, now its in your control and you can dose whichever nutrients you want to dose at given ppm, something you cannot do with premixed fertilizer.

the goal here is not to give you the exact recipe that might have worked for me, the goal here is to get you started somewhere with these recipe which can later be Modified as needed. and this apply to everyone who is following these recipes. 

lets assume you are worried about some of the nutrients becoming too low, especially K. you can always go for something like this which is still lean far as N goes but it will cover more K and Micro/Fe similar to how Marian runs his tanks. along with adding GH booster between 4-5 DGH 

*Weekly doses:*

KNO3:
NO3    7
N    1.58
K    4.41

KH2PO4:
PO4    0.96000
P    0.31308
K    0.39520

Traces from any of the clones:
0.2-0.4 Fe 

as you can see that this will add more K/Fe/Trace while keeping the N and P at lower levels, this is different approach and this too will work much better compared to if you were dosing everything High.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> the goal here is not to give you the exact recipe that might have worked for me, the goal here is to get you started somewhere with these recipe which can later be Modified as needed. and this apply to everyone who is following these recipes.


obviously, these recipe are not magic numbers that are going to work instantly, and im willing to accept that. but i would like to stick to having K lower than N and keeping micros low. after all that is what i had best success with in the past.


----------



## JoshP12

plantnoobdude said:


> care to share? interested to hear your predictions


Will have to see if all details for the tank are available for thread. 

If I get some time to mine it, will post here any further questions. Any concrete predictions would need all details - as if I looked at your tank - current ones are loose.


----------



## jaypeecee

medlight said:


> "Adding an excessive amount of urea can result in BBA and Cyano at the top of the plant appearing to have a dark color and the same odor as Cyano."


Hi @medlight 

When I experimented with Urea some time back, it also had the effect of promoting the growth of Cyanobacteria. I can't remember off-hand the dosage I used but I will have recorded it.

JPC


----------



## John q

Happi said:


> the goal here is not to give you the exact recipe that might have worked for me, the goal here is to get you started somewhere



Just like to chip in on this. 

I was rather sceptical about lean dosing at the beginning of this thread but thought - "Don't criticise it if you haven't tried it." With that in mind I've tried to alter my dosing regime on two occasions recently, the last attempt was a fairly radical change working off one of Happi's recipes, on both occasions I pulled the plug after two weeks ~ they didn't work. 

I don't hold anything against happi, infact he stated from the outset it might not work and might need tweaking, if anything I'm actually quite grateful to him. Throughout these "experiments" I've witnessed with my own eyes changes to the plants that I'd otherwise never have seen, or if I did see them probably wouldn't have known what the issue was. 

Seeing a real life magnesium deficiency and then reverting it is a sight to behold. Lol.

So despite my last two attempts failing I'm going to continue in this vain, continue tweaking the recipe and see what else can be learnt. 

Cheers.


----------



## plantnoobdude

John q said:


> Seeing a real life magnesium deficiency and then reverting it is a sight to behold. Lol.


definitely, same goes for any deficiency, seeing a deficiency pop up, and resolving it with different dosing is very nice, and makes me feel like i've accomplished something


John q said:


> So despite my last two attempts failing I'm going to continue in this vain, continue tweaking the recipe and see what else can be learnt.


I and many others appreciate this


John q said:


> I was rather sceptical about lean dosing at the beginning of this thread but thought - "Don't criticise it if you haven't tried it." With that in mind I've tried to alter my dosing regime on two occasions recently, the last attempt was a fairly radical change working off one of Happi's recipes, on both occasions I pulled the plug after two weeks ~ they didn't work.


nice to see people keep an open mind. 

during the first two attempts, were you using tap water? 
what numbers were you using? how much water change per week? and was substrate inert or not. sorry for all the questions, cheers!


----------



## Happi

@John q 

am curious to know which recipe did you try? also did you use the exact same chemicals? especially Micro/Fe, did you make it with the listed chemicals or did you use premixed csm+b or TNC? far as I remember you were still using one of these.


----------



## jaypeecee

JoshP12 said:


> All I’m saying is K is very important. And unlike N and P, you can’t get it from the system.


Hi @JoshP12

Apologies for not having read the whole thread - so, I'm asking my question based purely on the above snippet. In this context, what is meant by "the system"?

I just checked Diana Walstad's Table V-1* 'My Plant's Elemental Requirements' and K is in number 3 position. C is number 1 and N is number 2. There are 13 elements in total in this list.

* _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_, Third Edition

JPC


----------



## Happi

@jaypeecee

K is usually what is deficient far as a Macro goes, while N and P is naturally occurring process in our aquarium, which come from food, waste etc. K is extremely important, there is no doubt about that, but it doesn't need to be 30, 40 or 50 ppm, if you have 5-10 ppm in the water, this is already in the upper range or you can say sufficient enough even under heavily planted, high tech aquarium.

no matter how we want to spin this around, you will always find that plant use more N than K and this can be confirmed with lab analysis. for example:

lets say you add 30 ppm NO3 and 30 ppm K, this ends up being 6.78 ppm N and 30 ppm K. if plant used all of that 6.78 ppm N, then it mean plant are using less than 6.78 ppm K with certainty because K is always found to be less than N in the plants.  your water still have remaining 23.22 ppm K just floating around waiting to be used by plants and soaked by substrate.


----------



## John q

plantnoobdude said:


> during the first two attempts, were you using tap water?
> what numbers were you using? how much water change per week? and was substrate inert or not. sorry for all the questions, cheers!



No worries mate, I'm using soft tap water, inert substrate. Water parameters below.


John q said:


> Average water report amounts:
> 
> Calcium 6.61 mg/l
> Magnesium 1.18 mg/l
> Alkalinity 13.8 mg/l
> Hardness Clarke 1.47



First attempt I reduced to 37.5% ei, but with 2ppm po4. Resulted in Gsa. Second attempt recipe below.


Happi said:


> am curious to know which recipe did you try? also did you use the exact same chemicals? especially Micro/Fe, did you make it with the listed chemicals or did you use premixed csm+b or TNC? far as I remember you were still using one of these.





Happi said:


> *240 liter aquarium
> 
> Water parameter, keep this the same and no need to add more Ca or Mg
> Ca 6.6 ppm
> Mg 1.18 ppm
> 
> 500 ml, 20 ml per 240 L
> 
> Stock Solution #1 (maintain 0.1-0.2 Fe total weekly)
> 
> 24.33 grams MgSO4.7H2O*
> Mg 0.400000
> S 0.527710
> 
> *7.143 grams TNC Trace Elements*
> Fe 0.1
> B 0.0125
> Mn 0.0216 *(try to raise this to 0.07 or so)*
> Mo 0.0017 *(try to raise this to 0.004 or so)*
> Zn 0.0138
> Cu 0.0027 *(try to raise this to 0.006 or so)
> 
> 3.75 grams DTPA Fe 8%*
> Fe 0.05
> 
> 
> *Stock Solution #2 (dose 2-3X week to maintain 2-3 ppm N)
> 
> 21.62 grams KNO3 *
> NO3 2.21
> N 0.5
> K 1.4
> 
> *6.43 grams Urea CO(NH2)2*
> N 0.5
> 
> *3.525 grams KH2PO4 *
> PO4 0.41
> P 0.133
> K 0.168



No I didn't quite stick to recipe Happi. I reduced urea amount to 2.5g and used 31g of kn03. I used csm+b for the trace mix. Dosed 8ml macro daily and 3ml micro daily.

Issues: growth on hygrophila polysperma and difformis virtually stopped, small amount of new growth that was present on the difformis seemed a magnet for the fish to eat. This stuff usually grows like a weed and needs cutting every couple of weeks. These plants were cut just over two weeks ago, the day before new dosing started.

There's about 3 inches of growth on this, mostly in the last 3 days.





Hygrophila difformis near substrate, maybe 2 inches of growth.




Strange eaten growth near surface and close up out of tank.












Could well be the fish suddenly decided to eat these leaves?

Microsorum tips yellowing almost white at the tips, goes about 50mm down the leaf.









Hydrocotyle.




And the canary in the coal mine.








Picture of same canary after 3/4 days of 50% ei and extra 1ppm of magnesium.








Sorry for the big picture dump. This issue is across two tanks both  have similar issues.


----------



## JoshP12

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @JoshP12
> 
> Apologies for not having read the whole thread - so, I'm asking my question based purely on the above snippet. In this context, what is meant by "the system"?
> 
> I just checked Diana Walstad's Table V-1* 'My Plant's Elemental Requirements' and K is in number 3 position. C is number 1 and N is number 2. There are 13 elements in total in this list.
> 
> * _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_, Third Edition
> 
> JPC



Hi John!

Love that book. It was the first I bought and I read it - pre kids - sitting beside my 5 gallon fish tank at the time.

We don’t run our water back through rocks - so any K has to be put in by us from the onset. It’s not coming from the plastic, the glass, the silicon - the soil has a limited reserve. So if you use a tank without water changes for example, you can’t get more K than what you started with. And that goes for all positive stuff unless you top up with remineralized water (often K is very low if not 0 In taps).

There is an assumption that you feed fish and have them. Fish will make N and P in far greater quantities than the minuscule K you may get from fish food.

Arguably all nutrients aren’t added by the system if you don’t have any input (I.e. fish food).

Good thing to clarify.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @JoshP12 

Many thanks for your reply, my friend.

I aim to maintain K around the 15 ppm mark. How does that sound to you? I keep a watch on K using the JBL K Test Kit, which is a turbidity test. How about you?

JPC


----------



## Happi

@John q

thanks for sharing. from what am seeing, it appear as Micro/Fe deficiency in some of those plants. am curious to see what would happen if you were to increase the dose of csm+b to something like 0.4-0.5 ppm Fe weekly, the dose might be needed to make up for some of the elements that are low in other areas.

keep the Macro dose *Stock Solution #2 *and everything else the same, only increasing the csm+b dose and report back. give that one a few weeks and report back. at this point I am quite sure your dose of csm+b is not allowing the full potential. once you complete this trial, I am also looking forward to see the next trial which where we will increase the PO4 just a little to meet 5:1 N: P ratio

and stop eating those plants, not all aquatic plant are edible


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


John q said:


> Sorry for the big picture dump


The Frogbit_ (Limnobium laevigatum)_ photos are really useful. Unhealthy (top two) to healthy (bottom three).


Happi said:


> , it appear as Micro/Fe deficiency in some of those plants.


The small, <"pale new leaves"> on the Frogbit are  oftena good indication of <"iron (Fe) deficiency">. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> The Frogbit_ (Limnobium laevigatum)_ photos are really useful. Unhealthy (top two) to healthy (bottom three).
> 
> The small, <"pale new leaves"> on the Frogbit are  oftena good indication of <"iron (Fe) deficiency">.
> 
> cheers Darrel


if John was really adding the Fe at recommended levels, am leaning more toward Mn and Mg


----------



## John q

Happi said:


> keep the Macro dose *Stock Solution #2 *and everything else the same, only increasing the csm+b dose and report back. give that one a few weeks and report back. at this point I am quite sure your dose of csm+b is not allowing the full potential. once you complete this trial, I am also looking forward to see the next trial which where we will increase the PO4 just a little to meet 5:1 N: P ratio


I'll give it a go Happi, a lot of the other plants seem ok at the minute other than minimal growth so quite happy to proceed with the recommendations for now.


Happi said:


> and stop eating those plants, not all aquatic plant are edible


I don't think the angels got that memo, lol.


dw1305 said:


> The small, <"pale new leaves"> on the Frogbit are oftena good indication of <"iron (Fe) deficiency">



Thanks Darrel, I assumed in was magnesium and iron but quite happy to take iron as the culprit. 
Like I said above if nothing else I'm learning on this journey.


----------



## Happi

@John q​when you said 50% EI with 1 ppm Mg, can you please provide more details? did you change the Micro or Macro to 50% or both?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


John q said:


> I assumed in was magnesium and iron but quite happy to take iron as the culprit.





Happi said:


> am leaning more toward Mn and Mg


Could be iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg) or manganese (Mn), they are the three options that <"Chempak Sequestered Iron"> provide and that is because deficiencies of all <"cause leaf chlorosis">.

The main difference is that magnesium is mobile within the plant, so deficiencies show in older leaves first, and iron and manganese aren't mobile and deficiencies show in new leaves first.

This also effects what happens when they stop being deficient. With magnesium you get a <"fairly instant greening response">, because the plant can export it to deficient tissues, with iron and manganese you don't, because <"the plant needs to grow new leaves">, that aren't deficient, because <"it can't repair older leaves">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## John q

@Happi  in the last 4 days I've added 75mls of my old macro mixes and 65mls of old micro mix, also added 2g of mgso4 direct to the tank on Thursday.

*Total added since Thursday morning.*
9ppm no3
1.89ppm mg + 0.82ppm dry dosing.
3.66ppm po4
7.2ppm k

Fe from csm+b 0.267ppm
Fe from dtpa 8% 0.08ppm

Feast or famine for these guys at the minute.

I've maintenance to do in the morning on both tanks followed by a 50% water change so should go in some way towards resetting the water parameters before starting new regime.

So following your original recipe all I need to do is add an extra 21g csm+b trace mix to the micro mix, at 21mls a week that will give me an extra 0.3ppm fe.


----------



## JoshP12

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @JoshP12
> 
> Many thanks for your reply, my friend.
> 
> I aim to maintain K around the 15 ppm mark. How does that sound to you? I keep a watch on K using the JBL K Test Kit, which is a turbidity test. How about you?
> 
> JPC


Personally, I keep K at golden ratio Ca (1.6 ish) and Mg (.6 ish) via Ca:K and Mg:K. But I mean it’s rather silly and nerdy haha. But you will notice 28/17/10 Ca/K/Mg follows it pretty closely and is “magical” according to some. This is if remineralizing and I care

My current water is 9.4 Ca and 4Mg so K could be 5.2ish but it really is unnecessary to go that precise. I ran it at 9.4/16/4 and it worked fine too. Top up 10% daily of total potassium (minimum ish id say - use tds as barometer).

When running a tank, I want 2 things driving growth: Potassium and CO2. Ca and Mg help stabilize it - if K is way way out of whack (high) and Ca and Mg are also low low and real Ill proportioned - issues. But the good rich substrate will fix those but with a time clock.

16 K is good id say for most water and substrate.

I mean ADA, EI, and APT all run K around 20 minimum … we are playing with need vs acquisition. If there is 20 in there but relative to all the other stuff the plant can only get maximum 5, then that’s fine.


----------



## jaypeecee

Hi @JoshP12 

In one of my tanks with only inert substrate and a large Java Fern, my most recent figures for Ca:K:Mg were 32:15:8. Not by design, I have to say. Most other nutrients dosed in liquid form apart from what's in the RO remineralizer (Tropic Marin Re-Mineral Tropic). Plus, around 10 ppm CO2 injection.

JPC


----------



## Happi

John q said:


> @Happi  in the last 4 days I've added 75mls of my old macro mixes and 65mls of old micro mix, also added 2g of mgso4 direct to the tank on Thursday.
> 
> *Total added since Thursday morning.*
> 9ppm no3
> 1.89ppm mg + 0.82ppm dry dosing.
> 3.66ppm po4
> 7.2ppm k
> 
> Fe from csm+b 0.267ppm
> Fe from dtpa 8% 0.08ppm
> 
> Feast or famine for these guys at the minute.
> 
> I've maintenance to do in the morning on both tanks followed by a 50% water change so should go in some way towards resetting the water parameters before starting new regime.
> 
> So following your original recipe all I need to do is add an extra 21g csm+b trace mix to the micro mix, at 21mls a week that will give me an extra 0.3ppm fe.



you were doing much better here with the weekly dose:

Fe0.26700Mn0.07646Cu0.00368Mg0.05724Zn0.01513Mo0.00204B0.03271dGH0.01311

as you can see as you increase the dose for csm+b, the Mn almost meets the need for weekly dose that I recommended, we could still improve the Cu and Mo but at this point using the csm+b at higher doses is your only option. far as using the N, I still suggest using half N from Urea and half from NO3. you might not need to add the additional Fe DTPA at this point.

I would expect the plant to grow much quicker in your next trial after increasing the Micro because higher N from Urea and higher PO4 will require more Micro nutrients to be quickly uptaken. I always observed extremely fast growth on several plant species under such scenario.


----------



## JoshP12

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @JoshP12
> 
> In one of my tanks with only inert substrate and a large Java Fern, my most recent figures for Ca:K:Mg were 32:15:8. Not by design, I have to say. Most other nutrients dosed in liquid form apart from what's in the RO remineralizer (Tropic Marin Re-Mineral Tropic). Plus, around 10 ppm CO2 injection.
> 
> JPC


John, 

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s working. What liquid fert you use? 

Josh


----------



## John q

OK, just to re cap for my own sanity and get these numbers down in text. 

This will be the new weekly dosing.

N03 8.87ppm from KNO3 
N      0.65ppm from urea
P04  0.41ppm 
K       6.06ppm
Mg    0.4ppm 
Fe     0.4ppm from csm+b trace
Fe     0.05ppm from Fe dtpa 8%

@Happi  I've increased the urea in the mix to 3g. Even though I'm dosing daily I still feel a bit twitchy towards the livestock so don't want to increase it any more. 

I'll give the above a bash, hopefully the frogbit will approve 😄


----------



## jaypeecee

JoshP12 said:


> I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s working. What liquid fert you use?


Hi @JoshP12

I use Flourish P, Flourish Fe and Flourish Trace. But, that's only because I'm trying to use them up! Details of the Nitrogen source to follow at a later date. What I'm doing is akin to _The Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour_ but they're not coming to take me away - just yet!

JPC


----------



## Happi

@John q​
Weekly Dose:
N   2.65 (your current dose)
P   0.35 (use this)
K     6
Mg  1
Fe     0.4ppm from csm+b trace

use this instead, your current dose of PO4 seems very low compared to the N. you do not have to worry too much about the livestock while using Urea under your water parameters. you could be adding 0.5 N daily from Urea and consider it a safe dose if you wanted. also it would be wise to keep the 1 ppm Mg because you are dosing much higher N and K. no need to add Fe DTPA to this Mix as it will further affect the Fe and Mn ratio. I still encourage you to try a different name brand for Micro and avoid using csm+b if possible.


----------



## JoshP12

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @JoshP12
> 
> I use Flourish P, Flourish Fe and Flourish Trace. But, that's only because I'm trying to use them up! Details of the Nitrogen source to follow at a later date. What I'm doing is akin to _The Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour_ but they're not coming to take me away - just yet!
> 
> JPC


Thanks for sharing that John.

We complain about seachem being so light on ferts - it’s worse than ADA lol. But pair it with glut and you have a slow growing co2 injected tank without injecting co2. Their N source is urea. It’s so lean without falling short of anything. Use their fluorite and you literally have nothing in the water (but you have everything). Their booster has loads of potassium —- everything lean lean lean except
Booster.

It’s not a coincidence that potassium can be regulated internally by the plant to some extent relative to the other nutrients and them and ADA run it in such excess.


----------



## Happi

@JoshP12 

this is the biggest question and I do not know the philosophy behind ADA or Seachem to use so much K, when Tropica choose to dose very little.  according to many scientist and books, it seems that K, Fe and traces should be our main focus and not to worry way too much about N and P in our aquarium. 

it would be appropriate to dose little extra K for those who hardly change water, as this will prevent the N and P from building up in the aquarium.


----------



## plantnoobdude

been about three days since dosing new micros, macros still the same. previously was dosing apfuk micro mix, @ 1ppm per week. has horrible deficiency in many plants. new micros only at 0.1ppm dtpa per week from One of Happi's recipe.




you can see the leaf tips of tonina improving.
this is how the whole group looks.


----------



## plantnoobdude

And here I am, in sticky situation.  I have a bags worth of ada amazonia soaking in water right now, and it's been about a month. on one hand i want to do whats best for the tank and throw it in the tank. but i realise that wouldn't be too good a comparison for lean dosing.... and not so useful info for the thread, but i also don't want to waste the amazing growth you can get from the first couple months of amazonia...


----------



## Hufsa

plantnoobdude said:


> And here I am, in sticky situation.  I have a bags worth of ada amazonia soaking in water right now, and it's been about a month. on one hand i want to do whats best for the tank and throw it in the tank. but i realise that wouldn't be too good a comparison for lean dosing.... and not so useful info for the thread, but i also don't want to waste the amazing growth you can get from the first couple months of amazonia...


I love the picture in the previous post, super interesting. But could you not resume lean dosing experiment after your have gotten those fresh months of amazonia? I assume you spent good money on it, I would not blame you


----------



## plantnoobdude

Hufsa said:


> I love the picture in the previous post, super interesting. But could you not resume lean dosing experiment after your have gotten those fresh months of amazonia? I assume you spent good money on it, I would not blame you


yeah, I think i will do that. first few weeks will prob be K and micros alone and slowly introduce urea and po4. please forgive me people of ukaps!


----------



## John q

plantnoobdude said:


> on one hand i want to do whats best for the tank and throw it in the tank. but i realise that wouldn't be too good a comparison for lean dosing.... and not so useful info for the thread, but i also don't want to waste the amazing growth you can get from the first couple months of amazonia...


And your question is.... put it in the tank, we can make comparisons at a later date 😁


----------



## Karmicnull

As the king of slow I have to agree.  We'll all still be here when the experiment resumes!


----------



## erwin123

I have been gradually reducing my water column dosing and its now 50% of the manfacturers dosage, a relatively economical 1ml a day which gives me

N 6.44ppm
P 2.1ppm
K 8.6ppm
Fe 0.25ppm  (+0.2ppm EDDHA-Fe into substrate)
Mg 0.7ppm  (+4ppm Epsom salt)

This wouldn't count as lean dosing, more like 'reduced dosing' , but hopefully there is a middle ground where most plants are happy and the *A. Pedicatella* leaves don't wrinkle and the stems turn red.


----------



## Happi

@plantnoobdude
The micro dosing still will be beneficial even if you were to use new soil. The soil mainly release Ammonia or Ammonium into the water, so you could still use that micro recipe. 

I did recommend using the existing soil and eventually start adding urea and watch your plant grow like they would grow in new soil which majorly benefits from NH4.

I would wait two more weeks to start to see how the new dosing is working. 1 week there will be some minor noticeable difference. 

Don't forget to add some Magnesium or the plant will look white despite adding all the micros.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> I would wait two more weeks to start to see how the new dosing is working. 1 week there will be some minor noticeable difference.



so do you suggest add small amount of urea maybe 1ppm per week, and keep the same micros? or keep macros the same.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


plantnoobdude said:


> you can see the leaf tips of tonina improving.


That is iron (Fe) deficiency and possibly a <"recovery from iron deficiency">.  The reason I say possibly is that I would expect the lower portion of the leaf to green, rather than the tip (below). 






plantnoobdude said:


> new micros only at 0.1ppm dtpa per week from One of Happi's recipe.


See what happens, they are trace elements because plants need them in <"trace amounts">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## plantnoobdude

i





dw1305 said:


> That is iron (Fe) deficiency and possibly a <"recovery from iron deficiency">. The reason I say possibly is that I would expect the lower portion of the leaf to green, rather than the tip (below).


 i am not completely sure it is iron deficiency. because i lowered the amount of Iron from 1ppm~0.1ppm per week. is dtpa that much better a chelator than edta? especially in softwater tanks such as mine?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


plantnoobdude said:


> i am not completely sure it is iron deficiency.


It is only really iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) that cause the lack of chlorophyll <"(chlorosis) in new leaves">, all the other options (nitrogen (N), potassium (K) & magnesium (Mg)) are mobile within the plant and deficiencies show in the old leaves, because the plant can shuffle them to the most efficient photosynthetic tissue. 

This is also why iron deficiencies take a while to rectify (the plant has to grow new leaves), but you get a <"fairly instant greening"> when <"nitrogen etc"> have been deficient and become available. 


plantnoobdude said:


> because i lowered the amount of Iron from 1ppm~0.1ppm per week. is dtpa that much better a chelator than edta? especially in softwater tanks such as mine?


FEDTPA is <"a better chelator">, but in soft water either should do. 

If your plants went chlorotic with 1ppm Fe from FeEDTA? Then *none of that iron (from FeEDTA) was plant available*. 

Because _Tonina_ comes from very soft,  acid waters it will actually have <"mechanisms to limit iron uptake">, because iron, although an essential micro-nutrient, <"is toxic in large amounts">. This is one reason why these sorts of plant <"calcifuges"> are very prone to iron deficiencies,  in a way that "calcicoles"  hard water plants _Vallisneria_ spp. etc aren't.


plantnoobdude said:


> been about three days since dosing new micro


It will take a lot longer before you see any change with iron (Fe) because of the non-mobile nature of iron within the plant and because _Tonina_ is a slow growing plant.  I'm using a <"hybrid duckweed index"> approach at the moment where I add iron regularly, even when the <"Amazon Frogbit _Limnobium laevigatum_"> isn't obviously iron deficient.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> i
> i am not completely sure it is iron deficiency. because i lowered the amount of Iron from 1ppm~0.1ppm per week. is dtpa that much better a chelator than edta? especially in softwater tanks such as mine?


EDTA Iron is fine in soft water. the reason people still see Iron deficiency despite adding 1 ppm Fe is because they are focused on deficiency rather than considering toxicity and Nutrients Interaction, I already talked about this in some of the previous posts.

EDTA Fe is actually more rapidly available compared to DTPA Fe due to more prone to degradation and plant are probably better off breaking the iron from the EDTA than they would from DTPA or other stronger chelation as the plant will require more energy to do this work. either way they both are Fe+3 Iron and they will always require additional work for the plant to use this type of Iron. its probably best to Combine Fe+3 with Fe+2 for the best results even though Fe+3 will work just fine in most cases. 

magnesium itself doesn't fix the Iron deficiency if the Iron is completely missing, but it helps absorb the Iron better.

*""Magnesium is the central core of the chlorophyll molecule in plant tissue. Thus, if Mg is deficient, the shortage of chlorophyll results in poor and stunted plant growth. Magnesium also helps to activate specific enzyme systems.""

Role of Magnesium in Plant Culture | PRO-MIX Greenhouse Growing*


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Happi said:


> EDTA Iron is fine in soft water. the reason people still see Iron deficiency despite adding 1 ppm Fe is because they are focused on deficiency rather than considering toxicity


I agree with this, but if this happened when @plantnoobdude was adding 1 ppm Fe via FeEDTA? None of that iron was plant available. I would be absolutely amazed if that isn't iron deficiency.





The reasons for the none availability of iron (Fe) are a slightly different question.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

@dw1305
I guess the only way to find out is if he replace the DTPA Fe with EDTA Fe entirely and keep all the other Micro the same and dose the same ppm for Fe EDTA. 

he is currently in full control of how and what he dose. so I encourage him to try the above at some point and see what happens.


----------



## Happi

erwin123 said:


> I have been gradually reducing my water column dosing and its now 50% of the manfacturers dosage, a relatively economical 1ml a day which gives me
> 
> N 6.44ppm
> P 2.1ppm
> K 8.6ppm
> Fe 0.25ppm  (+0.2ppm EDDHA-Fe into substrate)
> Mg 0.7ppm  (+4ppm Epsom salt)
> 
> This wouldn't count as lean dosing, more like 'reduced dosing' , but hopefully there is a middle ground where most plants are happy and the *A. Pedicatella* leaves don't wrinkle and the stems turn red.


what source of N and K are you adding because numbers aren't matching up correctly if you are using KNO3. also, am guessing you are referring to N 6.44 as NO3 6.44 ppm?


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> what source of N and K are you adding because numbers aren't matching up correctly if you are using KNO3. also, am guessing you are referring to N 6.44 as NO3 6.44 ppm?


I think Erwin is using APT EI, Happi.


----------



## plantnoobdude

would like to share a couple other photos of improvements in other plants.

Rotala Macrandra
here is what it looked like under previous dosing,




new and improved. 



you can see it improve towards the top




Cuphea A.
here is what it looked like under previous dosing,



new and improved. 5 days later,


----------



## Happi

I was trying to put the pictures side by side to make sure my eyes are not playing tricks with me


----------



## Happi

Here are some old pictures that I found of my tank. TDS 47


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> Here are some old pictures that I found of my tank. TDS 47


Absolutely stunning mate, i assume with such low tds you are using marschner numbers?


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> Absolutely stunning mate, i assume with such low tds you are using marschner numbers?


Marschner or any of the lean approach I used, the TDS was always kept in the lower range.


----------



## Happi

@plantnoobdude here is the picture from the tank with the same Micro/Fe recipe you are currently using. 0.1 Fe weekly Max. 

Pantanal refused to grow emersed in this tank during that time and it looked weired. It's a completely different story though. Once I got a new batch this issue was resolved.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> Pantanal refused to grow emersed in this tank during that time and it looked weired. It's a completely different story though. Once I got a new batch this issue was resolved.


care to explain why the pantanal is growing thicker leaves hear underwater? i've seen a few threads no this with no conclusive answer as to what causes it.





Happi said:


> It's a completely different story though.


interested in hearing more!


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> care to explain why the pantanal is growing thicker leaves hear underwater? i've seen a few threads no this with no conclusive answer as to what causes it.
> interested in hearing more!


I do not know the true cause behind why it was doing that, but it would grow normal leaves at first and then eventually become like that, sometime it looked like it was growing emerged leaves under water. if you trimmed it under water, it would still form emerged leaves. for whatever reason it refused to accept to grow submerged growth to grow normal leaves. I played with this plant for several months trying to figure this out but couldn't come up with any real conclusion. it must have something to do with mutation.

Here is the picture of it under similar dosing:


----------



## Happi

Couple more shots under various conditions, from stunting, pinched stems, neglect and normal plant growth.


----------



## plantnoobdude

t





Happi said:


> Couple more shots under various conditions, from stunting, pinched stems, neglect and normal plant growth.


the pantanal in the 4th pic looks fantastic!


----------



## erwin123

NIce photos from both Plantnoobnude and Happi.  I would like to help my Macrandra look nicer - apart from lean dosing, does it require a lot of night to look 'nice'?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


plantnoobdude said:


> Cuphea A.
> here is what it looked like under previous dosing,
> 
> 
> 
> new and improved. 5 days later,



That looks pretty conclusive. I would expect the _Tonina_ to  green up as well, but the yellow leaves remaining yellow and the new growth green. Green new growth will take a while to appear because of _Tonina_'s <"slow growth"> rate.

I can see the healthy new leaves on the _Cuphea_ can't tell from the second photo whether the terminal yellow leaves (in the first photo) are any greener? Assuming that it was an iron availability issue they should still be pale?

That one reason I like Amazon Frogbit (_Limnobium laevigatum) _for the <"Duckweed Index">, it <"is green">. Lesser Duckweed (_Lemna minor_) would combine <"being green"> with a <"very quick growth rate"> (both advantageous) but it doesn't do well in soft water or in <"low nutrient situations">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

@dw1305​Amazon Frogbit actually does quite well in soft water and lean dosing, I was tossing it out constantly, if the NH4 is provided in the water, it actually multiply very fast. most of the floating plant actually does better when there is a presence of NH4 in the water, these plant obtain green and strong colors. I have seen these plant take yellow color when NO3 is the main source of N in the water. they only obtained better color when the NO3 became lower. these floating plant might be good indicator for some nutrients but not all, they frequently obtained yellow growth which appear to look like that they are suffering from N deficiency even in presence of 50 ppm NO3.


----------



## John q

Happi said:


> Amazon Frogbit actually does quite well in soft water and lean dosing.


Yep frogbit and vallisneria can grow well in soft water.


----------



## Happi

erwin123 said:


> NIce photos from both Plantnoobnude and Happi.  I would like to help my Macrandra look nicer - apart from lean dosing, does it require a lot of night to look 'nice'?


if you are looking for a full potential for any plant in general, high light is highly recommended. spectrum rich in Blue and Reds will bring out the colors you are looking for.


----------



## Hufsa

I am not seeing Darrel saying Frogbit doesnt do well in soft water and/or lean conditions, but rather Duckweed.



dw1305 said:


> ..Lesser Duckweed (_Lemna minor_) would combine <"being green"> with a <"very quick growth rate"> (both advantageous) but it doesn't do well in soft water or in <"low nutrient situations">.


----------



## Happi

Hufsa said:


> I am not seeing Darrel saying Frogbit doesnt do well in soft water and/or lean conditions, but rather Duckweed.


Duckweed also does well under soft water, if its given the above condition. floater plant like Phyllanthus Fluitans does very well in soft water as well. I must have misunderstood "Frogbit doesn't do well in softwater" but all these floating plant have no issue growing under above condition.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Hufsa said:


> do well in soft water and/or lean conditions, but rather Duckweed.





Happi said:


> Amazon Frogbit actually does quite well in soft water and lean dosing,


It does, that is why I use it for the Duckweed Index, in preference to the original duckweed, Lesser Duckweed (_Lemna minor), _which was always slightly yellow in soft water even when nitrogen levels were higher.

It had to be a floating, or emergent, plant to access the 400 ppm of CO2 (Diana Walstad's <"aerial advantage">) and not all tanks could have an emergent plant, so it had to be a floating plant and all the <"other options had some issues">.

It would have been better if I had called it the <"Frogbit Index"> but I had already written about when I was still using _Lemna minor_ as <"my canary">.


Happi said:


> I have seen these plant take yellow color when NO3 is the main source of N in the water. they only obtained better color when the NO3 became lower. these floating plant might be good indicator for some nutrients but not all, they frequently obtained yellow growth which appear to look like that they are suffering from N deficiency even in presence of 50 ppm NO3.


Interesting, that was the issue with _Lemna minor, _but I definitely haven't found that in terms of the leaf colour for _Limnobium laevigatum._ I have regarded leaf growth and level of greeness as <"a very good proxy for fixed nitrogen level"> and often that nitrogen would have been supplied as nitrate (NO3-). I've been using fertilisers with urea in them for some time now, so I don't have any recent experience of "nitrate only" nitrogen supply. You definitely get very quick greening with ammonia (NH3) and urea (CO(NH2)2) based fertilisers.

I'm not a plant physiologist, but I can't see any reason why there should be a difference in leaf colour (chlorophyll density) between plants supplied with fixed nitrogen as NO3-, rather than NH4, with the proviso that their are kinetic advantages to ammonia uptake.

If you've found the leaves remain pale green, I'd guess that it is either that:

Nitrogen (N) wasn't Liebig's limiting nutrient, it was one out of potassium (K), phosphrous (P), magnesium (Mg) or iron (Fe), or
there were some issues with nitrate (NO3-) measurement?
cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

@dw1305  or it could be that when NO3 is the main source of N, it might be wise to add bit more Mo to increase the Nitrogen uptake by those plants, where they have easy uptake of NH4 without the need for Mo.
also what if  these floating plant are actually using most of the NH4 soon as its formed in the aquarium naturally? so weather you add 5,10,30,50 ppm NO3, they still try to go for available NH4 first before they start using the NO3? this is how the Nitrogen cycle works in our aquarium and I strongly believe that these plants are great ammonia/ammonium remover.

the paleness remain under the presence of all the nutrient at higher level. not all of them were pale, it was some leaves which looked normal and some leaves were still showing yellow color, soon as I added some NH4 the entire surface maintained green color. so there is something somewhere which could be related to struggle to use NO3 as the only source.





*Below is the attached file in case anyone is interested to read about it. *


----------



## John q

Hufsa said:


> I am not seeing Darrel saying Frogbit doesnt do well in soft water and/or lean conditions,


Nor am I. What I do see is people repeatedly suggesting vallisneria won't do well in low kh/gh parameters..  This is a myth. It will grow fine in 1kh 2gh water. Can't comment on the dosing regime as of yet, still early days so currently sat on the fence 😄


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Happi said:


> it could be that when NO3 is the main source of N, it might be wise to add bit more Mo to increase the Nitrogen uptake by those plants, where they have easy uptake of NH4 without the need for Mo.


It could be <"molybdenum (Mo)">. I haven't ever done this very scientifically, with the original wastewater work it is <"plenty of everything">, and subsequently it has usually been in planted tanks with some livestock present and/or a <"commercial fertiliser mix">, with both urea and nitrate nitrogen.


Happi said:


> also what if these floating plant are actually using most of the NH4 soon as its formed in the aquarium naturally? so weather you add 5,10,30,50 ppm NO3, they still try to go for available NH4 first before they start using the NO3?


Yes, I think you are right, it is the <"low hanging fruit argument">.


Happi said:


> this is how the Nitrogen cycle works in our aquarium and I strongly believe that these plants are great ammonia/ammonium remover.


Yes definitely, there is a large body of scientific research on phytoremediation <"using _Limnobium laevigatum__"> _and a huge amount using floating plants more generally <"Hu, H., Xiang L., Shaohua W., & Chunping, Y (2020) "Sustainable livestock wastewater treatment via phytoremediation: Current status and future perspectives" _Bioresource Technology_, *315**">*


Happi said:


> I have seen these plant take yellow color when NO3 is the main source of N in the water. they only obtained better color when the NO3 became lower. these floating plant might be good indicator for some nutrients but not all, they frequently obtained yellow growth which appear to look like that they are suffering from N deficiency even in presence of 50 ppm NO3.


I've thought about this in terms of the "Duckweed index" and I think it doesn't actually matter if leaf greeness is a measure of just ammonium nitrogen and leaf growth a measure of all fixed nitrogen. I'm not worried about the nitrate in terms of fish health and the plants are still depleting it.

Because it is only really planted tank keepers who add nitrogen as nitrate (NO3) I've struggled to find scientific references that look at the effects purely of nitrate nitrogen addition. There are some papers on the physical uptake of ions by root hairs, because a _Limnobium_ sp. was the model plant used. <"Huimin, F., Xiaorong F., Miller, A. & Guohua X (2020) "Plant nitrogen uptake and assimilation: regulation of cellular pH homeostasis" _Journal of Experimental Botany_, *71*(15) pp. 4380–4392">.


Happi said:


> the paleness remain under the presence of all the nutrient at higher level. not all of them were pale, it was some leaves which looked normal and some leaves were still showing yellow color, soon as I added some NH4 the entire surface maintained green color. so there is something somewhere which could be related to struggle to use NO3 as the only source.


You definitely get instant greening with ammonia addition, possibly <"because of luxury uptake">?

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


John q said:


> suggesting vallisneria won't do well in low kh/gh parameters..


It didn't for me, but I haven't tried growing it for a long time, and all my tanks are pretty nutrient depleted.

cheers Darrel


----------



## John q

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> It didn't for me, but I haven't tried growing it for a long time, and all my tanks are pretty nutrient depleted.
> 
> cheers Darrel


I think that's the crux of it. We as a collective asumme A=B, therfore C can't possibly work. I guess we need to be more open minded about these things and contemplate that C might work. 

That thought probably ties in well with this thread.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


John q said:


> I think that's the crux of it. We as a collective asumme A=B, therfore C can't possibly work. I guess we need to be more open minded about these things and contemplate that C might work.


Agreed, it is the <"unknown unknowns"> that are the real problem. You have to keep <"an open-mind">, although we will all have some <"faith positions">. It was the difficulties of dealing with <"shades or grey"> that first made me look more closely at <"probability based solutions">.

If we all report our findings, eventually we may be able to use a <"modelling approach"> to quantify what works and what doesn't, even if we still don't know why it works.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Hufsa

John q said:


> What I do see is people repeatedly suggesting vallisneria won't do well in low kh/gh parameters..


Guilty  Ive tried to qualify the statement by pairing it with "it seems", but still guilty. Mine didnt do well, but I shouldnt perpetuate a theory I have not tested better. Definitely could have been something else that caused it not to do well. Consider me duly corrected


----------



## hypnogogia

John q said:


> Nor am I. What I do see is people repeatedly suggesting vallisneria won't do well in low kh/gh parameters..  This is a myth. It will grow fine in 1kh 2gh water. Can't comment on the dosing regime as of yet, still early days so currently sat on the fence 😄


I had some Vallis in soft water.  Was using full EI and it grew like weeds.  Constantly had to cut it back and also thin it out regularly.


----------



## Happi

Few more shots from My experimental journey.


----------



## Happi

Somone who used the clone version of My Tropica for testing purpose, using Urea as N.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Happi said:


> Few more shots from My experimental journey.


You would have to say they all look pretty healthy. Are these lean dosing tanks? I'm a <"lean doser">, but my plants are never vibrant like yours.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> You would have to say they all look pretty healthy. Are these lean dosing tanks? I'm a <"lean doser">, but my plants are never vibrant like yours.
> 
> cheers Darrel


I wouldn't say that they were all healthy or in perfect conditions. am not expecting them to be during experimental stage, because what am looking for is when they melt, when the stem turn black, when they stunt, when they die or when they are deficient etc. under different conditions. in order for me to do that I had to make changes to the ratio and the nutrients, some plant were quick to show the results while some were bit slower to respond. no one seems to pay close attention to the lower part of the stems where am looking for Deficiency of a mobile Nutrients, in most cases I have seen a plant that only looked healthy at the top while the bottom stem and the leaves are either dying or getting some kind of Deficiency. am also looking for a immobile nutrients deficiency when am looking at the plants, we also have to understand that some nutrients deficiency are not truly deficiency but they could appear that way. some people confuse the pin holes with potassium deficiency when it could be related to Micro nutrient. Alternanthera family of the plant species are also challenge for many hobbyist, but I had to make several changes to get them to grow properly, the main changes when they responded the best was under the Marchner Ratio. Tonnina didn't fully enjoy the very high doses of NH4, it stopped melting when the doses of NH4 was cut in smaller doses. if you were to add Alternanthera and Tonnina in the same tank and dose heavy dosing, Tonnina will probably do better than the Alternanthera even though Alternanthera suppose to be much easier plant compared to Tonnina.

also keep in mind that I keep the co2 stable and only made changes to the Nutrients, Ratio, chemicals etc. to observe the changes in plant. the pictures I share with you guys are from the time when experimental were taking place, so you can expect to see where things looked good or bad. 

the last two picture are from my friend who wanted to try one of the recipe, those pictures are from when he was just barely learning how to make his own Micros at home. Pogostemon seems to be doing well for him while I have seen many people stunt this plant quite easily. I wouldn't say he was able to grow everything perfect but he was just getting started. 


For Example

This plant stem usually turn black when something is either lacking or something is in excess:



​


----------



## Happi

I don't fully rely on terrestrial plant data when looking for toxicity or deficiencies in aquatic plant, I strongly believe that there is a huge gap between the plant grown under the water vs plant grown outside of the water in the soil. there is also a huge gap between nutrients in the water vs in the soil outside of the water. I look at the terrestrial plant data just for reference, not for final conclusion.

think about it, if the data is correct then if you were only adding 1 ppm Ca weekly and it continue to grow plant without Deficiency until at some point plant start to show Ca deficiency because it should only appear on new growth because Ca is Immobile, then this would suggest that the need for Ca is no where near 30 ppm Ca or higher. lets assume it took a one week to show Deficiency then it would be wise to add 2 ppm Ca weekly so you have 1 ppm Extra.

also look at Mo and N, they both are mobile, if you don't add enough Mo while using KNO3, you will constantly get N Deficiency which is where most people have yellowing of the older leaves on their stems. this can also be countered by NH4 which doesn't require Mo and your plant will maintain better coloration and health even on the lower leaves and stems.

Zinc is also immobile, so it should show the Zn deficiency only on the new leaves, yet Tropica uses very low Zn in their fertilizer and there is no Zn deficiency while on the other hand Seachem adds tons of Zn in there flourish trace. its still questionable why such a wide gap between the two when they both are focused on aquatic plant. maybe Zinc is immobile according to Tropica and immobile according to Seachem?  

Nutrient Deficiencies  - MSU Extension Soil Fertility | Montana State University


----------



## eminor

so far lean dosing give me way less algae, bba disapeared, i tried for a year to win against it, i tought my co2 was faulty, nope, i think EI is not for me then


----------



## erwin123

eminor said:


> so far lean dosing give me way less algae, bba disapeared, i tried for a year to win against it, i tought my co2 was faulty, nope, i think EI is not for me then


pls update photos so we can see the Furcata, Tuberculatum and Wallichii! must be super red already with lean dosing!


----------



## Hufsa

Happi said:


> Zinc is also immobile, so it should show the Zn deficiency only on the new leaves, yet Tropica uses very low Zn in their fertilizer and there is no Zn deficiency while on the other hand Seachem adds tons of Zn in there flourish trace. its still questionable why such a wide gap between the two when they both are focused on aquatic plant. maybe Zinc is immobile according to Tropica and immobile according to Seachem?


Could it be that Tropica contains chelated zinc while Flourish unchelated? It could account for the difference. If Seachem is assuming some of the zinc will be precipitated out, perhaps thats why they are adding a bit extra


----------



## plantnoobdude

I assume this info will be of interest to a lot of you. notice the ratio, quite similar to marschhner and what people such as happi dose.
these numbers are based on 20g of plant growth per month and critical concentration of elodea nuttalli.


----------



## Happi

eminor said:


> so far lean dosing give me way less algae, bba disapeared, i tried for a year to win against it, i tought my co2 was faulty, nope, i think EI is not for me then


looking forward to see some pictures and updates.


Hufsa said:


> Could it be that Tropica contains chelated zinc while Flourish unchelated? It could account for the difference. If Seachem is assuming some of the zinc will be precipitated out, perhaps thats why they are adding a bit extra



not necessarily, because I have used the low amount of Zn while using ZnSO4 with the same good results. seachem dose of Zn is beyond my understanding, even lets assume most of it will be precipitated. but most of their other heavy metals such as Mn which is more important than Zn and needed in higher quantity is kept at much lower number compared to Zn, which will also precipitate under several condition. Zn is also listed as toxic to plant and fishes/shrimps in higher quantities. so I truly don't know the seachem logic behind dosing of high Zn, except that its easily precipitated compared to other nutrients but so are some of the other heavy metals.


----------



## plantnoobdude

eminor said:


> so far lean dosing give me way less algae, bba disapeared, i tried for a year to win against it, i tought my co2 was faulty, nope, i think EI is not for me then


what approach did you use? csm+b and kno3 plus kh2po4? or something else.


----------



## plantnoobdude

plantnoobdude said:


> I assume this info will be of interest to a lot of you. notice the ratio, quite similar to marschhner and what people such as happi dose.
> these numbers are based on 20g of plant growth per month and critical concentration of elodea nuttalli.
> View attachment 181206


these have been adjusted to ratio (thanks happi)
N 1
P 0.0875
K 0.5
Ca 0.175
Mg 0.0625

Fe 0.00375
Mn 0.00025
B 0.00008125
Zn 0.0005
Cu 0.00005
Mo 0.000009375
S 0.05

shockingly close to marschner numbers,

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

Diana's tank needs ~0.4ppm N weekly in low tech. as a reference EI is something like 7ppm N an lean dosing is somewhere around 2-3ppm N.


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> these have been adjusted to ratio (thanks happi)
> N 1
> P 0.0875
> K 0.5
> Ca 0.175
> Mg 0.0625
> 
> Fe 0.00375
> Mn 0.00025
> B 0.00008125
> Zn 0.0005
> Cu 0.00005
> Mo 0.000009375
> S 0.05
> 
> shockingly close to marschner numbers,
> 
> 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
> 
> Diana's tank needs ~0.4ppm N weekly in low tech. as a reference EI is something like 7ppm N an lean dosing is somewhere around 2-3ppm N.


I don't know if my math was correct because I did it when I was half asleep.


----------



## eminor

plantnoobdude said:


> what approach did you use? csm+b and kno3 plus kh2po4? or something else.


csm+b and kno3 + kh2po4, 3:1 ca:mg ratio, i still use  it for lean exept i added iron dtpa


----------



## Happi

EDIT: there were some Error with this post, talking to Marian to further clarify it.


----------



## Happi

Below is a Clone version of *MasterLine All In One Golden* there is no way it replaces the original because it is a clone version based on my assumption and it is not the exact formula from the manufacture.


----------



## plantnoobdude

eminor said:


> csm+b and kno3 + kh2po4, 3:1 ca:mg ratio, i still use  it for lean exept i added iron dtpa


i tried using lean with such chemicals before, did not work well at all, immediate stunting, massive algae issue. hopefully it works for you.


----------



## eminor

plantnoobdude said:


> i tried using lean with such chemicals before, did not work well at all, immediate stunting, massive algae issue. hopefully it works for you.


i have fluval stratum to backup i think, not stunt at all, grow fast


----------



## Happi

eminor said:


> i have fluval stratum to backup i think, not stunt at all, grow fast


eminor, you should share some before and after pictures. this will help me understand better about the plants. adding DTPA Fe to CSM+B will always enhance its effectiveness, same goes if you were to add some MnSo4 to it. Edward the pps guy have used several modifications to make the csm+b better, I have done the same in the past. this could be handy for those who use csm+b or similar product. however, it is still far from being a perfect micro compare to when you make your own from scratch.

Here is my recipe based on same ppm but making it from scratch:
PPS PRO based custom Micro Recipe

Here is Edward's Modified version of CSM+B
Perpetual Preservation System - Nutrient imbalance TE

both provide the same ppm


----------



## plantnoobdude

eminor said:


> i have fluval stratum to backup i think, not stunt at all, grow fast


while fluval stratum still leaches ammonia it should be good, but once the effect wears off i suspect you will have issues. if you do run into issues there are more than enough resources in this thread to supplimnt your dosing regime.


----------



## eminor

plantnoobdude said:


> while fluval stratum still leaches ammonia it should be good, but once the effect wears off i suspect you will have issues. if you do run into issues there are more than enough resources in this thread to supplimnt your dosing regime.


i also use 2hr aquarist way to put osmocote which might help ?


----------



## plantnoobdude

eminor said:


> i also use 2hr aquarist way to put osmocote which might help ?


yes it should.


----------



## plantnoobdude

very pleased to report tank is doing well after 3 days of new macros, 
currently dosing total 9ppm No3 per week, 2ppm K and 1.2ppm Po4. though keep in mind the tank still has about 40% nutrients from EI. so the real change should occur in the next few weeks.
let me get some pics





much less stunting in wallichii, horribly stunted stems from EI are growing sideshoots.
macrandra issue is getting much better, full fat leaves. and much less stunting, maybe 1 in 20 stems is stunted, previously maybe on stems every 3-4 stems.






greening obvious in tiny tonina shoot.




whole group is getting much better colour with urea aswell, still a bit whitish on camera but better in person. turned down brightness a bit and looks to true to what i see.








cuba still stunting and has that cyano forming on tips. might just trim it to a stump and lt it regrow side shoots at this point.
another pic of macrandra looking fat and juicy





cuphea still making progress, though algae has gotten worse on old leaves, i think it will get better because new leaves look very healthy and algae does not seem to attack healthy leaves.








overall very good improvement for a couple days.


----------



## medlight

Happi said:


> eminor, you should share some before and after pictures. this will help me understand better about the plants. adding DTPA Fe to CSM+B will always enhance its effectiveness, same goes if you were to add some MnSo4 to it. Edward the pps guy have used several modifications to make the csm+b better, I have done the same in the past. this could be handy for those who use csm+b or similar product. however, it is still far from being a perfect micro compare to when you make your own from scratch.
> 
> Here is my recipe based on same ppm but making it from scratch:
> PPS PRO based custom Micro Recipe
> 
> Here is Edward's Modified version of CSM+B
> Perpetual Preservation System - Nutrient imbalance TE
> 
> both provide the same ppm


In the recipe of the post, the Fe provided in the formula is 0.4 when really with those 8.6 grams of dtpa 11% with its dose of 20ml *50 gallons it is 0.2 Fe


----------



## Happi

medlight said:


> In the recipe of the post, the Fe provided in the formula is 0.4 when really with those 8.6 grams of dtpa 11% with its dose of 20ml *50 gallons it is 0.2 Fe





the other half comes from Fe Gluconate. also, one recipe is fully chelated while the other one is partially chelated.


----------



## medlight

Happi said:


> Below is a Clone version of *MasterLine All In One Golden* there is no way it replaces the original because it is a clone version based on my assumption and it is not the exact formula from the manufacture.
> 
> View attachment 181262
> View attachment 181263


 = 1,20 mg/l NO3, 0,2 mg/l PO4, 0,75 mg/l K, 0,4 mg/l Mg, 0,09 mg/l Fe)


----------



## Happi

medlight said:


> = 1,20 mg/l NO3, 0,2 mg/l PO4, 0,75 mg/l K, 0,4 mg/l Mg, 0,09 mg/l Fe)


sorry what about this???


----------



## JacksonL

@Happi from your experiments, do you have a  ratio of micros or a target ppm for each micro nutrient that complimented your lean dosing of macros best?
I am about to embark on making my own micro mix and I’m just about to calculate how much of each salt I will need to buy


----------



## Happi

JacksonL said:


> @Happi from your experiments, do you have a  ratio of micros or a target ppm for each micro nutrient that complimented your lean dosing of macros best?
> I am about to embark on making my own micro mix and I’m just about to calculate how much of each salt I will need to buy


I normally use tenso cocktail clone recipe targeting 0.1 ppm Fe weekly, the macro will work with this weather you add 1 or 3 ppm N weekly, the idea is to supply enough but not excessive, those ppm such as 0.1 ppm Fe, 0.067 ppm Mn are sufficient, I would only recommend a higher doses if the water parameters are not the best. Some people worry about the copper, if you feel that the copper might be too high, you can target 0.01 ppm Cu weekly, this is sufficient. As I already mentioned earlier, you can fully modify any of the recipes from the list to your liking. 

Fe and Mn is where you will spend most of your money every few years, other chemicals will last you for life.


----------



## erwin123

eminor said:


> i also use 2hr aquarist way to put osmocote which might help ?


just wondering since you are in France - did you manage to find Osmocote or is the Dutch equivalent plantacote available in garden stores in your country?  Product Range | PLANTACOTE


----------



## Happi

few more shots from the experiments under different settings, some picture are showing good, bad, mixed growth, also plant with leaf damages.


----------



## medlight

mg masterline oro


----------



## Happi

when things gets worse


----------



## Happi

medlight said:


> mg masterline oro


am not sure if mine is correct or their is correct, but based on the calculation and whatever is written on the bottle, mine should be correct.


----------



## Happi

stem plant attached to the rock, only source of nutrients was from the water:


----------



## Hufsa

Happi said:


> stem plant attached to the rock, only source of nutrients was from the water:


Ooo this is interesting! What happened at the last picture?


----------



## Happi

Hufsa said:


> Ooo this is interesting! What happened at the last picture?


that the aquatic plant can grow just with the water Colum dosing, also not to forget that nutrients does cause algae. also 1-3 ppm N was just too much for those guys to handle, the plant on the far left eventually was shooting like 2-3 feet long roots but it had no where to go.


----------



## Hufsa

Happi said:


> also not to forget that nutrients does cause algae


Them's fightin' words around here hehe 😅
But lets not start up the old war again, this thread was going so much better after people stopped fighting about who was right and just started focusing on trying different things.

Wouldnt this picture pretty much be what growing stems in inert substrate is though?
Sometimes I float my Ammannia in the thicket of Bolbitis, and they do just as well as they do planted into my sand


----------



## Happi

Hufsa said:


> Them's fightin' words around here hehe 😅
> But lets not start up the old war again, this thread was going so much better after people stopped fighting about who was right and just started focusing on trying different things.
> 
> Wouldnt this picture pretty much be what growing stems in inert substrate is though?
> Sometimes I float my Ammannia in the thicket of Bolbitis, and they do just as well as they do planted into my sand


haha yes lets put that algae topic in the corner for now. yep pretty much its like growing them in the inert substrate or floating them. even if you attached the stem with duct tape on the glass, it will continue to grow under the proper condition.


----------



## Hufsa

I will be starting injected CO2 soon and also aquiring some A. pedicellata "golden", which I see many are struggling with in EI. Im very interested to see how it will perform for me and it will be a good test subject I think. First EI and inert substrate, and then rich substrate and lean later on. Ideally I would try inert substrate and lean dosing between those two, but I think most of us can suspect how that will go, and Im not looking to bomb my tank completely


----------



## erwin123

Rotala Wallichii
Low tech. No CO2, no liquid carbon. 16 litre tank with Aquazonic Spectra Planted.
12ppm N
3.9ppm P
13.6ppm K
0.92ppm Fe
(APT EI - 0.3ml daily into 16 litre tank)
I managed to turn it pink right at the top - thats a lot of light by the way 
But stem is green, unlike in high tech where it turns red.


----------



## Happi

Question for you guys. Who determine the difficulty on these plants? For example:


----------



## Hufsa

Well this is flowgrow's database, is your question about this database specifically or plant databases in general?

I dont know the answer for sure, but I suspect it is a good mixture of the nurseries recommendations for growing the plants, the opinions of the people behind the specific database, and the perceived difficulty of the plant from the viewpoint of the general aquarist.

Edit: Keeping in mind that the plant growing skill of the average fishkeeper is quite low, at least based on what im seeing locally..


----------



## eminor

there is 2 weeks between the 2 pictures, except i trimmed a bit. the growth was better in lean dosing

there is EI dosing :





and there is "lean dosing" which is:

5.9ppm NO3
0.31ppm PO4
3.9ppm K
0.39ppm Mg
25 ppm calcium (@ water change)
8 ppm magnesium (@ water change)
~ 0.08 ppm FE (EDTA + DTPA + HDDPA)





the palustris cuba grow well but the coloration faded out :

before :





after :  the rotala in the back seems to be in  way better in lean dosing, same with the pinnatifada


----------



## Hufsa

Anyone who has read the Rotala Kill Tank thread will have heard that some plants seem to prefer EI dosing, and others like Lythraceae species seem to prefer lean. Could be the case here?


----------



## erwin123

Hufsa said:


> Anyone who has read the Rotala Kill Tank thread will have heard that some plants seem to prefer EI dosing, and others like Lythraceae species seem to prefer lean. Could be the case here?


In Eminor's journal, he identifies the Rotala as H'ra which is a Rotundifolia  variant. In my experience Rotundifolia and variants do not have an issue with EI and are pretty healthy in rich water column dosing. Rotundifolias are the weeds of the Rotala family.... they just grow everywhere, and in the case of H'ra that sometimes doesn't know how to grow straight, they literally grow in every direction 

Nitrate limitation could improve colour but that is a separate issue from healthy growth.


----------



## plantnoobdude

well all the pic links are broken,,... let me share the progress lol




much less stunting in wallichii, horribly stunted stems from EI are growing sideshoots.
macrandra issue is getting much better, full fat leaves. and much less stunting, maybe 1 in 20 stems is stunted, previously maybe on stems every 3-4 stems.




greening obvious in tiny tonina shoot.
f


whole group is getting much better colour with urea aswell, still a bit whitish on camera but better in person. turned down brightness a bit and looks to true to what i see.






cuba still stunting and has that cyano forming on tips. might just trim it to a stump and lt it regrow side shoots at this point.
another pic of macrandra looking fat and juicy



cuphea still making progress, though algae has gotten worse on old leaves, i think it will get better because new leaves look very healthy and algae does not seem to attack healthy leaves.





over all very good improvement for a couple days of new macro dosing. also keep in mind these pics are already one day old. the rotala wallichii is improving daily.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Hufsa said:


> Them's fightin' words around here hehe 😅
> But lets not start up the old war again, this thread was going so much better after people stopped fighting about who was right and just started focusing on trying different things.
> 
> Wouldnt this picture pretty much be what growing stems in inert substrate is though?
> Sometimes I float my Ammannia in the thicket of Bolbitis, and they do just as well as they do planted into my sand


I mean it's not that complicated, 1 side says nh4 is ofcourse a plant nutrient and overdosing causes algae.
the other side says nh4 is a plant nutrient but it's not recommended to use it, stick to the recommended chemicals and overdosing will not be an issue (to an extent)


----------



## plantnoobdude

one interesting I forgot to say with the above pictures. although stunting is reduced in those pictures. i actually* REDUCED * co2 since starting lean dosing*. *really proves that stunting is not always co2 triggered.


----------



## John q

Not the best of updates unfortunately. 

The last couple of days seem to have spawned a rather rapid onset of bba. Always had bits in the tank but this one is causing me enough concern to draw a halt to the latest experiments. I'm also seeing gsa appearing and some leaves seem to be abnormally curling. 

It could well be the case that me yoyoing the ferts for the last 6 weeks is causing stress in the plants. Another potential culprit could be fluctuating co2 levels. I've certainly had 2 spikes in one of the tanks but the other tanks ph readings and dc colour have remained stable throughout this period, this tank runs a far higher bubble rate and has more surface agitation, so in my mind should be a bit more resilient to decreases in plant demand? 

These are the parameters that the tanks been under for the last 9 days.

Out of my tap.
Ca 6.6ppm
Mg 1.18ppm

I add ~2ppm Ca & 0.9ppm Mg with the water change.

Weekly dosing is.
N03 8.8ppm
N 0.65ppm (from urea)
P04 1.19ppm
K 6ppm
Mg 0.4ppm
Fe Edta 0.4ppm & Fe dtpa 0.05

I've taken a few photos of the supposed issues, there not the best pics unfortunately and maybe what I'm seeing is normal to some folks.

Hygrophila difformis leaf is curling into itself, this is the worst leaf by far but other leaves of this plant (in both tanks) are showing signs of inner curl.  Growth on this sp also minimal. 





Blobitis leaf looks like it's unfurling, I've seen pictures of this to some degree but this curling seems to be affecting all the Blobitis in both tanks. I'm sure these leaves were straighter a few weeks ago. 





Hygrophila polysperma growth has increased a bit but still relatively slow and new leaves appear small and slightly deformed (maybe hard to tell in this photo), you can see gsa and bba appearing on the leaf towards the bottom of the pic, this is something I've genuinely not seen on this plant before.





Hydrocotyle is showing gsa again, the back of this plant looks worse than the front.





Its not all bad news, ludwigia rubin seems to be loving these conditions. 





So no idea what's gone on, all I know is my gut instinct is telling me to pause things and try to stabilise the tank before I commit to any further experiments. 

Cheers for all the help upto now and all being well I'll be back in a couple of weeks for round 3 😁


----------



## JoshP12

Hi all,

Really neat updates - haven’t read for a while. Lots of pretty photos.

Want to share something (this thread is just a bunch of ideas and great conversations now - sorry OP):




A month ago the entire left side had Mg deficiency in the emerged growth. The yellow has now turned green: roots must have found the magnesium bank that the right hand side stumps had access too. Another facet - if we have deep deep substrate, with time I think many things can fix themselves.





Yes. … I pulled the plug on co2 - flow it irrelevant in this thing:





Spraybar is now pointing straight down and breaking the surface for maximum gas exchange - like a constant rain flow. Temperature fluctuates to 24 at night and 27 during day.

For roughly 6 months, daily water change 20% - tds never changed (automated) - with daily dosing.

Now — duck —- no water change still daily dosing. Running on a couple months. TDS not changing. Feeding like absolute crazy abundance beyond belief. 

That was a digression on open mindedness I suppose.

Stocking in that tank:
Scarlet badis, betta, pea puffers, sparkling gourami, honey gourami, pearl gourami, German rams, apistos, shrimps, oto cats, bushy nose pleco, red eye tetra, black tetra, neon tetra, hillatream loach, kuhli loach, guppy, forktail rainbow, zebra danio

Lol … combinations that should lead to death - hey everything is thriving!!!

Back to dosing:

It seems that this thread spurred a lot of people to give less than EI a try. I think often we are feared into thinking plants need all those nutrients and if we don’t feed them, then the plant will become deficient. And that’s the wrong reason to dose EI. EI is hard mode. Let someone with a wet/dry trickle tower and 20x turnover low velocity return dose EI. Or someone with extremely hard water. 

If you don’t fit the bill on the latter, cut the N by 3 and micro by 10 (via concentrated dosing solution not teaspoons to maintain ratio ranges) and keep the rest. 

The next step is to leave the column lean and crank your light —— ahh!! Duck. 😂. 

You see, we’ve seen the plant adapt to lower nutrients … why can it not adapt to moderate light amounts? The beauty is that you aren’t withholding energy if you crank the light so some plants will be like THANK YOU I can use all this energy - let me top up the demand from the substrate (and since my co2 is now in Excess since the column is lean and I’m not force fed, let me match it just right so I don’t become deficient!).  These things are smart. If there is 15 co2 and they currently use 10 via light and nutrients etc, then you crank the light to allow maximum 20  but bottleneck the rest, the plant will top everything up to 15 and mod out the extra light by changing shape and or Color. They are absolutely genius. In many ways, more than us (we let emotions get in the way, plants are the ultimate bad@ss).

By doing this, you have co2 and K in the drivers seat and this is exactly what we want. 

The next challenge: Crank your lights! 

Will there still be a barn raising? 😂

Ok ok one more photo!! 








I already posted socially accepted pretty ones so I’m allowed to post a natural biotope that resembles the Amazon now without losing street cred … right? 😊.


----------



## plantnoobdude

urea dosing benefits,
under previous dosing



pic from yesterday


----------



## plantnoobdude

erwin123 said:


> View attachment 181394
> 
> Rotala Wallichii
> Low tech. No CO2, no liquid carbon. 16 litre tank with Aquazonic Spectra Planted.
> 12ppm N
> 3.9ppm P
> 13.6ppm K
> 0.92ppm Fe
> (APT EI - 0.3ml daily into 16 litre tank)
> I managed to turn it pink right at the top - thats a lot of light by the way
> But stem is green, unlike in high tech where it turns red.


are you using N and P? or no3 and Po4


----------



## erwin123

plantnoobdude said:


> are you using N and P? or no3 and Po4


sorry should be 12ppm NO3 , 3.9ppm PO4 rather than N, P. Using APT EI.


----------



## plantnoobdude

an honest update lol.





as you can see the rotala/cuphea species are doing much better. indica much less stunting, cuphea is growing decent, wallichii is growing nicely, macrandra has no issues now. bacopa colorata is looking nice and pretty, ludwigia cuba has nice flat leaves. ludwigia white is new. tonina showing no deficiencies.






although there is a nice amount of algae, i'm super happy with the tank at the moment. algae i'm growing currently:
Cyano (accumulates at the tips of plants for some reason, no where else)
staghorn (some on older leaves.)
GDA on glass. and unhealthy plants.

tank is dosed  weekly at
3pm N from Urea (13ppm No3)
0.39ppm P                (1.2ppm Po4)
2ppm K
0.05ppm Fe
0.0335pm Mn
0.007ppm Zn
0.007ppm B
0.0035ppm Cu
0.0015ppm Mo
0.00005ppm Ni
18ppm Ca
6ppm Mg


----------



## Happi

@plantnoobdude​
I wish this trial could go on for sometime because we were  finally getting somewhere. I know you will be adding the new aqua in few days, feel free to use the Micro/Fe trial to continue that part of the trial, we will discontinue the use of the N and P with the new soil and focus on the K, Fe/Traces and lets see what happens.


----------



## Happi

this plant suppose to grow well under Urea with quite big leaves, not sure what happened here.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> View attachment 182594
> 
> this plant suppose to grow well under Urea with quite big leaves, not sure what happened here.


I cut the main plant that was doing horribly with the translucent leaaves, the new shoots are doing a bit better. no more translucent leaves.


----------



## Happi

@plantnoobdude​
there is an Error with your Zn dosing of 0.07, that should be 0.007 ppm.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> @plantnoobdude​
> there is an Error with your Zn dosing of 0.07, that should be 0.007 ppm.


oops! i am actually thinking of raising Zn dosing though, because i saw burr mention that Zn is partially mobile, and raising it can help with holes in 2nd~4th set of leaves. and the deficiencies i see with hygrophila are never the oldest leaves, always close to the tip but never at the tip.


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> oops! i am actually thinking of raising Zn dosing though, because i saw burr mention that Zn is partially mobile, and raising it can help with holes in 2nd~4th set of leaves. and the deficiencies i see with hygrophila are never the oldest leaves, always close to the tip but never at the tip.


if that was the case then Tropica must see Zn deficiency quite often. Burr must be following what *Sol *and *Edward* has talked about the Zn in some of their topics long ago. fee free to raise whatever you like

this is what Edward recommend:

ppm
0.1    Fe
0.0286   Mn
0.0186    B
0.0200   Zn
0.00086    Mo
0.00142   Cu
0.00010   Ni

you might find this Thread interesting:  Ry's Mad Lab - Test for N,P,K,Ca,Mg, Fe, Zn &amp...


your current dose is not far away from what Edward dose, except much better Fe:Mn ratio here
Fe    0.1
B    0.0135
Mn    0.0669
Mo    0.0034
Zn    0.0138
Cu    0.007


----------



## plantnoobdude

hmn, true. but i thought about raising Zn after seeing seachem trace numbers. those seem excessively high. i will see if the "zn deficiency" symptoms persist after the new soil. and if the plant look the same with additional K.


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> hmn, true. but i thought about raising Zn after seeing seachem trace numbers. those seem excessively high. i will see if the "zn deficiency" symptoms persist after the new soil. and if the plant look the same with additional K.


like I said, feel free to raise the Zn if you like. seachem might be adding so much because they know that it might most likely to be oxidized, especially when its not chelated. 

not even hydroponic use high amount of Zn when they are relying on water Colum fertilizer.  
Post #43 
Latest insights on Calcium


----------



## macek.g

Hi,isn't that a little weird?
6ppm Mg vs 2ppm K


----------



## macek.g

plantnoobdude said:


> tank is dosed  weekly at
> 3pm N from Urea (13ppm No3)
> 0.39ppm P                (1.2ppm Po4)
> 2ppm K
> 0.05ppm Fe
> 0.0335pm Mn
> 0.007ppm Zn
> 0.007ppm B
> 0.0035ppm Cu
> 0.0015ppm Mo
> 0.00005ppm Ni
> 18ppm Ca
> 6ppm Mg


----------



## Happi

macek.g said:


> Hi,isn't that a little weird?
> 6ppm Mg vs 2ppm K


plantnoobdude​wanted to maintain certain GH both using Ca and Mg for shrimps. otherwise i would have suggested him to maintain higher K than Mg.


----------



## plantnoobdude

macek.g said:


> Hi,isn't that a little weird?
> 6ppm Mg vs 2ppm K


hello macek! yes as happi said, i wanted to dose at least 4gh for my shrimps. I'd like to hear a bit more about your dosing because you grow very nice plants.


----------



## Happi

looking forward to hear from our friends who are also testing something similar.


----------



## plantnoobdude

plants are looking decent some are a bit scorched cus they dried out a bit yesterday. all in all, after 16 hours in a bag and just 24 hours after a full substrate change, i'd say the tank is looking pretty good. yesterday the wallichii was looking perfect, 0 stunting good colour. cuba as well. cuphea too

i find after a big water change plants stunt a bit, this usually resolves in a couple days. this wallichii looked pretty nice yesterday. but below is what it looks like now.


still much better compared to what they looked like under EI though!

thinking about reducing micros to 0.025 Fe as proxy weekly. and increasing Ni. maybe to 0.001ppm weekly.


----------



## JoshP12

@plantnoobdude

Do you stir up lotsa substrate etc during water change or just water in water out minimal disturbance in substrate? 

Try one week each way. Reckon stunting won’t occur as intense when you don’t disturb substrate.


----------



## plantnoobdude

JoshP12 said:


> Do you stir up lotsa substrate etc during water change or just water in water out minimal disturbance in substrate?


well actually i swapped out all the soil this week haha.
but generally yes, lots of substrate disturbance. ill try from next time not to disturb the sub as much.


----------



## JoshP12

plantnoobdude said:


> well actually i swapped out all the soil this week haha.
> but generally yes, lots of substrate disturbance. ill try from next time not to disturb the sub as much.



Do none at all. Water in water out. And just watch. All new growth should be algae free. Leave old growth to grow minute algae is ok.


----------



## John q

Just like to add an update as to where I'm at after 3 weeks. 
The tank seems to have turned the corner and is back on track. I've been doing multiple smaller water changes and extra filter cleans which seems to have helped. Lights also dimmed 9%.
Fertilizer wise I stopped dosing Urea and thought I was adding this level of nutrients to the tank.


John q said:


> Added with the weekly water change 2.27ppm Ca & 1.85ppm Mg.
> Then via macro - micro dosing p/w:
> No3 11.6 ppm
> Po4 2.91 ppm
> K 8.52 ppm
> Mg 0.89 ppm
> Fe 0.31 ppm from csm+b
> Fe 0.11 ppm Dtpa.


Came to make a new mix up tonight and realised I've only been adding 75ml of macro solution instead of 100ml p/w and 75ml of micro instead of 90ml. So I've actually been adding. 

No3 8.7ppm
P04 2.18ppm 
K 6.39ppm
Mg 0.74ppm
Fe 0.25ppm (from csm+b)
Fe 0.09ppm Dtpa

Not exactly lean dosing but thought it might be of interest. Biggest changes from 3 weeks ago are no Urea and the P04 increase and  overall Mg increase. N, Fe and traces have actually reduced. This is what I was dosing when it went Pete tong. 

N03 8.8ppm
N 0.65ppm (from urea)
P04 1.19ppm
K 6ppm
Mg 0.4ppm
Fe Edta 0.4ppm & Fe dtpa 0.05

I don't grow difficult plants but I can definitely see a big improvement to how these plants looked three weeks ago. Not sure where I go with this dosing regime, may even increase the dose and see how the tank responds. Either way I thought it only fair to give some feedback. 

Not the best picture drop, hopefully it will show general health improvement and algae in retreat. 





New growth at last, no stunting or twisted leaves.

















Bba in retreat.












Any thoughts why the plants would respond to the above dosing @Happi  or @JoshP12


----------



## Happi

@John q​
*Ca 2.27
Mg 1.85 
No3 8.7ppm
P04 2.18ppm
K 6.39ppm
Mg 0.74ppm
Fe 0.25ppm (from csm+b)
Fe 0.09ppm Dtpa*

I just want to make sure this is what you dose per week? and use 100% RO water here? is the 2.27 Ca and 1.85 Mg is what you add per week? 

so what happened with this one below??
*N03 8.8ppm
N 0.65ppm (from urea)
P04 1.19ppm
K 6ppm
Mg 0.4ppm
Fe Edta 0.4ppm & Fe dtpa 0.05*


----------



## John q

Hi Happi,


Happi said:


> I just want to make sure this is what you dose per week?


This is what I now dose per week via macro & micro dosing. 2.27 Ca and 1.85 Mg goes in with weekly water change.


Happi said:


> *Ca 2.27  (added with water change)
> Mg 1.85 (added with water change)
> No3 8.7ppm
> P04 2.18ppm
> K 6.39ppm
> Mg 0.74ppm
> Fe 0.25ppm (from csm+b)
> Fe 0.09ppm Dtpa*





Happi said:


> and use 100% RO water here?


No very soft tap water.


John q said:


> Out of my tap.
> Ca 6.6ppm
> Mg 1.18ppm





Happi said:


> so what happened with this one below??
> *N03 8.8ppm
> N 0.65ppm (from urea)
> P04 1.19ppm
> K 6ppm
> Mg 0.4ppm
> Fe Edta 0.4ppm & Fe dtpa 0.05*



Post in thread 'Lean dosing pros and cons' Lean dosing pros and cons


----------



## erwin123

John q said:


> Just like to add an update as to where I'm at after 3 weeks.
> The tank seems to have turned the corner and is back on track. I've been doing multiple smaller water changes and extra filter cleans which seems to have helped. Lights also dimmed 9%.
> Fertilizer wise I stopped dosing Urea and thought I was adding this level of nutrients to the tank.
> 
> Came to make a new mix up tonight and realised I've only been adding 75ml of macro solution instead of 100ml p/w and 75ml of micro instead of 90ml. So I've actually been adding.
> 
> No3 8.7ppm
> P04 2.18ppm
> K 6.39ppm
> Mg 0.74ppm
> Fe 0.25ppm (from csm+b)
> Fe 0.09ppm Dtpa


That's pretty close to what I'm dosing with APT EI though I supplement Mg and Fe. Like I've posted before, weekly I add:
NO3 5.8ppm
PO4 1.9ppm
K 7.8ppm
Mg 0.71ppm  + (3ppm Mg via Epsom salts - for the shrimp)
Fe 0.22ppm + (0.1ppm EDDHA-Fe Ice cubes in substrate)


----------



## JoshP12

John q said:


> Just like to add an update as to where I'm at after 3 weeks.
> The tank seems to have turned the corner and is back on track. I've been doing multiple smaller water changes and extra filter cleans which seems to have helped. Lights also dimmed 9%.
> Fertilizer wise I stopped dosing Urea and thought I was adding this level of nutrients to the tank.


I think I get it now (had to look back through the thread). Please correct me.
1) Tank was healthy (under EI)
2) You dosed this:
This is what I was dosing when it went Pete tong.

N03 8.8ppm
N 0.65ppm (from urea)
P04 1.19ppm
K 6ppm
Mg 0.4ppm
Fe Edta 0.4ppm & Fe dtpa 0.05

3) Then you dose this:


John q said:


> Came to make a new mix up tonight and realised I've only been adding 75ml of macro solution instead of 100ml p/w and 75ml of micro instead of 90ml. So I've actually been adding.
> No3 8.7ppm
> P04 2.18ppm
> K 6.39ppm
> Mg 0.74ppm
> Fe 0.25ppm (from csm+b)
> Fe 0.09ppm Dtpa
> 
> Not exactly lean dosing but thought it might be of interest.


And dimmed the lights down. + small water change + small cleans on filter

4) Largest changes:


John q said:


> Biggest changes from 3 weeks ago are no Urea and the P04 increase and  overall Mg increase. N, Fe and traces have actually reduced.



5) Tank gets better

*** Looks like gravel with root tabs? Can I assume you have active substrate. And of course, CO2 injection.

We want to know why.


Contingent on my assumptions above, let's try to figure it out!

This is not so simple. LOL.

Let's put some thoughts to get the juices flowing;
1) Urea is not magic. It provides Ammonia and CO2. But the plant does need some nitrate and if we force the plant to take too much urea and don't provide the nitrate the plant needs to convert it and spend CO2. Deficiency. Ok. Bacteria can take the excess urea and convert to nitrate for us. This can be bottlenecked by oxygen and/or abundance of species. Time will fix abundance, when oxygen is abundant. *If you had abundant, rich substrate at the time, I reckon increasing your light and potentially CO2 in conjunction - while maintaining appropriate flow - would actually have saved your system due to increase O2 evolution and excess energy availability for the plant to promote nutrient motion from the roots to the shoots! Alternatively, nitrate in the column MAY have helped while leaving light alone. *

2) Your tank went south after that Urea dosing stuff up top. You had higher micro and less PO4. It is possible that increasing PO4 may have helped your tank in situation above. I can't remember: *Did you see brownish/black algae or did you see green algae when it went south. If blackish/brown, then intuition suggests leaning towards biological immaturity to handle the change in nutrients. If greenish, leaning towards NO3 and PO4 to "fix" the issue. You see, PO4 is important for energy as well -- ATP -- so if we had any new tissue and any shortfall OR we needed to synthesize more ATP for the roots to be able to pull up nutrients, then it needs to be there, AND PO4 very important for root developement so if the plant is trying to respond to get more of something from substrate and/or create more roots it needs PO4 to grow those roots. *

3) If you have rich substrate, you need light since - don't remember but can gather - some nutrient movement requires energy so we need to give the plant as much energy as it needs via light. Or you need to feed it in the column and force feed it without the cost of energy. BUT I know that nutrient transport through Xylem does NOT require energy (when there is water and in terrestrial plants) -- I think @dw1305 will know if nutrient motion from roots to shoots in aquatic plants requires energy or not. I'd be shocked if it was entirely free, but not sure. If the plant wants more roots, it will have to build the tissue though and I think that's where 2) comes in.

4) So you increase PO4, pull off the urea, rest is kind of the same. Small frequent water changes. Light dim. Not sure we need to dim the light. Small frequent water changes means you are constantly resetting the balance to facilitate consistent nutrient acquisition --> gives plants time to adapt to stability. Less urea = less demand on nitrate (which we explain above how we can get it from roots or leaves) and also bacteria (which we explain above) sending the system out foi whack.

So the fix entailed
1) more energy potential (or root dev. to facilitate substrate acquisition) via PO4 +
2) less demand on systemic N via less urea +
3) more WC keeping it in the same "state" to allow predictable adaptibility for the plant and more cleaning of filtration for distribution/less ammonia strain and oxygen demand from clogging etc and bacterial use +
4) a very minor decrease in light (put it back up let's see what happens) -- *could play into 7) below bringing it back to reducing demand CONTINGENT on the water column giving it what it needs instead of pulling it from substrate* +
5) time for bacteria to grow +
6) less micros ... a potential to make them not the thing that drives the demand via leidbig  and also make the water chemistry "less crazay"
7) You inreased Mg a potential to increase GH -- despite a small increase, your water is so soft that it is relatively large -- this could reduce the amount of nitrogen/phosphate in the column that gets "force fed" into the plant leaves -- reducing the demand on everything * ...

Hope that helps get us thinking. If more comes, I'll post.

I mean all of the fixes helped hone in the demand to achievable amounts ... I think? It seems clearer now: All of my “thinking this would have saved the system”  are actually what you ended up doing whether directly or indirectly.


----------



## John q

Thanks for the reply @JoshP12

Obviously need to read through this post in detail but to quickly answer initial questions.


JoshP12 said:


> I think I get it now (had to look back through the thread). Please correct me.
> 1) Tank was healthy (under EI)
> 2) You dosed this:
> This is what I was dosing when it went Pete tong


Yes all that's correct.


JoshP12 said:


> Looks like gravel with root tabs? Can I assume you have active substrate. And of course, CO2 injection.


I have about 25kg of gravel and added about 2L of cheap clay to it (Tetra ActiveSubstrate). There are some osmocote tabs in the tank, maybe added 4 over the Christmas holidays.
Definitely wouldn't class this as active substrate.
Yes co2 is added.

Edit: main types of algae were bba, plus a bit of gsa.


----------



## JacksonL

JoshP12 said:


> Do none at all. Water in water out. And just watch. All new growth should be algae free. Leave old growth to grow minute algae is ok.


I have noticed similar stunting after water changes, and I use a turkey baster to stir up sediment to vacuum it out. Going to try this approach for the next few weeks.
How does it go long term though, don’t you end up with a build up of sediment?


----------



## JoshP12

John q said:


> Thanks for the reply @JoshP12
> 
> Obviously need to read through this post in detail but to quickly answer initial questions.
> 
> Yes all that's correct.
> 
> I have about 25kg of gravel and added about 2L of cheap clay to it (Tetra ActiveSubstrate). There are some osmocote tabs in the tank, maybe added 4 over the Christmas holidays.
> Definitely wouldn't class this as active substrate.
> Yes co2 is added.
> 
> Edit: main types of algae were bba, plus a bit of gsa.


There you go buddy . 

It's all up there. If there is anything unclear just ask so I can flesh it out (I might have skipped over or misspoke slightly so just ask). 



JacksonL said:


> I have noticed similar stunting after water changes, and I use a turkey baster to stir up sediment to vacuum it out. Going to try this approach for the next few weeks.
> How does it go long term though, don’t you end up with a build up of sediment?


What's wrong with a build up in the sediment? Any exposed dirt should have either carpet or plants and hence roots. Roots will oxygenate the demand on bacterial assemblage that the build up causes and naturally you will have a massive culture of bacteria. At some point, you may want to - you know - give it a little hoover but treat it gently ... you don't want a typhoon disrupt all of life and then have to let life resettle. It is undergoing enough chaos in the micro world as it is, doesn't need you to do that to it as well. 

Now, we are the puppeter. If you do blow it all up, then turn up your CO2 for a day to meet the demand of the excess N you just lifted into the water ... the moment that stuff is in the column, the moment it gets into your plant and at that moment it starts to drive growth and at that moment it needs more CO2 if the reserves can't keep up. This is *increasingly challenging if you do not run CO2 with lights on. If you ramp your CO2, you will now kill all your fish. It is much simpler to run CO2 and lights on the same timer otherwise you cannot respond quick enough to the system. *

The plant doesn't say oh you are going to water change, let me just NOT take in all this ammonia that you lifted. I am going to take it in because I have no choice (because of the nutrient pathways) and I will start to grow because I have no choice because despite what I want, I have to get rid of this N ... or it will build up and become toxic inside of me ... ammonia burn ... and kill me. It doesn't choose. Unless you put a pump right over top of the carefuly and suck absolutely everything up, then any little bit that gets blown around and settled will cause this influx in demand. If people are more meticulous, then they will see less stunting. If you are willy nilly, you will see more stunting. UNLESS you turn up CO2. 

If you have exposed dirt and you aren't planting in it and it is acting as negative space (for aesthetics), then it should be sand. As a result, you need to pick suitable livestock to move that sand OR (if you don't want those fish) you need to change the sand out during monthly maintenance or what have you!


----------



## macek.g

JoshP12 said:


> 3) If you have rich substrate, you need light since - don't remember but can gather - some nutrient movement requires energy so we need to give the plant as much energy as it needs via light. Or you need to feed it in the column and force feed it without the cost of energy. BUT I know that nutrient transport through Xylem does NOT require energy (when there is water and in terrestrial plants) -- I think @dw1305 will know if nutrient motion from roots to shoots in aquatic plants requires energy or not. I'd be shocked if it was entirely free, but not sure. If the plant wants more roots, it will have to build the tissue though and I think that's where 2) comes in.



Potassium is responsible for the flow of nutrients.


----------



## JoshP12

macek.g said:


> Potassium is responsible for the flow of nutrients.


Beauty -- thank you. 

And that is the final piece of the puzzle to support the efficiency of having Potassium and CO2 in the driving seat. And the predictions about what will happen when the substrate is depleted of it. 

Potassium is responsible for regulating photosynthis and nutrient mobility <-- 😍









						Lean dosing pros and cons
					

Seeing a real life magnesium deficiency and then reverting it is a sight to behold. Lol.  definitely, same goes for any deficiency, seeing a deficiency pop up, and resolving it with different dosing is very nice, and makes me feel like i've accomplished something:lol:  So despite my last two...



					www.ukaps.org
				












						Lean dosing pros and cons
					

so you couldn't find the sodium molybdate? everything else looks good.  well, i could. but i could only buy ~500g and that was like 20 pounds.... more than the rest of the salts which im not willing to pay. (NH4)6Mo7O24 should work though right?



					www.ukaps.org
				




Lean dosing pros and cons 

Gonna do some further reading on potassium specifics in the plant but I reckon it is simply used to aid in the motion with concentration gradient. Not entirely sure how it would choose to move it around and the associated energy cost with that -- really don't think it is free free free to make the nutrients move up but it's gotta be cheap.


----------



## JoshP12

@macek.g ... thank you!


Did some reading: Regulation of K+ Nutrition in Plants 

And some others. Cracked open the ol' 





It's pretty clear that potassium does nutrient transport in terrestrial plants. And I really can't imagine that being surrounded by water changes the Xylem/Phloem interactions that much. I can't find something explicitly says "in aquatic plants it does the same thing" but not sure I "need to". 

Not sure if dry-matter analysis of plants is "missing something" ... so despite K<N in dry-weight ... I am not sure if there is a "ghost" potassium somewhere that is not accounted for in dry matter. 

For the record all of you are much better at documenting things than I ... is why I never became a scientist ... pure maths all the way!


----------



## Happi

@plantnoobdude and @John q

Now what you need to do is compare the differences between both of your guys dosing, type of fertilizer used and when and where things went good and bad.

@John q
This bent leaves were possibly caused by too much Nitrogen at once and same thing would occur with sudden water changes as well. I think  @plantnoobdude was seeing something similar.

Your current dosing is no longer a EI dosing, it's only  few inches away from being somewhere in the middle of lean and excess. But I still feel that it could be improved. 

If you compare your results with @plantnoobdude and you will see that his plant growth has improved since he made the changes. One major change he made along with other changes are his Fe/Micro which I already told you that you won't able to accomplish if you were to use csm and the outcome won't be the same. 

My first impression from those pics are that plant appear to lack some colors, weather it's from the lights or something else. On the contrary  @plantnoobdude have rich colors and he is dosing far less Fe and micros. In comparison you need to look at why urea and Micro/ Fe is doing much better for him. He also doesn't even add that much po4 either in comparison.


----------



## John q

Quick reply guys, I've spent much of tonight trying to digest the excellent post by @JoshP12  think it's sinking in (had a few light bulb moments) but need to thrash it out a bit more.

@Happi  comments add more fuel to my current mindset.


JoshP12 said:


> But the plant does need some nitrate and if we force the plant to take too much urea and don't provide the nitrate the plant needs to convert it and spend CO2





Happi said:


> This bent leaves were possibly caused by too much Nitrogen





Happi said:


> Now what you need to do is compare the differences between both of your guys dosing



The biggest difference between my tank and @plantnoobdude  is fish load. I have a large fish load, lots of nh4,  by contrast plantnoobs tank is lightly stocked (please correct me if I'm wrong.) So my working theory, and I'd like you guys to thrash this one out ~ makes for good reading ~ Is it possible that I had to much nh4 in the tank, hence stunted growth and eventual algae?

Just throwing that out there, as always I'd welcome any feed back.


----------



## JoshP12

John q said:


> So my working theory, and I'd like you guys to thrash this one out ~ makes for good reading ~ Is it possible that I had to much nh4 in the tank, hence stunted growth and eventual algae?


That’s exactly what happened . You can qualify this with all the details in my post above but yes. Too much ammonia for the tank to handle and correct without intervention!

And I am glad you are enjoying the reading. Like I said, I hope it’s clear and just ask away.

Edit: is important to say you dosed it in the column. That’s the key difference. The nutrient pathway in a leaf in water is different than a root and soil.


----------



## plantnoobdude

John q said:


> The biggest difference between my tank and @plantnoobdude is fish load. I have a large fish load, lots of nh4, by contrast plantnoobs tank is lightly stocked (please correct me if I'm wrong.) So my working theory, and I'd like you guys to thrash this one out ~ makes for good reading ~ Is it possible that I had to much nh4 in the tank, hence stunted growth and eventual algae?


I have soil, that is ~6weeks old. (had it soaking). should be plenty of Nh4 from soil as well. I believe Happi has also dosed Nh4 from ammonium nitrate and had very good results. but perhaps it is different with higher ph. biggest difference is the amount of light I think. I have a chihiros which puts out around 350 par at full power. mine is at 70-80%. I also use much less K even with additional N from soil. 2ppm weekly for K and 1.2ppm for Po4. not exactly lean but still "reduced" from EI dosing. I also use all Urea for N. might experiment with nh4no3 and maybe mgno3. but like I said because we have very different amounts of light, the ppm number is not very relevant, the ratio is though. micros are at 0.1ppm fe as proxy weekly. all plants growing well except macrandra, It is growing well but with lots of side shoots, which indicates it's not completely happy. it'll be hacked back  to stumps at the weekend. I do water changes every two weeks, tds is from 90-130 i think.


----------



## JoshP12

@John q

Other possibility slightly safer would be to have increased K and facilitated the nutrient transfer up from the roots to top up anything. Instead of N and P like I suggested and what you did what ended up working. 

Kinda neat actually. The channels can moderate K better than N and P.

Will it get NO3 from substrate instead of ammonia -> dunno but I am sure it could figure it out with K.


----------



## JacksonL

JoshP12 said:


> There you go buddy .
> 
> It's all up there. If there is anything unclear just ask so I can flesh it out (I might have skipped over or misspoke slightly so just ask).
> 
> 
> What's wrong with a build up in the sediment? Any exposed dirt should have either carpet or plants and hence roots. Roots will oxygenate the demand on bacterial assemblage that the build up causes and naturally you will have a massive culture of bacteria. At some point, you may want to - you know - give it a little hoover but treat it gently ... you don't want a typhoon disrupt all of life and then have to let life resettle. It is undergoing enough chaos in the micro world as it is, doesn't need you to do that to it as well.
> 
> Now, we are the puppeter. If you do blow it all up, then turn up your CO2 for a day to meet the demand of the excess N you just lifted into the water ... the moment that stuff is in the column, the moment it gets into your plant and at that moment it starts to drive growth and at that moment it needs more CO2 if the reserves can't keep up. This is *increasingly challenging if you do not run CO2 with lights on. If you ramp your CO2, you will now kill all your fish. It is much simpler to run CO2 and lights on the same timer otherwise you cannot respond quick enough to the system. *
> 
> The plant doesn't say oh you are going to water change, let me just NOT take in all this ammonia that you lifted. I am going to take it in because I have no choice (because of the nutrient pathways) and I will start to grow because I have no choice because despite what I want, I have to get rid of this N ... or it will build up and become toxic inside of me ... ammonia burn ... and kill me. It doesn't choose. Unless you put a pump right over top of the carefuly and suck absolutely everything up, then any little bit that gets blown around and settled will cause this influx in demand. If people are more meticulous, then they will see less stunting. If you are willy nilly, you will see more stunting. UNLESS you turn up CO2.
> 
> If you have exposed dirt and you aren't planting in it and it is acting as negative space (for aesthetics), then it should be sand. As a result, you need to pick suitable livestock to move that sand OR (if you don't want those fish) you need to change the sand out during monthly maintenance or what have you!


Thanks for the detailed explanation!


----------



## plantnoobdude

would like to also add that urea+nh4 is giving me the fastest plant growth i've ever had.





above is 3 days growth. 
very happy with rotala Indica. used to be super stunted but it;s growing the biggest flat leaves I;ve ever seen! cuba is growing nice and flat leaves. cuphea looking pretty good. some algae but nothing major. staghorn is going out. co2 has been reduced from 4-5 bps to 1~2. tank still looks good and I'll save some money.


----------



## JoshP12

plantnoobdude said:


> would like to also add that urea+nh4 is giving me the fastest plant growth i've ever had.


I think there is a lot more to this. You've made the nutrient acquisition mechanism more efficient ... so it can grow faster. Under EI sometimes we get slow growth and are confused why when we lift to a cleaner column it grows faster. It reveals that there is something that we miss: it's not what goes in, it's what is absorbed. Or we wonder why with low KH we grow faster with less CO2 than high KH. It's not about we put in or what we think we put in .. 

Same goes for our bodies ...


----------



## Hufsa

JoshP12 said:


> Same goes for our bodies ...


_Shoving pizza into my face while reading about optimal feeding of aquatic plants_



😡

..Hello moderator, yes I would like to report a hate crime


----------



## John q

JoshP12 said:


> Other possibility slightly safer would be to have increased K


I'm slightly confused about this one mate, do you mean having more k in the water column would have helped when I was dosing Urea or just in general? Appreciate your input.


----------



## John q

Happi said:


> Your current dosing is no longer a EI dosing, it's only few inches away from being somewhere in the middle of lean and excess. But I still feel that it could be improved.


Yeah I'm sure there are improvements to be made. I'm going on vacation in 5 weeks so going to try and keep some kind of stability in the tank until I return, that's not to say a won't be making minor tweaks to current dosing regime. Will no doubt carry on after the holiday and maybe try a different trace mix that you originally suggested some time back.

Contrary to what I said last night I don't think we can compare my tank to the tank run by @plantnoobdude 
These are 2 entirely different set ups, different systems. I don't have high light, rich aquasoil or difficult plants. I think reading anything into having similar water column dosing isn't practical in this instance. 

@plantnoobdude  looking good, dosing strategy is clearly working from that picture 👍


----------



## plantnoobdude

JoshP12 said:


> I think there is a lot more to this. You've made the nutrient acquisition mechanism more efficient ... so it can grow faster. Under EI sometimes we get slow growth and are confused why when we lift to a cleaner column it grows faster. It reveals that there is something that we miss: it's not what goes in, it's what is absorbed. Or we wonder why with low KH we grow faster with less CO2 than high KH. It's not about we put in or what we think we put in ..
> 
> Same goes for our bodies ...


from what I can understand, urea/nh4 skip biological pathways which are costly in terms of energy? also root absorption seems to be much better regulated than leaf. roots can be exposed to several thousand ppms of nutrients but plant can grow just fine, anywhere near similar ppms in collumn? massive stunting. this is something I've observed from many tanks across forums. diana walstads tanks certainly support this, as they have super rich substrate but good growth.


----------



## JoshP12

John q said:


> I'm slightly confused about this one mate, do you mean having more k in the water column would have helped when I was dosing Urea or just in general? Appreciate your input.



Something wasn't attainable by the plant. It has to come from column or soil. If we put more K in column and give buffet, then plant can take it and possibly support a greater amount of nutrient motion from root system to leaves/new tissue etc ... potentially increasing the potential that the plant could "top up" whatever it is missing from a potentially "nutrient-rich" substrate. K channel is also one that the plant can moderate unlike N and P channels. <-- it was this one from Darrel: (PDF) Ion Transport in Aquatic Plants

Give K, let the plant pick what it needs from the roots, then with K in excess it can push all those nutrients it needs to where it needs them.

Since the urea dosage was the most likely culprit to skewing the balance, to bring the tank back to balance would require:
1) either you to dose it in column
2) the plant to get what it needs from roots

Since you didn't have a conversation with the plant, it is hard to do 1) with perfection ... so aim for 2! or do what you did .. get pretty close to 1).



plantnoobdude said:


> from what I can understand, urea/nh4 skip biological pathways which are costly in terms of energy?


This I do not know -- never thought about it as skipping biological pathways. It should take the ammonia and send it to where it needs to go and then do stuff with it. So I think the urea provides the CO2 that it also needs instead of providing a bypass. Instead of hiring a technician and an accountant for your business (dosing NO3 and injecting CO2), you hire an technician who is also a qualified accountant ... but you pay them slightly more and offer more vacation. We never skimped out on the requirement for the "task to be done" ... but we bypassed having to do it with two people by hiring a qualified person ... but the qualified person is a bit more needy (ammonia that comes with CO2 ... that could kill the plant <-- eluded to in the next sentence). 

Always thinking of as "easier to get to the plant" ... so urea is easier to travel in water than CO2 gas ... it will be absorbed into the plant more easily than co2 ... and provide co2 and nitrogen via urease enzyme (in the plant).

It's like crypt's and val's using carbonates that are just floating in the tank ... except urea is like a liquid carbon or a gluteraldhyde type thing ... BUT it has ammonia as a byproduct so you can' t have too much of a good thing or well ... @John q  ... sorry but figured you could handle it .


plantnoobdude said:


> also root absorption seems to be much better regulated than leaf. roots can be exposed to several thousand ppms of nutrients but plant can grow just fine, anywhere near similar ppms in collumn? massive stunting. this is something I've observed from many tanks across forums. diana walstads tanks certainly support this, as they have super rich substrate but good growth.


Yes and I think this lends itself to my comment above with K. Roots are the master nutrient gather. Leaves are not as good. Why don't roots burn in aquasoil ... but bury a leaf in ADA amazonia and it dies.

Bang on with this one.

These are nice words -- "much better regulated" -- instead of my "automonous". I like that. Has more biological stuff to buffer the nasty affects of physics/chemistry in a vacuum (or a water column without a colony of bacteria to help ... or fight for their life!)


----------



## JoshP12

Well ... all this potassium talk got me potassium crazy.



John q said:


> I'm slightly confused about this one mate, do you mean having more k in the water column would have helped when I was dosing Urea or just in general? Appreciate your input.



To illustrate what I am suggesting about potassium above I'll share what I did today.

Here is the tank now:





LOL

There is no potassium deficiency here:





I haven't changed the water since the last time I said that I haven't changed the water. Forgot when that was. Daily dose of course NPK back to targets + Micro.

The other day I fed 5x Brine shrimp frozen and 5x blood worm frozen + my daughter dropped about 35 algae pellet mini's in ... fish got really fat.

My params:


<--- at "all times" <-- at 100% water change. If changed less, then scaled it. so 20% water change means 20% dosing solution back in to refresh those targets. The pretty pictures from before run the same. KH ~1 ... pH ~ 6.4 with co2 (pH probably very low now since I converted to black water earlier and KH is probably zero) ... Temp 27 during day 24 at night fluctuate -- 15 hour photoperiod lights on max 4x AI Prime. NOW I have 4 hour ramp up and 4 hour ramp down ... before I did 12 hour with 10 minute ramp up and 10 minute ramp down ... just because system won't let me just turn them on (and is kind to fish). And did not fluctuate temp when injecting CO2 ... though would be fine ... will go back and try it in a few months.

and


 <--- from CSM Plantex super concentrated solution daily for sure.

TDS out of tap (so all that junk + the minerals) ~ 80-90 ... around 120 after I dosed.

TDS didn't change until I started doing crazy things with feeding and for about a month TD remain 120 (the no WC was on purpose ... I was at daily 20's before and the tankl never crashed for months even with excessive feeding) ... then it began to creep.

And to be honest, it began to creep very slow then faster and faster and faster! It hit 190 and I said gotta save this thing.

So ... the point ... all this potassium talk reminded me that my baby dosage of 10% a day of those targets probably can't keep up with N and P from my excessively stupid feasting (though fish look absolutely beautiful -- the ones I can see). Micros don't even matter --> they are there and in substrate (its almost a foot deep LOL).

So I dumped 10ppm K in (you know just a little don't be too crazy) ... TDS skyrocket 210 ish ... end of photoperiod I check again ... down to 180. Still no deficiency ... It can use atmospheric co2 to compensate for any ammonia that may have been converted by bacteria to Nitrate and probably sitting in the column (so my fish would give the ammonia neccesary to combat the nitrate requirement but even if they didn't, there is so much CO2 from atmospheric aerial advantage that they can just waste it to make ammonia from nitrate).

So I dump 20 ppm in this eve ... probably going to drop to 170 ish tomorrow ... hopefully over the next week or two, I can cleanse my excessive feeding and bring things back to normal to keep up with the decay.

This may not be an example of potassium allowing stuff from roots ... it could be masked as simply leidbig and then everything adapting ... but I think it illustrates a few other things as well.

josh


----------



## Happi

@John q

We are not comparing your tank vs his or his substrate vs yours. We are primarily comparing the water column dosing. His old soil was exhausted while he was using the dosing and only recently switched to new soil. Keep in mind he was already dosing excessive nutrients on the old soil and there was not much improvement untill he started using the new dosing which is far different in every aspect and also much leaner compared to previous one.

Far as NO3 goes, it's almost always present in our aquarium depending on Anoxic condition. Urea and NH4 is more readily available to the plants compared to the NO3, it's actually NO3 that needs to be converted back into NH4 for the plant to utilize it.

Your fish load should provide plenty of NH4 and NO3, but having too much filtration and media will reduce the NH4 significantly, especially if your test kits are reading decent amount of NO3 constantly.

Far as potassium goes, you can dose either ADA style or Tropica style and you will find a wide gap between the two and weather you add 5, 10 or 30 ppm K, it will certainly grow plant. Like I said before, I personally believe Tropica approach to be more accurate far as growing aquatic plant. If you are still having issue while you are dosing between 5-10 ppm K weekly then your limiting factor is not K.

K is better utilized from the water than the soil, while P is better utilized by roots. NH4 is also better utilized by leaves while NO3 better utilized by roots.


----------



## plantnoobdude

would also like to add a couple thoughts I had yesterday night right before I went to sleep LOL.

the reason I think people that see the need to dose so much K is because as above K is responsible for flow of nutrients. If using a highly effective N source such as Nh3 then the plant will probably not need much energy to move it through the plant. Nh4 in gas form also diffuses freely accross cell membranes. less K needed. if you are using predominantly No3, then it will be costly to move through the plant, more K needed. which I believe could explain why some people can dose 20ppm plus K and see issues when they start to lower it. Just some thoughts, please correct me if I'm wayyy out of line.


----------



## erwin123

JoshP12 said:


> Well ... all this potassium talk got me potassium crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> To illustrate what I am suggesting about potassium above I'll share what I did today.
> 
> Here is the tank now:
> View attachment 183400


As it appears that the plants in your tank have converted to emersed growth, almost like a hydroponics/aquaponics setup (I see a lot of roots growing below the waterline - suggesting that the submersed leaves have been discarded by the plant in favour of growing these roots), how applicable is this to an aquarium setup where plants are 100% submersed and taking in nutrients via their leaves rather than roots?

I ask because there have been previous comments that fertilisation regimes for hydroponics are not 100% applicable to aquarium setups.


----------



## JoshP12

erwin123 said:


> As it appears that the plants in your tank have converted to emersed growth, almost like a hydroponics/aquaponics setup (I see a lot of roots growing below the waterline - suggesting that the submersed leaves have been discarded by the plant in favour of growing these roots), how applicable is this to an aquarium setup where plants are 100% submersed and taking in nutrients via their leaves rather than roots?
> 
> I ask because there have been previous comments that fertilisation regimes for hydroponics are not 100% applicable to aquarium setups.


Love it!

It’s not! Glad you bring it up as I’d hate for someone to dump that much food in etc and think it will work - my old pretty photos and tank set up never would I be doing that without making sure all the food was eaten etc etc etc. probably wafting my beauties followed by 2x water change back to back resetting the column then booster and ferts back to targets. Micro turn up co2 for the day if I had been dosing leaner N etc. if EI leave it all alone. But I mean that’s just how you keep high tech.

The experience illustrates potassium. And like I said before I haven’t found anything that says “terrestrial is the same for submersed”
But it’s gotta be pretty close. For this particular conversation - not everything

I think ADA system shows the potassium thing pretty well too. I mean there are examples of Dutch scrapers too.

But it doesn’t have to be in the column … can be in soil.

EDIT: read it again --> aquarium plants always take in nutrients via leaves and roots ... it's just that the roots in my tank (some) are surrounded by water without soil (aerial roots) and in an aquarium, you have a soil + rhizosphere to aid in nutrient transport. The roots you see in the water are likely a means to an end, they want to get to the soil and anchor/nutrients.


----------



## JoshP12

plantnoobdude said:


> would also like to add a couple thoughts I had yesterday night right before I went to sleep LOL.
> 
> the reason I think people that see the need to dose so much K is because as above K is responsible for flow of nutrients. If using a highly effective N source such as Nh3 then the plant will probably not need much energy to move it through the plant. Nh4 in gas form also diffuses freely accross cell membranes. less K needed. if you are using predominantly No3, then it will be costly to move through the plant, more K needed. which I believe could explain why some people can dose 20ppm plus K and see issues when they start to lower it. Just some thoughts, please correct me if I'm wayyy out of line.


Lots of details in between all that that we can probably flesh out but I think that intuition is growing (mine is). Ammonium won't be a gas in the aquarium for example and we can get K from soil so we don't need to dose it neccesarily all the time or at all for a long time.  The cost influences CO2 demand always - that's the energy piece.


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> would also like to add a couple thoughts I had yesterday night right before I went to sleep LOL.
> 
> the reason I think people that see the need to dose so much K is because as above K is responsible for flow of nutrients. If using a highly effective N source such as Nh3 then the plant will probably not need much energy to move it through the plant. Nh4 in gas form also diffuses freely accross cell membranes. less K needed. if you are using predominantly No3, then it will be costly to move through the plant, more K needed. which I believe could explain why some people can dose 20ppm plus K and see issues when they start to lower it. Just some thoughts, please correct me if I'm wayyy out of line.


ammonia is a dissolved gas, ammonium is an ion, NH4 is not a gas.  far as Potassium goes, it regulates the opening and closing of stomata thus regulating the uptake of CO2 thus enhancing photosynthesis but this doesn't mean you need to add 30 ppm K to achieve this. all the nutrients play major role in plant growth, while NPK being the major one. 

another good example is we add Mg because it enhance the uptake of Iron, but do we need to add 8 ppm Mg to achieve this? NO. the Mg uptake is far less than 8 ppm, probably less than 0.5 ppm weekly.


----------



## eminor

i had a big diatoms bloom, i increased fertilizer it disappeared but i think co2 might be the issue, bubble rate was inconsistant

i actually try high K and everything else kind of low :

NO3 : 2.5ppm
K : 25 ppm
PO4 : 0.25 ppm
Fe : 0.06 ppm

i have low temp (22°c) and only 6hr of light just for safe room


----------



## John q

Just to remind folkes that dosing ammonium/urea/ammonia isn't  a gift sent from heaven. It as its advantages but also has drawbacks.
Hygrophila  difformis grown under urea dosing.







Sometimes the "one size fits all" fails miserably.


----------



## Happi

@John q
most people grow Hygrophila under seachem Nitrogen which contain Urea/Nitrate. I doubt this issues is solely related to Urea. these plant are actually quite easy to grow, people here in Utah grow them in our hard tap water only using Iron/Traces and K.  the other culprit I could think of is too much urea added at once which could possibly burn the plants which I already mentioned in one of my previous post, but this is likely to occur with higher PH with Ammonia. also, not sure what is your NO3 levels in the tank? I suggest testing the water and see if its reading higher amount of NO3.

but I can for certain tell you that these plant should grow just fine with urea. I have grown them before without any issue.


----------



## Happi

@John q
take a look at  Post# 56 for reference to understand what's possibly happening:
Dosing with Ammonia and Urea


----------



## John q

Happi said:


> but I can for certain tell you that these plant should grow just fine with urea. I have grown them before without any issue.


Thanks Happi. 

The reason for me making post #391 was based on a cautionary approach. This thread gets a lot of views and felt it appropriate to let other people know that dosing Urea isn't some kind of magic bullet. 
I agree it can be made to work, and work well, there's lots of evidence in this thread that supports this but it needs to be managed, its not simply a case of throwing some in the tank and reaping the rewards. 

Will try and get back to you regards nitrate levels later on. 

Cheers.


----------



## erwin123

John q said:


> Thanks Happi.
> 
> The reason for me making post #391 was based on a cautionary approach. This thread gets a lot of views and felt it appropriate to let other people know that dosing Urea isn't some kind of magic bullet.
> I agree it can be made to work, and work well, there's lots of evidence in this thread that supports this but it needs to be managed, its not simply a case of throwing some in the tank and reaping the rewards.
> 
> Will try and get back to you regards nitrate levels later on.
> 
> Cheers.


there does seem to be a 'difference' when one uses Ammoniacal-Nitrogen as the N source for plants, and while there have been a lot of experimenting about Urea direct to water column, we should maybe from time to time remind new readers that another method of lean dosing is osmocote into the substrate, which is the "Rotala Kill Tank" technique.

so far, Osmocote (I'm using Plantacote and Starxcote which are Osmocote clones) into substrate has allowed me to reduce my daily water column dosing from 2.5ml/day APT EI (mfg recommended dose) to 0.9ml/day and plants are all fine (and in the case of A. Pedicatella, some stems even appear to be unstunting).


----------



## Wookii

John q said:


> Thanks Happi.
> 
> The reason for me making post #391 was based on a cautionary approach. This thread gets a lot of views and felt it appropriate to let other people know that dosing Urea isn't some kind of magic bullet.
> I agree it can be made to work, and work well, there's lots of evidence in this thread that supports this but it needs to be managed, its not simply a case of throwing some in the tank and reaping the rewards.
> 
> Will try and get back to you regards nitrate levels later on.
> 
> Cheers.



Though I have nothing I can really contribute, I’ve been following this thread with interest. 

In terms of a cautionary instruction for any causal reader, it might also be worth you guys clarifying what you think is the safe maximum dose of ammonia/urea based ferts in terms of live stock exposure?


----------



## John q

Wookii said:


> In terms of a cautionary instruction for any causal reader, it might also be worth you guys clarifying what you think is the safe maximum dose of ammonia/urea based ferts in terms of live stock exposure?


Good question and one I don't have the answer to.

For me I chose to keep my Urea dosing levels fairly low at 0.1ppm N per day. I considered this to be a safe level for the live stock, or at least this was the maximum level I felt comfortable dosing. (For reference Tropica Specialised 6ml per 50l dose would add 0.23ppm N per day if split over 7 days.)

It should also be mentioned that my ph is generally below 7, this is something else that should be pointed out to anyone considering using ammonium/urea based ferts.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Wookii said:


> In terms of a cautionary instruction for any causal reader, it might also be worth you guys clarifying what you think is the safe maximum dose of ammonia/urea based ferts in terms of live stock exposure?


That is a really interesting question, but there are a number of variables which mean that there isn't a definitive answer.  I've always been <"a plant person">, so you need an animal physiologist for a more definitive answer.

*Ammonia (NH3) / TAN (NH3 / NH4+)*
The problem with TAN is the interaction between pH and temperature which changes the <"proportions of NH3 and NH4+">.  The level of oxygenation is also relevant.  The best we can probably do is to say long term exposure to 0.25 ppm (mg/ L) of ammonia (NH3) is likely to cause <"sub-lethal effects">* in most fish, and levels greater than 0.5ppm are likely to cause rapid death.

*Urea (CO(NH2)2)*
The ammonia bits still apply, but you now have the extra level of uncertainty in that TAN is only produced when the urea is catalysed by the urease enzyme, present in plants and some micro-organisms. I'm guessing that in a planted tank urea is a lot safer (possibly by an order of magnitude or more), but that would be a guess.  @Happi or @Zeus. may be able to supply an answer with some real figures.

* Eddy, F.B., (2005). "Ammonia in estuaries and effects on fish". _Journal of Fish Biology_, *67*(6), pp.1495 - 1513.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Hufsa

I think safety of urea dosing could also depend on the plantmass in the tank.. If there are an army of plants to mop it up as soon as it is converted, vs maybe a lightly planted tank with mostly slow growing plants, the difficult to pin down "safe" amount will maybe differ.
I encourage everyone to exercise caution if trying this method, for the safety of their livestock  
Not to derail the thread, I am intending to try gradually going from KNO3 to parts Urea myself in a little while, so I am following the updates posted here with great interest  Keep it coming guys


----------



## John q

Happi said:


> I suggest testing the water and see if its reading higher amount of NO3.


So.... I've had the trusty api test kit out. 🥴

Readings show 20ppm, that's my best guess with the colour chart. Today is water change day, which hasn't been done yet.

When I used to frequently test some time ago I would consistently get week end results of 5~10ppm in the tank, back then I wasn't adding any KNO3 and did 30% weekly water changes. My best guess at that time was the fish produced somewhere between 5 and 10ppm of nitrate weekly. Tap water report shows <2ppm. I'm currently adding 9ppm so imagine the results aren't a million miles out.


----------



## JacksonL

Hufsa said:


> I think safety of urea dosing could also depend on the plantmass in the tank.. If there are an army of plants to mop it up as soon as it is converted, vs maybe a lightly planted tank with mostly slow growing plants, the difficult to pin down "safe" amount will maybe differ.
> I encourage everyone to exercise caution if trying this method, for the safety of their livestock
> Not to derail the thread, I am intending to try gradually going from KNO3 to parts Urea myself in a little while, so I am following the updates posted here with great interest  Keep it coming guys


I am currently doing the same in my two tanks. I have been dosing 10ppm NO3 and I am now dosing 25% of that with Urea. It’s only been a week now but not ill effects on invertebrates or shrimp. 
Can’t see any change yet in the jungle scape tank but the MC growth in my iwagumi shrimp scape has definitely gone up a gear and the new growth seems brighter green.
Still very early days but seems positive so far.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Wookii said:


> In terms of a cautionary instruction for any causal reader, it might also be worth you guys clarifying what you think is the safe maximum dose of ammonia/urea based ferts in terms of live stock exposure?


with low ph there isn't really a limit . ammonium is fairly non-toxic to fish. I think Urea is safer than Nh4, because it degrades where as nh4 is immediately available. I have dosed up to 3ppm N from urea weekly, (~6ppm urea weekly). but my tank has 0kh and good substrate so ph should be quite low.


----------



## Happi

Dear members, 
first of all my goal isn't about providing the magic recipe with Urea to solve all your problem, I can also understand the fear of toxicity that comes to people mind. Urea is many times safer than NH4 which I already covered in several threads, I have gone more than 1 ppm N from Urea to see if it would have any negative effect on the fish, didn't see any and bumped up to even higher doses 3 ppm N from urea in single dose, nothing happened again. but I notice that NO3 reading were going up when more was added, I also noticed that Urea conversion to NH4 doesn't take place immediately, I believe I have explained this in one of the thread. if you were adding 1 ppm N from Urea, your test kit might only detect very little NH4, around 0.2 ppm NH4 or so, the very next day it will detect 0.4 ppm or so, the breakdown of urea to NH4 is very slow and even if you were to add 1 ppm N from Urea in single dose, it will take hours or day before all of it is converted into NH4 and by then your plant will uptake most of the NH4. think of Urea as a slow release source of NH4 vs lets say if you were to use NH4NO3, which if you added 1 ppm N from NH4NO3, you will see a huge jump in NH4 immediately. I myself consider NH4NO3 to be safe even if it were to exceed 1 ppm NH4 but again I can pull this trigger because my PH is between 5-6 and KH is almost 0. 

I cannot give you definite answer on what dose is 100% safe because it will depend on your water parameters but I can Ensure you that you Urea is very safe. I have gone up in the range of 9+ ppm NH4 in the water and didn't see any negative effect on fish but I wouldn't recommend this as a daily routine. for standard users 0.1 to 1 ppm N from Urea is fine and safer, even those with higher PH can dose 0.1 ppm N from Urea daily. 

I used James example for Urea because he also demonstrated that when NO3 is high, the benefit of NH4/Urea is reduced. many sources confirm this:
DRAK - Eudrakon N
I have also observed the same, if the ratio of NH4 to NO3 start to shift toward NO3, I observed stunting of several plants, the only time this stunting was reduced if your tank have Anoxic condition which will reduce the NO3 levels. most people have their filter setup to convert NH4 to NO3 where NO3 builds up over time. there are tons of articles and videos on this topic and google is your friend if anyone want to look it up. some people claim that they added so much NO3 in their water and their test kits detect 0 after few days, I think they are unaware that they might have Anoxic condition in their aquariums, but they are under the impression that plant are up taking all of that Nitrate. when there are no Anoxic condition, the aquarium will always preset 5-10 ppm NO3 constantly even when fully planted, 5 ppm NO3 reading being very common under such scenario.


----------



## plantnoobdude

JacksonL said:


> I am currently doing the same in my two tanks. I have been dosing 10ppm NO3 and I am now dosing 25% of that with Urea. It’s only been a week now but not ill effects on invertebrates or shrimp.
> Can’t see any change yet in the jungle scape tank but the MC growth in my iwagumi shrimp scape has definitely gone up a gear and the new growth seems brighter green.
> Still very early days but seems positive so far.


would love to see some pics of the tanks! and previous dosing regime,


----------



## JacksonL

plantnoobdude said:


> would love to see some pics of the tanks! and previous dosing regime,









Both were classic EI dosed previously. 
Current dosing per week on both tanks is:
N 10 (using IFC calculator so I believe that is actually NO3?) with a ratio of 3:1 NO3 to urea. So about 0.36ppm of urea per day according to the calculator.
P 1.5
K 5 ( I use potassium carbonate to remineralise RO so it’s considerable higher in reality as the weekly 55% water change water has 30ppm K)
Fe 0.4 (0.2 from CSM+B and 0.2 from DTPA Fe)
Also dosing 0.001 Ni in addition to the CSM+B trace.

Both tanks use RO remineralised to 2dkh and 5dgh (roughly 6ppm Mg and 28ppm Ca)


----------



## plantnoobdude

with high light, do we NEED high co2? the answer is no.
take a look at this thread








						sudiorca's non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank
					

I have been posting about my 20 gal non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank on various planted tanks related groups of Facebook for almost 2 years now. I was asked by @Greggz several months ago to start my own thread but I was too lazy to do that. Finally I have decided to do so as several people...




					www.plantedtank.net
				



they put  a lot of importance into the temperature, but I think good substrate and high quality fertiliser plays a big part as well. with urea and nh4. I believe Happi helped with the development of nilocg but dont quote me on that! also, dont miss out the fact that he uses root tabs that contain ammonia every month or so.


----------



## plantnoobdude

JacksonL said:


> View attachment 183702
> 
> Both were classic EI dosed previously.
> Current dosing per week on both tanks is:
> N 10 (using IFC calculator so I believe that is actually NO3?) with a ratio of 3:1 NO3 to urea. So about 0.36ppm of urea per day according to the calculator.
> P 1.5
> K 5 ( I use potassium carbonate to remineralise RO so it’s considerable higher in reality as the weekly 55% water change water has 30ppm K)
> Fe 0.4 (0.2 from CSM+B and 0.2 from DTPA Fe)
> Also dosing 0.001 Ni in addition to the CSM+B trace.
> 
> Both tanks use RO remineralised to 2dkh and 5dgh (roughly 6ppm Mg and 28ppm Ca)


I believe I see some stunting in rotala species in the back, which are lythraceae so not surprising. have you tried other fertiisers with this plant? has the plant always shown such growth?
N is part of No3, to avoid confusion always try to use the correct form, 
N should be No3, and P should probably be po4. it is better to use no3 equivalent and po4 equivalent IMO, because that's what most people are familiar with.
both tanks are looking very nice with a very cute assortment of fish!


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> with high light, do we NEED high co2? the answer is no.
> take a look at this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sudiorca's non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank
> 
> 
> I have been posting about my 20 gal non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank on various planted tanks related groups of Facebook for almost 2 years now. I was asked by @Greggz several months ago to start my own thread but I was too lazy to do that. Finally I have decided to do so as several people...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.plantedtank.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they put  a lot of importance into the temperature, but I think good substrate and high quality fertiliser plays a big part as well. with urea and nh4. I believe Happi helped with the development of nilocg but dont quote me on that! also, dont miss out the fact that he uses root tabs that contain ammonia every month or so.


I just want to clarify that I didn't help Nilocg with everything but I did help him with understanding how to DIY several things once I gained more knowledge  and shared my knowledge, recipes and whatever experiments I was doing at that time with him, that was back in 2014 very long time ago. I did help him with his GH booster product

need help breaking this down


anyway the thread you linked, that guys seems to figured out things and is on the right path. I haven't read the whole thread yet but from quick glance, it appear as he is using high lights, lean dosing and very little co2.


----------



## Happi

@JacksonL

please try to be more clear weather you are using P or PO4, N or NO3 when you put that in calculator to calculate for KH2PO4 and KNO3, 1 ppm P would be 3 ppm PO4 and 1 ppm N would be 4.42 NO3.

same apply to Urea 0.36 ppm N as Urea or 0.36 ppm Urea? if calculated as N from Urea at 0.36 ppm, this will add 0.77 ppm Urea.


----------



## eminor

is it possible to get red plant using low light, co2 and lean dosing, nitrogen limitation work with low light ?


----------



## JacksonL

Happi said:


> @JacksonL
> 
> please try to be more clear weather you are using P or PO4, N or NO3 when you put that in calculator to calculate for KH2PO4 and KNO3, 1 ppm P would be 3 ppm PO4 and 1 ppm N would be 4.42 NO3.
> 
> same apply to Urea 0.36 ppm N as Urea or 0.36 ppm Urea? if calculated as N from Urea at 0.36 ppm, this will add 0.77 ppm Urea.


It is 2.26ppm N per week (10ppm NO3)
1.68ppm of that is from NO3, 0.56ppm from urea.
The 1.5ppm is PO4 so 0.49ppm of P.
I make new ferts every 2 weeks, my plan is to reduce the NO3 in the next lot and observe. The occasional stunting in the rotalas in the jungle tank is the main reason I am trying to go leaner.


----------



## erwin123

eminor said:


> is it possible to get red plant using low light, co2 and lean dosing, nitrogen limitation work with low light ?


not possible to answer this question without the plant names.  But based on your journal,  u have C. Furcata,  M. Tuberculatum, R. Wallichii, and P. Palustris. These plants don't turn red (or pink in the case of Wallichii) in low light.

Your R.Macrandra Green should also be turning a beautiful golden yellow like the one's in Libba's journal with sufficient light.


----------



## eminor

erwin123 said:


> not possible to answer this question without the plant names.  But based on your journal,  u have C. Furcata,  M. Tuberculatum, R. Wallichii, and P. Palustris. These plants don't turn red (or pink in the case of Wallichii) in low light.
> 
> Your R.Macrandra Green should also be turning a beautiful golden yellow like the one's in Libba's journal with sufficient light.


thx, is there a list of plant that turn red in nitrogen stravation ? thx


----------



## erwin123

eminor said:


> thx, is there a list of plant that turn red in nitrogen stravation ? thx


The Rotala H'ra in your tank will only turn a beautiful red when nitrate limited. Otherwise it will be orange/pink.   Is yours orange/pink or still green?


----------



## eminor

erwin123 said:


> The Rotala H'ra in your tank will only turn a beautiful red when nitrate limited. Otherwise it will be orange/pink.   Is yours orange/pink or still green?


pink now


----------



## Zeus.

dw1305 said:


> @Happi or @Zeus. may be able to supply an answer with some real figures.


Sorry been away/busy a few days. I stared using Urea prills at about 20% of the TSN dose with KNO3 at 80%. then slowly increased them to 100%. I had no issues but it was a well planted mature  tank.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Zeus. said:


> Sorry been away/busy a few days. I stared using Urea prills at about 20% of the TSN dose with KNO3 at 80%. then slowly increased them to 100%. I had no issues but it was a well planted mature  tank.
> View attachment 183833


any improvement with plant growth? specifically lythraceae? what does the rest of nutrients look like in comparison? I think it is  a very good thing that more people are experimenting with "alternative" dosing.


----------



## Zeus.

plantnoobdude said:


> any improvement with plant growth? specifically lythraceae? what does the rest of nutrients look like in comparison?


Plant growth was much the same, no lythraceae in tanks, as to what it looked like it was just a close clone of TSN just a bit more dilute and it took the colour on of TSN - the trace elements was slight different as I used APFUK Trace 



Only other difference is it was dosed in 100 small doses a week via auto doser - little and often to prevent any nitrite spike


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> with high light, do we NEED high co2? the answer is no.
> take a look at this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sudiorca's non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank
> 
> 
> I have been posting about my 20 gal non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank on various planted tanks related groups of Facebook for almost 2 years now. I was asked by @Greggz several months ago to start my own thread but I was too lazy to do that. Finally I have decided to do so as several people...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.plantedtank.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they put  a lot of importance into the temperature, but I think good substrate and high quality fertiliser plays a big part as well. with urea and nh4. I believe Happi helped with the development of nilocg but dont quote me on that! also, dont miss out the fact that he uses root tabs that contain ammonia every month or so.


That is pretty amazing for a non-injected tank!! Most would be very proud to achieve this with a high-tech tank!    Some of the more interesting tidbits I picked up:  Keep KH very low (0-1 range),  pH low (below 6) and temperature low  in order to optimize the available dissolved CO2.  Plant very dense from the get go... and judging from the pictures it also seems to me that he gradually increased the light levels as the tank grew in..  I think his emphasis on low temperature _might _somewhat counter the high light a bit in terms of regulating plant metabolism. He is not speaking to his photo period or if the intensity stay high throughout (I assume, but do not know)...  His fertilizer scheme ( including substrate) is undoubtedly a big piece of the puzzle as well.  While I am not going to go crank up my light intensity just yet (or recommend anyone running a low-tech tank doing so..), it's great to see that something like this can be pulled off and just goes to show that we still have a lot to learn and there are still _many roads that lead to Rome.   _


Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Garuf

This is why I came back to forums, I’m so glad we have such helpful, educated and educational members to bring us no brains up.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


MichaelJ said:


> it's great to see that something like this can be pulled off and just goes to show that we still have a lot to learn and there are still _many roads that lead to Rome. _


My guess is that there are a series of <"sweet spots"> on the light ~ CO2 ~ nutrient continuum where you get successful plant growth, and it's the successful plant growth that matters. 

I'd also guess that where those pigeon holes are is going to depend <"on the plants">, how <"plastic their response is to nutrients"> and <"their potential growth rates">.


MichaelJ said:


> Keep KH very low (0-1 range), pH low (below 6) and temperature low in order to optimize the available dissolved CO2.


I think all of those factors might be advantageous, dissolved gases and (most) nutrients <"would be more available">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## plantnoobdude

well, the thread I posted in the last page from plantedtank.net was deleted which is absolutely ridiculous. I am glad that ukaps is a much more open community willing try and accept new ideas. a shame we won't be able to see the thread develop, and respected plantedtank enthusiast greggz with thousands on thousands of comments on the forum was banned.....


----------



## Hufsa

What the heck??  What was wrong with the thread, and banning Greggz of all people? What happened?


----------



## Happi

Let's not focus too much on what happened over there at TPT. Let's try to focus on the main reason why this thread was made. Am trying to bring that guy over here so we can openly discuss about his achievements and hopefully he will share all his knowledge and skills.


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> well, the thread I posted in the last page from plantedtank.net was deleted which is absolutely ridiculous. I am glad that ukaps is a much more open community willing try and accept new ideas. a shame we won't be able to see the thread develop, and respected plantedtank enthusiast greggz with thousands on thousands of comments on the forum was banned.....



I noticed that this morning.  This just seems completely weird to me.  I did not read the thread to the very, very end, so I cant tell if anyone or the OP caused a major controversy / argument etc. that would have called for a removal of the thread.  

A related thread was started that may offer some additional insights.

I was able to siphon the best part of Sudipta's original  post out of my browser cache 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> I was able to siphon the best part of Sudipta's original  post out of my browser cache
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Most people couldn't do so because they delete their history.


----------



## Maf 2500

Link to a google cache of the original post in question (hope this works!):
https://webcache.googleusercontent....-non-co2-supplemented-softwater-tank.1324061/
Looks like there is no cache of the related discussion


----------



## Hufsa

MVP @Maf 2500


----------



## Happi

Maf 2500 said:


> Link to a google cache of the original post in question (hope this works!):
> https://webcache.googleusercontent....-non-co2-supplemented-softwater-tank.1324061/
> Looks like there is no cache of the related discussion


Such a smart guy


----------



## JoshP12

Nice tank.

He’s following all the rules regarding nutrient acquisition.

If Amano didn’t insist on running his tanks at 77f and he would go to 72f, the observances that “ADA doesn’t make hard plants look pretty” would be nill. He also didn’t bother with booster and just used tap water. He was building a system to market - KISS. And he did exactly that.

Notice a few things on the TPT thread:
1) his water is artificial 0KH 6GH <— we’ve been through this
2) rich substrate
3) good, over sized flow
4) high light
5) the fert has almost no N and P … and decent K

Lovely thread so far everyone - love this forum.


----------



## Happi

Remember what we talked about in this thread in the past? You can have high light and little co2 without algae and you can grow nice plants. In that guy case he is doing it even without adding co2. He is only relying on whatever co2 his tank provide him naturally.

Back to our old question:
Can you have high lights with low Co2 and low nutrients ? The answer is YES

If that guy was to add 10-15 ppm co2 on his setup, his plant will grow even better without changing anything else.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> Remember what we talked about in this thread in the past? You can have high light and little co2 without algae and you can grow nice plants. In that guy case he is doing it even without adding co2. He is only relying on whatever co2 his tank provide him naturally.


Hi @Happi I am a believer and I am eager to learn and understand how he accomplish this. I have had planted tanks (I never did CO2)  in the past running them with "high light" and all eventually all turned miserable similar to what we see on a daily basis on this forum from fellow low-tech hobbyists struggling with algae and terrible plant health related to excessive light, lack of proper fertilization and maintenance etc.  - and inconsistencies in general.  I think there are lots of clues in the TPT post, but I think there is more, much more, to this.  And quite honestly, I think there is shift in a lot of peoples thinking about this and what is possible - I mean, being able to accomplishing and keep high-tech  plants at high light in a low-tech tank? Who wouldn't want to be able to do that?!    I know your not rushing in @Happi, but we need a deep drill-down on how to accomplish this.  With further understanding of the situation, I will be happy to volunteer going full bore down that route with one of my tanks which I am contemplating re-doing anyway.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman

Happi said:


> Can you have high lights with low Co2 and low nutrients ? The answer is YES



It's not just high light + low co2 + low nutrient = it works.

The answer is temperature and that is CRITICAL. As temperature rises, solubility decreases, hence more CO2 is required to maintain a saturation level. Drop temperature, CO2 solubility increases. To that  add plant metabolism. Lower temperatures slows down plant metabolism, hence less CO2 requirements. Algae are also slowed down.

Only problem with this approach is that you need to keep that temperature fairly low and constant throughout the year. Unless you have a chiller or live somewhere where temperature is low and constant throughout the year, then forget it. It won't work. As soon as temperature rises, CO2 will be depleted much faster, plant will bump the rate at which they metabolize etc etc... we know the song.

This is something I see year after year here in Thailand. When peak summer arrives I need to increase my CO2 level. If I don't, I see plants not behaving right, more algae, cyano bacteria appearing etc. I don't have a chiller and don't want one but I know that's the missing link to my tank stability. Chillers are expensive, consume loads of electricity and blow hot air. Not something for the indors unless you have proper ventilation. In Thailand most people simply leave their airconditionning on anyways. 🙂


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> It's not just high light + low co2 + low nutrient = it works.
> 
> The answer is temperature and that is CRITICAL. As temperature rises, solubility decreases, hence more CO2 is required to maintain a saturation level. Drop temperature, CO2 solubility increases. To that  add plant metabolism. Lower temperatures slows down plant metabolism, hence less CO2 requirements. Algae are also slowed down.



I very much agree @Hanuman as pointed out. The big question is of course, what temperature range is ideal? will this also work at say 74F/23C? (I would think so...)The TPT poster mentioned 70 F (21 C) during the winter where he notice optimal plant health. 21C is on the very low end for a lot of livestock so that is obviously problematic unless your doing plants-only. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123

MichaelJ said:


> The big question is of course, what temperature range is ideal?











						Best Temperature?
					

Above: In cooler waters ( 22 to 26 C / 72 to 79 F ) Bucephalandra grow markedly better and mosses display richer, greener tones. Above 29 degrees Celsius / 84 F, most aquatic mosses tend to be more yellowish and melt more easily.Temperature plays a powerful, silent role in planted...




					www.2hraquarist.com
				




I read somewhere that Green Aqua keeps their tanks at 22 degrees.


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> I very much agree @Hanuman as pointed out. The big question is of course, what temperature range is ideal? will this also work at say 74F/23C? (I would think so...)The TPT poster mentioned 70 F (21 C) during the winter where he notice optimal plant health. 21C is on the very low end for a lot of livestock so that is obviously problematic unless your doing plants-only.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I would guess that would depend on plants. I think @dw1305 could answer that question better. I think anywhere between 20C and 25C is a good range.  And yes the other issue which I omitted was livestock. I didn't want to mention it because we were specifically talking about plants but if you have tropical fish some will not like such low temperatures (21C) all year round.

Thinking about chillers again, a fellow aquascaper gave me one last year as he switched to other hobbys. Well I sold the chiller. In any case, my tank temps here hoovers between 27-29C. I know that is the major problem but, I live with it.


----------



## Happi

What am trying to say is that even with colder water the gasses are more soluble but we keep on forgetting that the tank is running without the additional co2, only whatever is present naturally which won't be more than 10 ppm my best guess. So it is obviously clear that high light doesn't require high co2 or high nutrients and the tank is clear. The old advice would have been high light, add more co2 and more nutrients but that is not the case here. Not sure if I could explain it better than that.

Am on the same page as those guys, the only major difference is that my co2 is still running 15-20 ppm and the temperature is 76-78. I can probably drop it down to 72, but am not sure plant like Tonina would enjoy that.

And ofcource let's wait till we can dig deeper into it so we can all be more successful, we fairly understand what might be happening but let's explore it together to further understand it.


----------



## Hanuman

Happi said:


> So it is obviously clear that high light doesn't require high co2 or high nutrients and the tank is clear. The old advice would have been high light, add more co2 and more nutrients but that is not the case here. Not sure if I could explain it better than that.


And what I a trying to say is that both advices are crooked if you don't factor/mention temperature as being a critical factor, which it is. For instance in your example, increase that temperature to 26 or above and the consequences will be dire if you keep that higher light + low fert + no CO2 regime. Also what exactly does high light mean here? So far to me that's pretty vague and highly subjective. It's like CO2 readings on a drop checker. A PAR value at substrate level for reference would probably be more informative and a good starting point. I don't know where you guys live, but here in Thailand and in my specific case, my tanks temps are year round around 27/30C. They never go below that. I don't have the sub 25C optimal temps so I am limited to increasing CO2 or decreasing light else things don't work. So to me that approach of low/no CO2+high light etc is not shocking to me as long as you can control all these variables year round.

Also, and this is very important in my opinion. I am always very worry/critical on peoples journals and what they decide to share. For two simple reasons.
1. Bias. No one is free from it and we don't know from the comfort of our chair, behind our screens what is happening with a specific tank 24/7, year round. And that is also why conversation on these subjects will keep on going forever. People share specific moments/periods of their tanks, not a continuous stream. Snapshots are great but don't provide the full story but obviously it's interesting to read and try to understand what is happening.
2. Most of us are not biologist, chemist or whatever related specialists. Not saying, us, commoners can't learn, but even those with the knowledge to understand most minute details don't always have the full answers.

This said, the great thing about UKAPS is that we do have a fair amount of specialists here which makes this forum the best  in term of quality content, in my opinion. Far above and beyond any other forum in the same field. Plus I like English humor.


----------



## Garuf

I’ve been running my tanks seasonally for years now with 20c low and heaters set to 21c then in summer the tanks are unheated- I’ve noticed much longer lifespans for the species I keep - I started doing this because a guppy breeder told me “you burn the fish out” if you keep them at 25 all year round. I also notice “booms” in summer where I seem to get twice as much life/breeding.

This is just anecdote - but I suspect there’s a deeper truth I’m missing.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Hanuman said:


> that would depends on plants.


I'd guess that most of the plants we grow would be OK at 21 - 22 oC. This is partially because the companies that produce them in N. Europe are going to want to run their production facilities at the lowest temperature they can, because every degree above ambient temperature is an additional expense.

It is the equatorial <"turned up to eleven"> plants that will demand the highest temperatures and something like <"_Ludwigia sedioides_"> or <"_Victoria amazonica_"> is going to need temperatures above 25oC, along with reef intensity light. @Happi's _Tonina_ spp. are also plants that are never going to experience cool water.


Happi said:


> ........but we keep on forgetting that the tank is running without the additional co2, only whatever is present naturally which won't be more than 10 ppm my best guess......


The natural level of CO2 in our tanks is a <"really interesting question">, the <"equilibrium value"> (at <"418 ppm atmospheric CO2"> and 20 oC) is about 0.6 ppm and "3 ppm" is often quoted, but the only reference we could find for this was <"George Booth's at the Krib">. I'm guessing that 3 ppm is nearer than 0.6 or 10 ppm, but it would be <"purely a guess">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Wookii

dw1305 said:


> The natural level of CO2 in our tanks is a <"really interesting question">, the <"equilibrium value"> (at <"418 ppm atmospheric CO2"> and 20 oC) is about 0.6 ppm and "3 ppm" is often quoted, but the only reference we could find for this was <"George Booth's at the Krib">. I'm guessing that 3 ppm is nearer than 0.6 or 10 ppm, but it would be <"purely a guess">.



I would agree and suspect no one with a low tech tank is able to get above 3ppm unless they have some something unusual going on.

10ppm would register as a visible colour change on a drop checker.


----------



## Hanuman

Wookii said:


> unless they have some something unusual going on.


Someone blowing with a straw from the back of the tank?


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> he natural level of CO2 in our tanks is a <"really interesting question">, the <"equilibrium value"> (at <"418 ppm atmospheric CO2"> and 20 oC) is about 0.6 ppm and "3 ppm" is often quoted, but the only reference we could find for this was <"George Booth's at the Krib">. I'm guessing that 3 ppm is nearer than 0.6 or 10 ppm, but it would be <"purely a guess">.



Hi Darrel, I was looking into this a while ago.  The only reference to the "3 ppm" I was able to find was the George Booth findings as well... One bit that is often _overlooked_ when Booth is quoted is:
_"CO2 concentrations and pH were measured with LaMotte test kits.  Note
that the LaMotte CO2 test kit has a resolution of 1 ppm (mg/l) and an
error of about +/- 2 ppm."_

I think the 0.55 - 0.6 ppm range derived from Henry's Law is probably much closer to reality than the 3 ppm found by Booth.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Also, and this is very important in my opinion. I am always very worry/critical on peoples journals and what they decide to share. For two simple reasons.
> 1. Bias. No one is free from it and we don't know from the comfort of our chair, behind our screens what is happening with a specific tank 24/7, year round. And that is also why conversation on these subjects will keep on going forever. People share specific moments/periods of their tanks, not a continuous stream. Snapshots are great but don't provide the full story but obviously it's interesting to read and try to understand what is happening.


Hi @Hanuman  I very much agree.  And I think we see that more often than we tend acknowledge; people backing their claims with pictorial evidence, to drive home a point or an opinion (_bias_ if you will) without given much specifics or even speaking to the long term sustainability etc.  What is particularly interesting to me about the TPT OP is the convincing timeline he provides - from June 2019 to Jan. 2022, some 2.5 years. without anything from the pictures that suggest he changed (re-planted) the tank several times over in that timeframe.   I am not an aquascaper and I tend to try and keep my tanks going for as long as possible without changing things up a whole lot. I may add or change out some plants once in a while, but otherwise I like to achieve stability and watch things evolve slowly and naturally. 

That said, I am thinking about changing up one if my tanks swapping out a lot of the plant mass with the more challenging plants and try to see if I can achieve anything similar to the TPT OP's results. With respect to water parameters this tank is actually not too far off. I will need to move out the livestock from this particular tank if I have to drop the temp several degrees (currently at 74F/23C), but otherwise as for KH (~1) ,GH (~6) and pH (~6.2) I don't need to do much. The biggest change would be temperature, fertilizer regime and of course  light levels.  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


MichaelJ said:


> I think the 0.55 - 0.6 ppm range derived from Henry's Law is probably much closer to reality than the 3 ppm found by Booth.


There are some references in the <"linked thread">.


> This one <"Dissolved CO2 in freshwater systems">, has some figures, that suggest that lakes and rivers typically have between four and eight times more CO2 than they would at equilibrium (0.6 ppm CO2), so we are back somewhere near the "3ppm CO2" figure.


cheers Darrel


----------



## plantnoobdude

@MichaelJ  would  be interested to hear and see how your tank is doing, If i remember correctly you were planning on lowering TDS for shrimp?


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> There are some references in the <"linked thread">.
> 
> cheers Darrel


Hi Darrel, Thanks for pointing me back to that J. Cole paper. I wonder to what extent these findings are applicable to our aquariums - I figure as much as a lot of the additional CO2 is from Bacteria respiration.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


MichaelJ said:


> I figure as much as a lot of the additional CO2 is from Bacteria respiration.


I would think so. You can get huge amounts of CO2 in very polluted water, it was one of the reasons why we used the trickle filters in our waste water work, they out-gassed the CO2 pretty efficiently (as well as allowing dissolved oxygen to diffuse in).  You can also get high levels of CO2 in spring water, <"tufa formation"> is one of the results of this in hard water springs.

There are figures in <"Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants: Minimization, Treatment, and Prevention">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> @MichaelJ  would  be interested to hear and see how your tank is doing, If i remember correctly you were planning on lowering TDS for shrimp?


Hi @plantnoobdude  True, but this change/experiment would be a different tank and not the one where I keep shrimps. My other tank where I would do this experiment is pretty lightly stocked with tetras etc. and I can easily find a new happy home for those.

And btw. I finally got the shrimp tank down to the 120-130 ppm range, there is a bit more to go and I am  waiting for the weather to warm up before I can get the CRS shipped in (probably a month or so).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

Happi said:


> Let's not focus too much on what happened over there at TPT


Indeed. Here's all the gory details from the horses mouth. Taken from a post by Gregg, so already in the public domain. Read it and let's move on.









Won't let me post the fb link, says post as been removed/privacy settings changed 🙄


----------



## Hufsa

@MichaelJ will you keep a journal for the experiment tank? 😃


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> And btw. I finally got the shrimp tank down to the 120-130 ppm range, there is a bit more to go and I am waiting for the weather to warm up before I can get the CRS shipped in (probably a month or so).


nice! I'm planning to get some more crs after the ones I got before dropped one by one with super high EI tds and micros and co2. co2 is now at a much more reasonable level and I dose much less. still feel really guilty about the ones I killed due to my stupidity.... oh well, here's to hoping the next batch does better.
my tank is currently at 95ppm tds on tds500 scale.
 I think urea helps because plants can rapidly uptake nh4 as it breaks down in water collumn ( I think) before it has a chance to be turned into the harder to use No3.

which leads to a question, does urea breakdown in water collumn? or inside the plant. or both? because if it breaks down in water, I am concerned about no2 spikes. but does no2 toxicity lower as ph lowers as well?


----------



## Sudipta

Thank you @Happi for the invitation. 
Hello everyone,
My name is Sudipta Shaw and I am a brand new member of this society and the same person whose "non-CO2 supplemented tank thread" got deleted recently. I was quickly browsing here and noticed that there is some suspicion among the members about my results that I shared over TPT. So I thought it would be better if I introduce myself to all of you before going into the details sometime later.
I am originally from India and obtained my bachelors and masters degree in Microbiology over there. Then I came to the US and got my PhD in Biochemistry from Utah State University. I am currently working as a fulltime researcher at University of Minnesota. Although my planted tank journey only started in the summer of 2018 but I have been keeping fish and growing non-aquatic plants (primarily flowering plants and vegetables) since my childhood. I admire every aspect of nature and I am also passionate about wildlife photography.   
You are more than welcome to check these links below if you want to know more about my passion for nature (primarily wildlife) and my scientific contributions in the form of publications.  I am also attaching pictures of all 4 of my current non-CO2 supplemented tanks with similar parameters (largest and the oldest one is 20 gal tank, running since June 16, 2019 and that's the one I primarily presented at TPT). Couple of the plants in the last tank shown here are still under trial and I am not sure if they will survive long term in this environment.  I did eventually post the pictures of other tanks in the comment section but unfortunately can't access them anymore. I also provided more details about algae in the comments which is also lost (yes I do get algae in my tanks but I have found that it is relatively easy to tackle them in my non-CO2 systems compared to an imbalanced pressurized CO2 injected tank, so yes I do have a high-tech tank). Although I briefly mentioned about importance of lower temperature (low 70F, 70-74F in my non-CO2 injected tanks but it is certainly possible to get good results at elevated temperatures of 80F or even slightly higher. However, It would require almost daily water changes (at least every other day in my opinion and yes I have done this in the past). It doesn't have to be very large water change, 15-25% water change every time  should be good enough to maintain the health of plants. It is still quite a bit of work that's why I think it is better to keep the temperature in the lower range if possible. Please keep in mind that I am specifically talking about my non-CO2 setups (I think @MichaelJ has already shared the OP from the Google cache).  I should also mention that I usually perform water change in all of my non-CO2 supplemented tanks during the light period, say 1-2 hours after the lights turn on (I forgot to mention this in the TPT post). 
I am not saying that I can grow any plant in these systems or I know everything why I am able to grow many so called difficult plants in non-CO2 supplemented tanks but I am trying to the best of my knowledge to provide all the nitty-gritty details about my tanks which might help in the future for any hobbyist to replicate my results with more success. 
Feel free to ask more questions and I will try my best to answer those.
Thanks,
Sudipta.









						A Bird’s-Eye View - Discovery Spring 2018 - Science
					

Sometimes, timing is everything. Had the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) contacted Utah State University alum Sudipta Shaw (Biochemistry, PhD’17) just a little sooner, he might be following his passion for wildlife photography as a vocation rather than an avocation.




					www.usu.edu
				












						Sudipta Shaw
					

Postdoctoral Associate, University of Minnesota - Cited by 527 - Biochemistry and Microbiology




					scholar.google.com


----------



## Wookii

Sudipta said:


> Thank you @Happi for the invitation.
> Hello everyone,
> My name is Sudipta Shaw and I am a brand new member of this society and the same person whose "non-CO2 supplemented tank thread" got deleted recently. I was quickly browsing here and noticed that there is some suspicion among the members about my results that I shared over TPT. So I thought it would be better if I introduce myself to all of you before going into the details sometime later.
> I am originally from India and obtained my bachelors and masters degree in Microbiology over there. Then I came to the US and got my PhD in Biochemistry from Utah State University. I am currently working as a fulltime researcher at University of Minnesota. Although my planted tank journey only started in the summer of 2018 but I have been keeping fish and growing non-aquatic plants (primarily flowering plants and vegetables) since my childhood. I admire every aspect of nature and I am also passionate about wildlife photography.
> You are more than welcome to check these links below if you want to know more about my passion for nature (primarily wildlife) and my scientific contributions in the form of publications.  I am also attaching pictures of all 4 of my current non-CO2 supplemented tanks with similar parameters (largest and the oldest one is 20 gal tank, running since June 16, 2019 and that's the one I primarily presented at TPT). Couple of the plants in the last tank shown here are still under trial and I am not sure if they will survive long term in this environment.  I did eventually post the pictures of other tanks in the comment section but unfortunately can't access them anymore. I also provided more details about algae in the comments which is also lost (yes I do get algae in my tanks but I have found that it is relatively easy to tackle them in my non-CO2 systems compared to an imbalanced pressurized CO2 injected tank, so yes I do have a high-tech tank). Although I briefly mentioned about importance of lower temperature (low 70F, 70-74F in my non-CO2 injected tanks but it is certainly possible to get good results at elevated temperatures of 80F or even slightly higher. However, It would require almost daily water changes (at least every other day in my opinion and yes I have done this in the past). It doesn't have to be very large water change, 15-25% water change every time  should be good enough to maintain the health of plants. It is still quite a bit of work that's why I think it is better to keep the temperature in the lower range if possible. Please keep in mind that I am specifically talking about my non-CO2 setups (I think @MichaelJ has already shared the OP from the Google cache).  I should also mention that I usually perform water change in all of my non-CO2 supplemented tanks during the light period, say 1-2 hours after the lights turn on (I forgot to mention this in the TPT post).
> I am not saying that I can grow any plant in these systems or I know everything why I am able to grow many so called difficult plants in non-CO2 supplemented tanks but I am trying to the best of my knowledge to provide all the nitty-gritty details about my tanks which might help in the future for any hobbyist to replicate my results with more success.
> Feel free to ask more questions and I will try my best to answer those.
> Thanks,
> Sudipta.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Bird’s-Eye View - Discovery Spring 2018 - Science
> 
> 
> Sometimes, timing is everything. Had the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) contacted Utah State University alum Sudipta Shaw (Biochemistry, PhD’17) just a little sooner, he might be following his passion for wildlife photography as a vocation rather than an avocation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.usu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sudipta Shaw
> 
> 
> Postdoctoral Associate, University of Minnesota - Cited by 527 - Biochemistry and Microbiology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> scholar.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 183920
> View attachment 183921
> View attachment 183922
> View attachment 183923



Welcome to UKAPS, glad to have you here, you have some great looking tanks. It might be worth you detailing some of your tanks and techniques in the Journals section, so it doesn’t get lost in this thread.

I know it will probably mean covering old ground you have already posted on the other forum, but it would likely be of great value to many of us here, and at least it won’t get deleted on this forum! 😉


----------



## Sudipta

Wookii said:


> Welcome to UKAPS, glad to have you here, you have some great looking tanks. It might be worth you detailing some of your tanks and techniques in the Journals section, so it doesn’t get lost in this thread.
> 
> I know it will probably mean covering old ground you have already posted on the other forum, but it would likely be of great value to many of us here, and at least it won’t get deleted on this forum! 😉


Thank you for your appreciation. Yes you are absolutely right, I was actually thinking the same. however, I thought I should introduce myself to this group first as @Happi told me that people are already discussing about that thread here.
I will definitely start a new thread in the journal section.
Thanks,


----------



## plantnoobdude

welcome @Sudipta and thanks to @Happi  for convincing sudipta to join! some very pretty pictures!
a lot of what you have posted goes right along and follows what Happi has been saying from the beginning of this thread.


----------



## Sudipta

plantnoobdude said:


> welcome @Sudipta and thanks to @Happi  for convincing sudipta to join! some very pretty pictures!
> a lot of what you have posted goes right along and follows what Happi has been saying from the beginning of this thread.


Thank you.


----------



## MichaelJ

Sudipta said:


> I am currently working as a fulltime researcher at University of Minnesota.


Hi @Sudipta, Welcome to UKAPS!  I hope you will feel right at home here on UKAPS!  and great to see a fellow Minnesotan on the forum!

Also a BIG thanks to @Happi for "winning" you over! 

Folks,  strap on your seat belts... I think we are in for a ride!  

Ok, I'll dispense with the celebrations... Now Mr. Shaw, how do I do it? 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

Hufsa said:


> @MichaelJ will you keep a journal for the experiment tank? 😃


You betcha! 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Sudipta, Welcome to UKAPS!  I hope you will feel right at home here on UKAPS!  and great to see a fellow Minnesotan on the forum!
> 
> Also a BIG thanks to @Happi for "winning" you over!
> 
> Folks,  strap on your seat belts... I think we are in for a ride!
> 
> Ok, I'll dispense with the celebrations... Now Mr. Shaw, how do I do it?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Hello Michael,
I am planning to start my own thread soon in this forum. I will add all the information to begin with and then try to answer all the questions. I am sure anyone should be able to replicate my methods.


----------



## Karmicnull

Welcome @Sudipta - enjoyed reading your thread over at TPT before it got binned, and looking forward to the further data you'll add to the UKAPS hive mind with your journal.

I will confess up front to total selfishness in welcoming you - I'm running 3 low tech tanks at the moment, the most recent of which (journal to come, eventually) is just maturing.  First cherry shrimp went in last weekend.  It's room temperature (20-22 in the winter, 22-25 in the summer) currently 2/3 rainwater 1/3 tapwater which gets it down to 110 TDS.  
I'm ambling gently towards the lean route (currently upped the K, dropped the NO3 and added a smidge of Urea) and will be using that tank as my test bed.  This feels like an opportunity to maybe see if I can add an extra data point to the info pool. I'm more than happy to drop the TDS further (my rainwater tests at 12, so that's as low as I can go).  My caveats are: (1) will Shrimp still be happy?  (2) I can't do more than 20 L of rainwater in any given WC (tank is 70L), and (3) I can't guarantee 7 day WCs - sometimes they're 8 days, sometimes 9, sometimes 6.  I unfortunately have this annoying 'rest of my life' thing that keeps getting in the way.  Which is why I'm low tech; more forgiving.  Would doing just rainwater, remineralizing with an appropriate amount of tap (330 TDS) water be a sufficient baseline to use for a meaningful experiment?

Cheers,
Simon


----------



## MichaelJ

Sudipta said:


> Hello Michael,
> I am planning to start my own thread soon in this forum. I will add all the information to begin with and then try to answer all the questions. I am sure anyone should be able to replicate my methods.


Hi Sudipta,  I also suggest you start a journal as suggested by @Wookii which makes it more "yours" and less susceptible to tangential discussions. I am very eager to replicate your results and I cant wait to get started . The main issue for me right now is the winter here in MN... almost all my plants I got shipped in from a nursery in California (Aquarium Plant Factory), and it wont really work until we get up in 50'ties (two years ago around the same time I literally received frozen plants from them   ... my fault of course!) .

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> Indeed. Here's all the gory details from the horses mouth. Taken from a post by Gregg, so already in the public domain. Read it and let's move on.
> 
> View attachment 183915
> View attachment 183916
> 
> Won't let me post the fb link, says post as been removed/privacy settings changed 🙄


Thanks John for posting this...  Well, that just sums up why I never felt compelled to join any other forum than UKAPS.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> There are figures in <"Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants: Minimization, Treatment, and Prevention">.


Hi Darrel, somewhat along the same line Carbon Dioxide in Rivers.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman

I've also convinced Gregg to come over.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> I've also convinced Gregg to come over.


Brilliant!


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> What is particularly interesting to me about the TPT OP is the convincing timeline he provides - from June 2019 to Jan. 2022, some 2.5 years. without anything from the pictures that suggest he changed (re-planted) the tank several times over in that timeframe.


Don't take me wrong, I don't think most people are biased with the purpose of being necessarily deceitful. It's just the nature of humans and why when we run trials, experiments etc in the scientific world we use protocols to prevent bias.
Anyway I am happy that @Sudipta and @GreggZ are now among us. That's a loss for PT.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Don't take me wrong, I don't think most people are biased with the purpose of being necessarily deceitful. It's just the nature of humans and why when we run trials, experiments etc in the scientific world we use protocols to prevent bias.


Agreed. Well, its  well known that even the Great Sir Isaac Newton was fudging his calculations to match observation even if he was generally correct  (see S. Weinberg, To Explain the world, Harper 2015 among others) - so this is not new.  As you say, it's human nature - there is never such thing as zero bias.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> nice! I'm planning to get some more crs after the ones I got before dropped one by one with super high EI tds and micros and co2. co2 is now at a much more reasonable level and I dose much less. still feel really guilty about the ones I killed due to my stupidity.... oh well, here's to hoping the next batch does better.
> my tank is currently at 95ppm tds on tds500 scale.


Hi @plantnoobdude  95 ppm TDS would generally be considered good for CRS - but, of course, it depends on what the TDS is made up from. They do need a fair amount of Ca in particular, but also Mg... From the water column or from food - preferably from the water column since the "exposure" from the water column is more consistent as they may not want to eat enough of the particular mineral source with Ca/Mg you feed them.


plantnoobdude said:


> which leads to a question, does urea breakdown in water collumn? or inside the plant. or both? because if it breaks down in water, I am concerned about no2 spikes. but does no2 toxicity lower as ph lowers as well?


(EDIT: I misread this one originally - I thought you wrote co2 ...)  I do not know from experience... I have only a tiny bit of experience with urea in my tanks with fish-only and none with urea and shrimps. Nitrite is extremely toxic for shrimps as well...  And yes, NO2 gets more toxic as pH changes but somewhat less so I believe, but either way you definitely do not want an NO2 spike in a tank with livestock!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

Looks like TPT restored his thread. But I personally suggest we continue here on this forum.


----------



## Hanuman

Gregg told me the infamous mod at PT is feeling the heat on most facebook groups


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
Welcome to @Sudipta and @GreggZ , hopefully we will prove to be slightly less hostile to "heterodox" views.  Unfortunately I'd guess a certain amount  of flack <"is inevitable">.

In terms of <"carbonate buffering and pH variation"> I think there is a some <"deliberate misinformation by the vendors of pH buffers">, partially because if <"pH stability"> isn't a "thing" in soft water then that <"particular revenue stream"> disappears.

When you add in the recent advances in <"scientific knowledge about nitrification"> the requirement of high carbonate hardness for the filter bacteria also disappears and with it goes another potential revenue stream.

I'm not a <"CO2 user">, but as soon as I realised that aquascapers were raising (and rapidly) lowering their pH by one unit every day, and <"had very healthy fish">, it becomes obvious that it isn't pH change itself that is damaging to fish and that acidosis and fish death are both symptoms of underlying issues, rather than the former causing the latter.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Hufsa

Disclaimer: This post is not directed at any one person 😃

Learning is not a process you can finish. No matter who you are, no matter if its the aquarium hobby or something else. 
If a person thinks they have got everything entirely figured out, their mind is closed and no learning will happen. 

One can agree to disagree, I think this is important to remember.
There appears to be more than one way to grow plants, which explains why very different methods can achieve such great results.
A friendly tone and the shared desire for knowledge can form a bridge over quite large gaps.
The focus on this is (in my opinion) one of the things that makes UKAPS great 😄

Im very happy to welcome our new members, it is evident they hold a great deal of knowledge and I look forward to learning from them!


----------



## JacksonL

Sudipta said:


> Thank you @Happi for the invitation.
> Hello everyone,
> My name is Sudipta Shaw and I am a brand new member of this society and the same person whose "non-CO2 supplemented tank thread" got deleted recently. I was quickly browsing here and noticed that there is some suspicion among the members about my results that I shared over TPT. So I thought it would be better if I introduce myself to all of you before going into the details sometime later.
> I am originally from India and obtained my bachelors and masters degree in Microbiology over there. Then I came to the US and got my PhD in Biochemistry from Utah State University. I am currently working as a fulltime researcher at University of Minnesota. Although my planted tank journey only started in the summer of 2018 but I have been keeping fish and growing non-aquatic plants (primarily flowering plants and vegetables) since my childhood. I admire every aspect of nature and I am also passionate about wildlife photography.
> You are more than welcome to check these links below if you want to know more about my passion for nature (primarily wildlife) and my scientific contributions in the form of publications.  I am also attaching pictures of all 4 of my current non-CO2 supplemented tanks with similar parameters (largest and the oldest one is 20 gal tank, running since June 16, 2019 and that's the one I primarily presented at TPT). Couple of the plants in the last tank shown here are still under trial and I am not sure if they will survive long term in this environment.  I did eventually post the pictures of other tanks in the comment section but unfortunately can't access them anymore. I also provided more details about algae in the comments which is also lost (yes I do get algae in my tanks but I have found that it is relatively easy to tackle them in my non-CO2 systems compared to an imbalanced pressurized CO2 injected tank, so yes I do have a high-tech tank). Although I briefly mentioned about importance of lower temperature (low 70F, 70-74F in my non-CO2 injected tanks but it is certainly possible to get good results at elevated temperatures of 80F or even slightly higher. However, It would require almost daily water changes (at least every other day in my opinion and yes I have done this in the past). It doesn't have to be very large water change, 15-25% water change every time  should be good enough to maintain the health of plants. It is still quite a bit of work that's why I think it is better to keep the temperature in the lower range if possible. Please keep in mind that I am specifically talking about my non-CO2 setups (I think @MichaelJ has already shared the OP from the Google cache).  I should also mention that I usually perform water change in all of my non-CO2 supplemented tanks during the light period, say 1-2 hours after the lights turn on (I forgot to mention this in the TPT post).
> I am not saying that I can grow any plant in these systems or I know everything why I am able to grow many so called difficult plants in non-CO2 supplemented tanks but I am trying to the best of my knowledge to provide all the nitty-gritty details about my tanks which might help in the future for any hobbyist to replicate my results with more success.
> Feel free to ask more questions and I will try my best to answer those.
> Thanks,
> Sudipta.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Bird’s-Eye View - Discovery Spring 2018 - Science
> 
> 
> Sometimes, timing is everything. Had the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) contacted Utah State University alum Sudipta Shaw (Biochemistry, PhD’17) just a little sooner, he might be following his passion for wildlife photography as a vocation rather than an avocation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.usu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sudipta Shaw
> 
> 
> Postdoctoral Associate, University of Minnesota - Cited by 527 - Biochemistry and Microbiology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> scholar.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 183920
> View attachment 183921
> View attachment 183922
> View attachment 183923


I have been admiring your tanks on Facebook for some time, welcome and well done on such beautiful aquariums.


----------



## medlight

Welcome @GreggZ @Sudipta


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @plantnoobdude  95 ppm TDS would generally be considered good for CRS - but, of course, it depends on what the TDS is made up from. They do need a fair amount of Ca in particular, but also Mg... From the water column or from food - preferably from the water column since the "exposure" from the water column is more consistent as they may not want to eat enough of the particular mineral source with Ca/Mg you feed them.
> 
> (EDIT: I misread this one originally - I thought you wrote co2 ...)  I do not know from experience... I have only a tiny bit of experience with urea in my tanks with fish-only and none with urea and shrimps. Nitrite is extremely toxic for shrimps as well...  And yes, NO2 gets more toxic as pH changes but somewhat less so I believe, but either way you definitely do not want an NO2 spike in a tank with livestock!
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


my calcium and magesium are at at 18ppm and 6ppm. gh is a bit north of 4, so i think it's good..


----------



## GreggZ

John q said:


> Indeed. Here's all the gory details from the horses mouth. Taken from a post by Gregg, so already in the public domain. Read it and let's move on.
> 
> View attachment 183915
> View attachment 183916
> 
> Won't let me post the fb link, says post as been removed/privacy settings changed 🙄


Hello everyone.

I was reading this thread and wanted to thank those who have posted support.

As some might know I have kept a long running journal on TPT for many years. As I described in the post above I offered what I thought was good and sound advice to someone in direct response to their question. I have been having some long discussions with Tom Barr, Vin Kutty, Xiaozhuang Wong, Chantz Cramer, Raj Mahakul, Chris Hendy etc. and they all agreed that what I said was fact, not opinion. 

I've known the moderator there (somewhatshocked) for many years and have communicated with him many times. When he sent me the warning I got into a heated discussion with him. Since we know each pretty well I thought I could speak freely in private. When I suggested he expand his horizons and take some time to learn more about soft water tanks he exploded. 

I started getting some messages about me being banned, and wrote it about on a couple of FB groups. He got wind of it and became irate. 

I am a moderator on a site and we moderate decorum, civility, etc. But we don't moderate opinion. In this case Jake (somewhatshocked) is the sole arbitrator of what is or is not allowed to be said, which is a shame for the TPT site and the planted tank community. 

It saddens me that this happened at all. I have developed many relationships on TPT and have enjoyed my time there. I will say that the discussion in the FB groups did cheer me up quite a bit. There was some comedy gold in there. 

I just got done downloading my thread with Httrack. One problem is that the pictures don't show up. Some do have links I can click on, but others don't. I do have all the pictures and the important thing is that I have a copy for posterity.

If anyone knows of a better method to archive a thread let me know.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Karmicnull said:


> Welcome @Sudipta - enjoyed reading your thread over at TPT before it got binned, and looking forward to the further data you'll add to the UKAPS hive mind with your journal.
> 
> I will confess up front to total selfishness in welcoming you - I'm running 3 low tech tanks at the moment, the most recent of which (journal to come, eventually) is just maturing.  First cherry shrimp went in last weekend.  It's room temperature (20-22 in the winter, 22-25 in the summer) currently 2/3 rainwater 1/3 tapwater which gets it down to 110 TDS.
> I'm ambling gently towards the lean route (currently upped the K, dropped the NO3 and added a smidge of Urea) and will be using that tank as my test bed.  This feels like an opportunity to maybe see if I can add an extra data point to the info pool. I'm more than happy to drop the TDS further (my rainwater tests at 12, so that's as low as I can go).  My caveats are: (1) will Shrimp still be happy?  (2) I can't do more than 20 L of rainwater in any given WC (tank is 70L), and (3) I can't guarantee 7 day WCs - sometimes they're 8 days, sometimes 9, sometimes 6.  I unfortunately have this annoying 'rest of my life' thing that keeps getting in the way.  Which is why I'm low tech; more forgiving.  Would doing just rainwater, remineralizing with an appropriate amount of tap (330 TDS) water be a sufficient baseline to use for a meaningful experiment?
> 
> Cheers,
> Simon


high tech doesn't always mean lots of water changes. I do water changes every two weeks and I believe Happi used to go a month or so between water changes and maintain low tds.


----------



## John q

Welcome @GreggZ 

Always found your journal inspirational and hope you continue it in some form over here. 

Without stating the obvious, TPT's loss is most definitely our gain.


----------



## GreggZ

John q said:


> Welcome @GreggZ
> 
> Always found your journal inspirational and hope you continue it in some form over here.
> 
> Without stating the obvious, TPT's loss is most definitely our gain.


Thank you John I very much appreciate that.


----------



## Karmicnull

plantnoobdude said:


> high tech doesn't always mean lots of water changes. I do water changes every two weeks and I believe Happi used to go a month or so between water changes and maintain low tds.


Interesting, thanks.  High tech is definitely on the horizon at some point - or more likely "mid-tech" @Hufsa-style!


----------



## Karmicnull

Oh - meant to say - big welcome to @GreggZ!


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> I was reading this thread and wanted to thank those who have posted support.
> 
> As some might know I have kept a long running journal on TPT for many years.



Hi @GreggZ  Big Welcome to UKAPS!     I have rarely visited TPT and was never a member, so I guess I missed out on your journals etc! 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> my calcium and magesium are at at 18ppm and 6ppm. gh is a bit north of 4, so i think it's good..


Ah yes @plantnoobdude,  we just had a thread discussing your tank and TDS... Sorry I forgot! 


Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> I'm not a <"CO2 user">, but as soon as I realised that aquascapers were raising (and rapidly) lowering their pH by one unit every day, and <"had very healthy fish">, it becomes obvious that it isn't pH change itself that is damaging to fish and that acidosis and fish death are both symptoms of underlying issues, rather than the former causing the latter.
> 
> cheers Darrel


Hi Darrel,  One thing I am still wondering about - and sort of the reason why I still add _some_ buffer capacity (CO3) is the significance of the pH level the drop might happen from  - say if you have a 0.5 pH or larger drop from a pH ~5.5  (resulting in a pH at or below 5.0 which is borderline lethal( is it?) territory for many species including beneficial bacteria).  On the other hand, other than CO2, I am also asking myself what could possibly incur such a large drop in an otherwise healthy and well-maintained low-tech tank? 

Well, at least for the sake of being able to even measure pH with our test kits you need some KH there I suppose.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Hi Darrel,  One thing I am still wondering about - and sort of the reason why I still add _some_ buffer capacity (CO3) is the significance of the pH level the drop might happen from  - say if you have a 0.5 pH or larger drop from a pH ~5.5  (resulting in a pH at or below 5.0 which is borderline lethal( is it?) territory for many species including beneficial bacteria).  On the other hand, other than CO2, I am also asking myself what could possibly incur such a large drop in an otherwise healthy and well-maintained low-tech tank?
> 
> Well, at least for the sake of being able to even measure pH with our test kits you need some KH there I suppose.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I believe pikez kept rainbows at ph in high 3s, various other high tech softwater tank owners keep their ph in high 4s low 5s. I doubt a ph of 5 would be lethal to fish/shrimps. you;d reach the co2 toxicity limit far before the ph alone becomes the issue. i'd think


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> I believe pikez kept rainbows at ph in high 3s, various other high tech softwater tank owners keep their ph in high 4s low 5s. I doubt a ph of 5 would be lethal to fish/shrimps. you;d reach the co2 toxicity limit far before the ph alone becomes the issue.


Hi @plantnoobdude  Interesting. I am only familiar with Cardinals being able to sustain the high-mid 3 range for a longer period of time. Anyway, very low pH (<5) is definitely unfamiliar territory for me personally, and would like to understand it better vs. livestock and plants.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## eminor

Hi, i got a fertilizer which contains small amount of micros despite the fact that it's not an aquarium fertilizer, could you tell me if it safe to use in tank ? could you also help me covert % in ppm ? thx



> ready-to-use mineral nutrient solution fertilizer + water-based polish containing trace elements
> 
> *0.07%* total nitrogen (N) of which : *0.023%* ureic,* 0.023% *nitric, *0.024%* ammoniacal. *0.04% *phosphoric anhydride (P2O5) soluble in water, *0.06%* potassium oxyde (K2O) soluble in water, *0.01%* magnesium oxide (mgO) total.
> 
> Trace elements soluble in water:* 0.00012%* Boron (B), *0.000025%* Copper (Cu), *0.0002%* Iron (Fe)*_, *0.00012%* Manganese (Mn), *0.000012%* Molybdenum (Mo), *0.000025%* Zinc (Zn)_.
> 
> _**EDTA chelate, *_ DTPA chelate


----------



## Hufsa

Hoo boy this thread has turned into a bit of an umbrella thread 
Maybe it would be more organised if we split into a few new threads?
At least one for the effects of low kh and ph, and maybe also one for Eminors micro question?


----------



## eminor

Hufsa said:


> Hoo boy this thread has turned into a bit of an umbrella thread
> Maybe it would be more organised if we split into a few new threads?
> At least one for the effects of low kh and ph, and maybe also one for Eminors micro question?


maybe i should make a topic in fertilizer's forum ?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


MichaelJ said:


> ...... and sort of the reason why I still add _some_ buffer capacity (CO3) is the significance of the pH level the drop might happen from - say if you have a 0.5 pH or larger drop from a pH ~5.5 (resulting in a pH at or below 5.0 which is borderline lethal( is it?) territory for many species including beneficial bacteria).


Unfortunately it is unknown territory for me as well. I've always used rain-water, and that has some carbonate (dKH) buffering, so I don't really know how low the pH goes. During the day it is always well above pH7, but that just reflects that the water is fairly fully saturated with dissolved oxygen. I know the pH must go below pH7 during the night, because of the shell attrition  on the snail shells, but I don't know how low it goes.

I've settled on 80 - 140 microS as my conductivity range, but that is really because 140 microS is about the highest conductivity value  that  we get in the rain-water (late summer). During the winter that goes down to about 30 microS (after very heavy rain or snow).

cheers Darrel


----------



## John q

Hufsa said:


> At least one for the effects of low kh and ph


Mmm, could be wrong hopefully @Happi  Will correct me on this but suspect lean dosing works better when the ph and kh are low? 

Just throwing it out there 🤪


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Unfortunately it is unknown territory for me as well. I've always used rain-water, and that has some carbonate (dKH) buffering, so I don't really know how low the pH goes. During the day it is always well above pH7, but that just reflects that the water is fairly fully saturated with dissolved oxygen. I know the pH must go below pH7 during the night, because of the shell attrition  on the snail shells, but I don't know how low it goes.
> 
> I've settled on 80 - 140 microS as my conductivity range, but that is really because 140 microS is about the highest conductivity value  that  we get in the rain-water (late summer). During the winter that goes down to about 30 microS (after very heavy rain or snow).
> 
> cheers Darrel



Hi Darrel, A little bit off topic, but on the topic of extremely low pH there is a fascinating paper on the significance of DOC in  extreme low pH environments.

From the abstract: _"The so-called “blackwaters” of the Amazonian Rio Negro are rich in highly coloured dissolved organic carbon (DOC), but ion-poor and very acidic, conditions that would cause fatal ionoregulatory failure in most fish. However these blackwaters support 8% of the world’s ichthyofauna. We tested the hypothesis that native DOC provides protection against ionoregulatory dysfunction in this extreme environment."_

As I am sure you know Darrel, the pH in Rio Negro is routinely in the 3.0-5.5 pH range (I've seen as low as 2.8 pH quoted other places as the extreme low end). 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

Hufsa said:


> Hoo boy this thread has turned into a bit of an umbrella thread /forum/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/icon_lol.gif



Hi @Hufsa  Good point. I guess as long as we are talking about things that are lean, we're still kind of on-topic, I think  ... but it kind of brings me back to the topic of asking the moderators (@LondonDragon et. al) to setup an "alternative fert approaches" or "alternative methods" section, that I, among others, have promoted in the past to keep things more _on_ topic.

Anyway, I am as guilty as anyone else at squatting threads with unrelated topics 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Anyway, I am as guilty as anyone else to squat threads with unrelated topic


I just thought that was what we were supposed to do!!!


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> I just thought that was what we were supposed to do!!!


Haha... Yes, I guess to a certain extent its unavoidable and probably what makes a discussion forum like this vibrant and engaging. If we had the mods coming down hard on us every time we would divert the discussion it wouldn't be as much fun I guess.

(and here we are... at it again, going off topic  )

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> Mmm, could be wrong hopefully @Happi  Will correct me on this but suspect lean dosing works better when the ph and kh are low?


Hi @John q   It is at least my distinct impression that lean dosing goes hand in hand with extremely low KH and relatively low pH to improve uptake and availability of nutrients. It's  unclear to me exactly how tight the relationship is though. But a very good question!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

what michael said is spot on.




if you take a look at mulders chart, you will see that various hard water nutrients that come with kh, Ca, Mg, K....
inhibit uptake of other nutrients, Ca for example doesn't improve uptake of any nutrients. so having it in excess can mean you have to dose more micros, I believe @Happi  has had this experience and can confirm.


----------



## erwin123

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @John q   It is at least my distinct impression that lean dosing goes hand in hand with extremely low KH and relatively low pH to improve uptake and availability of nutrients. It's  unclear to me exactly how tight the relationship is though. But a very good question!
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



maybe we need to collect some data points? Here's mine

Gh 6
Kh 3.5
tapwater pH (degassed) 7.5

Weekly Water column dosing (APT EI  + Epsom Salt) [exclude substrate feeding]
NO3 5.8ppm
PO4 1.9ppm
K       7.9ppm
Fe     0.22ppm
Mg   3.7ppm


----------



## John q

erwin123 said:


> maybe we need to collect some data points?


For data purposes only. Not suggesting these numbers will work.

Kh 1 (Soft tap water)
Gh 2~3
Tank ph range 7.2 ~ 6.4
Tank temp 25.2 Celsius

*Ca 2 ppm (added with water change)
Mg 1ppm (added with water change)

Weekly ferts added.
No3 7ppm
P04 2.27ppm
K 8.42ppm
Mg 1.35ppm
Fe 0.25ppm (from csm+b)
Fe 0.09ppm Dtpa

Heavy fish stocking. *


----------



## MichaelJ

erwin123 said:


> maybe we need to collect some data points? Here's mine



I am not entirely sure what the final data points is going to be for me. But the particular low-tech tank (40 US Gallon / 150 L) I am going to use for the high light experiment is currently:

Starting point is 100% RO+DI water degassed for about 24 hours.

KH ~1 from K2CO3
GH ~4.75  (Ca 24 ppm / Mg 6 ppm) Ca Gluconate, MgSO4 and a tiny bit of CaCl2 (for the trace amount of Cl).   Mg from Mg Gluconate and Mg(NO3)2).
pH is in the 6.2-6.5 range
Temperature 75 F / 24 C  (very stable all year around)
Photoperiod +12 hours at low light intensity (my tanks are in a room with very low levels of ambient or daylight exposure)

NO3 15.33 from Mg(NO3)2
PO4 4.60  from KH2PO4
K 18.0  from K2CO3 and KH2PO4

Fe 1.0 ppm from EDTA   (Nilocg Plantex CSM+B traces)
Fe 0.25 from Fe Gluconate

All the minerals and macros are mixed in with the weekly ~40% WC.  Traces are split into two weekly doses (1st on the day after WC and the 2nd mid week).

Stocking is fairly light (Tetra's and Oto's).

Of course, I will (probably) have to tweak  the above for the high light experiment.  Otherwise, I expect I can keep in my substrate and just replace a ton of plant and crank the light waay up! (against my own advice  )

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Sudipta

Karmicnull said:


> Welcome @Sudipta - enjoyed reading your thread over at TPT before it got binned, and looking forward to the further data you'll add to the UKAPS hive mind with your journal.
> 
> I will confess up front to total selfishness in welcoming you - I'm running 3 low tech tanks at the moment, the most recent of which (journal to come, eventually) is just maturing.  First cherry shrimp went in last weekend.  It's room temperature (20-22 in the winter, 22-25 in the summer) currently 2/3 rainwater 1/3 tapwater which gets it down to 110 TDS.
> I'm ambling gently towards the lean route (currently upped the K, dropped the NO3 and added a smidge of Urea) and will be using that tank as my test bed.  This feels like an opportunity to maybe see if I can add an extra data point to the info pool. I'm more than happy to drop the TDS further (my rainwater tests at 12, so that's as low as I can go).  My caveats are: (1) will Shrimp still be happy?  (2) I can't do more than 20 L of rainwater in any given WC (tank is 70L), and (3) I can't guarantee 7 day WCs - sometimes they're 8 days, sometimes 9, sometimes 6.  I unfortunately have this annoying 'rest of my life' thing that keeps getting in the way.  Which is why I'm low tech; more forgiving.  Would doing just rainwater, remineralizing with an appropriate amount of tap (330 TDS) water be a sufficient baseline to use for a meaningful experiment?
> 
> Cheers,
> Simon


Hello Simon,
Thank you for appreciation. The thread at TPT got restored again, I was told that it was caught in some kind of spam filter or so. I don't know what to say but it is back which I am happy about. Since I have already started the thread over there, I will try to give more updates as time would allow. However, I am also considering to create another thread in this forum, so it will serve as a backup and I will be able to reach more people and  answer more questions. This will allow me to investigate more about my own system and I might find new information while trying to answer questions.
If your system is working properly then there is no need to change anything in my opinion. TDS alone doesn't tell anything about the actual components (GH, KH etc.), so it is hard for me to speculate about the ratio of rain and tap water and its outcome. Although most plants and fishes/shrimps are quite adaptable when it comes to GH but high KH is particularly a big problem for most plants as I have mentioned in my thread at TPT. Cherry shrimps are quite forgiving from my experience, I was able to breed them in a tank with low PH (less than 6, almost 0 KH), however the breeding rate was quite slow in those parameters as  compared to caridina shrimps. The TDS was about 110-130 and it was primarily coming from Salty shrimp GH+ (mainly Ca and Mg). I do have golden back yellow shrimps in a tank (shown below) where I use just tap water, pH about 7.4, KH; 3-4, GH; 6-7, TDS; 120-140. I do let the water sit in a bucket for at least overnight with Seachem prime before water change.  I try to do weekly water change in all of my tanks but it is not absolutely necessary to follow the exact routine. These systems are very slow, so even if you miss one or two weeks it won't affect the system that much, unless you are constantly delaying maintenance. one or two days here and there won't affect anything (from my experience). 
I don't know if I was able to properly answer your questions.


----------



## Hufsa

Sudipta said:


> The thread at TPT got restored again, I was told that it was caught in some kind of spam filter or so. I don't know what to say but it is back which I am happy about. Since I have already started the thread over there, I will try to give more updates as time would allow. However, I am also considering to create another thread in this forum, so it will serve as a backup and I will be able to reach more people and  answer more questions.


I hope you will keep a backup of your writings on TPT or if possible to reconsider writing your thread here. It appears that the moderator has removed the entirety of Greggz journal, when I tried to access it this morning it was gone. Such a large source of knowledge gone, seemingly out of spite  I do not wish the same thing to happen to you should you accidentally say something the moderator doesn't agree with 😕


----------



## Sudipta

Hufsa said:


> Disclaimer: This post is not directed at any one person 😃
> 
> Learning is not a process you can finish. No matter who you are, no matter if its the aquarium hobby or something else.
> If a person thinks they have got everything entirely figured out, their mind is closed and no learning will happen.
> 
> One can agree to disagree, I think this is important to remember.
> There appears to be more than one way to grow plants, which explains why very different methods can achieve such great results.
> A friendly tone and the shared desire for knowledge can form a bridge over quite large gaps.
> The focus on this is (in my opinion) one of the things that makes UKAPS great 😄
> 
> Im very happy to welcome our new members, it is evident they hold a great deal of knowledge and I look forward to learning from them!


Very well said. I absolutely agree with you. As I mentioned in my thread at TPT, I was really struggling to keep couple of species happy in my CO2 injected tank and they were constantly  getting covered with algae. I moved them to my softwater non-CO2 supplemented tank as per my friend's suggestion that there is nothing to loose to give it shot. To my surprise, both of those two species started to grow (at very slow speed) and eventually I was able to propagate both of them. It has been more than two years since I started growing  _Rotala wallichii _and _Ludwigia senegalensis _in non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank and both of them stay relatively happy for most of the time in this system.

Since then, I slowly started experimenting with other so called difficult plants (mainly stem plants) in these systems which according to many "experts", absolutely need pressurized CO2 injection and as of now I am able to grow many such species with decent form and health for significantly longer period of time.

I just want to clarify again that I am not comparing their growth form and color to CO2 injected tanks, obviously they will look much better in hightech environment. However, I am quite happy with the results that I am getting without pressurized CO2 injection and I will continue to do so.
Thanks,
Sudipta.


----------



## Sudipta

Hufsa said:


> I hope you will keep a backup of your writings on TPT or if possible to reconsider writing your thread here. It appears that the moderator has removed the entirety of Greggz journal, when I tried to access it this morning it was gone. Such a large source of knowledge gone, seemingly out of spite  I do not wish the same thing to happen to you should you accidentally say something the moderator doesn't agree with 😕


Thank you for the suggestion. I will definitely keep a backup after what happened to Gregg. This is really a shame.
I am also thinking about starting a new thread here soon.


----------



## plantnoobdude

things are going pretty well.
tank is at
1ppm N  ( ~4ppm No3)
0.13ppm P  (0.39ppm po4)
0.66ppm K
keep in mind I have relatively new soil.
and micros have been changed recently to half non Fe micros and same amount of iron. because im seeing what I believe is induced fe deficiency in some plants.
now it is
0.1ppm Fe dtpa
0.0335Mn
0.007 Zn
0.007 B
0.0035 Cu
0.00015 Mo
0.00005 Ni
Iron level is staying the same just the rest of the micros that are changing, if this works, then It'll be the first time i've seen the effect of ratios in my tank. exciting times.
current plants doing well:
macrandra, rotala indica, ludwigia cuba, tonina.
struggling plants:
cuphea, rotala wallichii, s repens.
water changes every two weeks, tds is 100


----------



## Happi

John q said:


> Mmm, could be wrong hopefully @Happi  Will correct me on this but suspect lean dosing works better when the ph and kh are low?
> 
> Just throwing it out there 🤪


that is Correct John, the lean dosing approach works better when the KH is almost 0, because under such scenario the reaction and precipitations of the nutrients are significantly reduced. 




plantnoobdude said:


> what michael said is spot on.
> View attachment 183995
> if you take a look at mulders chart, you will see that various hard water nutrients that come with kh, Ca, Mg, K....
> inhibit uptake of other nutrients, Ca for example doesn't improve uptake of any nutrients. so having it in excess can mean you have to dose more micros, I believe @Happi  has had this experience and can confirm.


I use these chart for reference only, under the water they might produce different results, this chart becomes more accurate when  there is too much CO3 in the water. its not only too much Ca that inhibit the uptake, but CO3 if present at the same time in higher amount. other nutrients will interact the same way with each others depending on the presence of Co3, Ph, KH etc. the higher they are, what you see in the chart will surely occur. 

Based on the Marchner ratio and the Recipe that we used, this chart is quite accurate.


----------



## Happi

Things where I stand with @Sudipta based on my own Experiments:


Use RO/DI water
Low to 0 KH
Lean water Colum dosing
Acidic Soil Enriched with NH4
High Lights ( I use lights rich in Red and Blue spectrum, not sure about Sudipta )
Low Co2
Things Where I still might have different opinion:

Will this approach only work for Aqua soil or will it work with Inert substrate? It should if NH4 was applied in the water at smaller amount while reducing the amount of NO3 present in the water.
Higher GH? Probably not needed but it can be beneficial if Micro were to buildup over time.
Low Temperature? This seems to be the major factor for Sudipta success, from the chemistry point of view he is not wrong about Co2 being more dissolved. But we will need to further investigate if temp of 70 F or so is the only way to accomplish this goal.
So we can safely say that point 1-6 are the key factors, additionally adding cold temp for Non Co2 seems to be the major key factor as well in Sudipta case. If we were to apply the 1-6 with somewhere between the colder and warm temperatures, something like 74 F, I don’t see why it wouldn’t work, even though 1-6 were working just fine for me even at 76-78 F while adding 15-20 ppm CO2. 70 F might be too cold for some plant sp. but 74 F might be more tolerable. 

Something like this:

70 F, Non Co2

72 F, 5-10 ppm Co2

74 F, 10-20 ppm Co2

combine the above information and try it with lower co2 as suggested. Using RO/DI water gives you better control, so during this experiment I would advise against using tap water even if it were to be low in KH. But you will have option to explore that as well once you master this one. far as the nutrients goes it has already been advised.


----------



## Sudipta

Happi said:


> Things where I stand with @Sudipta based on my own Experiments:
> 
> 
> Use RO/DI water
> Low to 0 KH
> Lean water Colum dosing
> Acidic Soil Enriched with NH4
> High Lights ( I use lights rich in Red and Blue spectrum, not sure about Sudipta )
> Low Co2
> Things Where I still might have different opinion:
> 
> Will this approach only work for Aqua soil or will it work with Inert substrate? It should if NH4 was applied in the water at smaller amount while reducing the amount of NO3 present in the water.
> Higher GH? Probably not needed but it can be beneficial if Micro were to buildup over time.
> Low Temperature? This seems to be the major factor for Sudipta success, from the chemistry point of view he is not wrong about Co2 being more dissolved. But we will need to further investigate if temp of 70 F or so is the only way to accomplish this goal.
> So we can safely say that point 1-6 are the key factors, additionally adding cold temp for Non Co2 seems to be the major key factor as well in Sudipta case. If we were to apply the 1-6 with somewhere between the colder and warm temperatures, something like 74 F, I don’t see why it wouldn’t work, even though 1-6 were working just fine for me even at 76-78 F while adding 15-20 ppm CO2. 70 F might be too cold for some plant sp. but 74 F might be more tolerable.
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> 70 F, Non Co2
> 
> 72 F, 5-10 ppm Co2
> 
> 74 F, 10-20 ppm Co2
> 
> combine the above information and try it with lower co2 as suggested. Using RO/DI water gives you better control, so during this experiment I would advise against using tap water even if it were to be low in KH. But you will have option to explore that as well once you master this one. far as the nutrients goes it has already been advised.


Thanks @Happi  for the nice summary. 
I just want to clarify couple of things regarding my setups because I was probably not clear enough in my description at TPT thread.
1. Light - I am using lights rich in red and blue spectrum (various Chihiros models for all 4 of them).

2. Temperature - I wrote in my TPT thread that I see better results at low 70F (I didn't mean an exact number - 70F), I was trying to refer the lower range of 70F (70-75F). I don't think that my observation skills are good enough to see any noticeable difference in plant health in that range. It becomes more noticeable to be when the temperature starts to get higher than 76F, close to 80F and beyond. I am really sorry for this confusion.
I just measured the temperature using a cheap tds meter for all of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks as shown below.

3.Substarte - I do think that soil based substrate will give the best result because I think the majority of CO2 is coming from the sediment. I can't prove it right now but based on what I know, the atmospheric CO2 dissolution is almost negligible at these conditions (less than 1 ppm, probably close to 0.5 ppm). I believe the organic components of soil are getting decomposed by microbes and providing majority of CO2 for these systems. Lower pH (low KH) along with lower temperature are helping in this regard as well. 

Thanks,
Sudipta.


----------



## Happi

@Sudipta

the co2 from decomposing is a valid point, this remind of Diana Walstand when you said that. in a sense you are almost running a Diana Walstad approach just with very strong lights.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> Diana Walstand when you said that.


me too, I need to try find the part where she talked about it.(maybe tomorrow) she also found co2 levels changing throughout photo period like sudipta.


----------



## Sudipta

Happi said:


> @Sudipta
> 
> the co2 from decomposing is a valid point, this remind of Diana Walstand when you said that. in a sense you are almost running a Diana Walstad approach just with very strong lights.


Actually there are several differences between her system and mine other than light.
1. I am specifically keeping my tanks at very low KH (undetectable using commonly available kits).
2. I am also trying my best to keep the temperature lower.
3. I am using filters with decent flow in all of my tanks.
4. Although I am using soil based substrate but none of these are extremely high in organics (like organic potting mix that she recommended). It will give good results for several months but higher organics will lead to more algae problems in the long run as it compacts with time.
5. I am performing regular water changes unlike her method. I always perform the water change during the light period (1-2 hours after lights turn on). I think this also benefits plants especially during warmer months as new water is usually colder than tank water and it also exposes some taller plants to the air for short period of time. So frequent water changes ( just 15-20% water change should do the trick) during summer months will give better results (I have done it in the past and I know it works).


----------



## Maf 2500

In part this approach is replicating the system that exists in nature where rivers have much more CO2 than equilibrium due to terrestial organic carbon being washed into the water and then converted by micro-organisms into CO2. 

Not sure if this paper has been referenced earlier in the thread but will link it anyway:
Carbon in catchments: connecting terrestrial carbon losses with aquatic metabolism


----------



## Sudipta

Maf 2500 said:


> In part this approach is replicating the system that exists in nature where rivers have much more CO2 than equilibrium due to terrestial organic carbon being washed into the water and then converted by micro-organisms into CO2.
> 
> Not sure if this paper has been referenced earlier in the thread but will link it anyway:
> Carbon in catchments: connecting terrestrial carbon losses with aquatic metabolism


Yes you are right. Although I have not read this exact article but I have found several papers showing strong correlation between doc and CO2 production in river systems.


----------



## Happi

@Sudipta you have mentioned that you had issue with high tech setup with co2 and fertilizer. Can you shine more lights on this? 
Why you think there are less issues with non co2 tank? Because most people if they were to run high lights without co2 would have ended up with tons of algae.


----------



## Happi

Sudipta said:


> Actually there are several differences between her system and mine other than light.
> 1. I am specifically keeping my tanks at very low KH (undetectable using commonly available kits).
> 2. I am also trying my best to keep the temperature lower.
> 3. I am using filters with decent flow in all of my tanks.
> 4. Although I am using soil based substrate but none of these are extremely high in organics (like organic potting mix that she recommended). It will give good results for several months but higher organics will lead to more algae problems in the long run as it compacts with time.
> 5. I am performing regular water changes unlike her method. I always perform the water change during the light period (1-2 hours after lights turn on). I think this also benefits plants especially during warmer months as new water is usually colder than tank water and it also exposes some taller plants to the air for short period of time. So frequent water changes ( just 15-20% water change should do the trick) during summer months will give better results (I have done it in the past and I know it works).


I see your point but many people do run filter, heater, perform water changes etc. With Diana walstad methods. Aqua soil is also rich is organic matters similar to organic soil but ofcource the organic soil will decompose rather quickly compared to aqua soil. But I understand your point, looking forward to hear more from you. 

We have data from some rivers from the south somewhere buried in this thread where there is a difference between the co2 levels.


----------



## Happi

Found it


----------



## JacksonL

New fert batch day so I can add my numbers as a data point
Liquid fert dosing weekly ppms (micros delivered in one dose every day and macros split over 8 doses every day)
N 1.8ppm (8ppm NO3) half from urea half from KNO3
P 0.16ppm (0.5ppm PO4) *worried this is a bit low, would love comments from those experienced in lean dosing!
K 2.73
Fe 0.3
Mn 0.04
Zn 0.022
B 0.018
Cu 0.004
Mo 0.0042
Co 0.001
Ni 0.001

I currently do 50% water changes weekly with remineralised RO, I use epson salts, CaCl and potassium carbonate.
water change water has the following values:
dKH 2
dGH 5.5
Ca 28.5
Mg 6
K 27.84

wondering if it would be worth slowly bringing the dKH value down with each water change which would also result in lowering the amount of K I am putting in each week?
if so how slowly/quickly would I be able to start reducing that?

also should add, tank is 60L of actual water, runs CO2 (1 PH drop from degassed water) with 2x t5HO’s over it.


----------



## plantnoobdude

JacksonL said:


> New fert batch day so I can add my numbers as a data point
> Liquid fert dosing weekly ppms (micros delivered in one dose every day and macros split over 8 doses every day)
> N 1.8ppm (8ppm NO3) half from urea half from KNO3
> P 0.16ppm (0.5ppm PO4) *worried this is a bit low, would love comments from those experienced in lean dosing!
> K 2.73
> Fe 0.3
> Mn 0.04
> Zn 0.022
> B 0.018
> Cu 0.004
> Mo 0.0042
> Co 0.001
> Ni 0.001
> 
> I currently do 50% water changes weekly with remineralised RO, I use epson salts, CaCl and potassium carbonate.
> water change water has the following values:
> dKH 2
> dGH 5.5
> Ca 28.5
> Mg 6
> K 27.84
> 
> wondering if it would be worth slowly bringing the dKH value down with each water change which would also result in lowering the amount of K I am putting in each week?
> if so how slowly/quickly would I be able to start reducing that?
> 
> also should add, tank is 60L of actual water, runs CO2 (1 PH drop from degassed water) with 2x t5HO’s over it.


I dont see the need for kh. reducing K and kh should help the tank. 3-4ppm K weekly is more than enough. 0.66ppm works as well. you can probably reduce gh to 4 even with your shrimps.
that po4 level should be fine, but if you want to follow marschner ratio. raise it to maybe 0.24ppm P. as for micros this is from csmb? i would suggest making your own. I had very good results from just changing my micros. happis tenso clone works very well, and you can adjust it from there.


----------



## JacksonL

plantnoobdude said:


> I dont see the need for kh. reducing K and kh should help the tank. 3-4ppm K weekly is more than enough. 0.66ppm works as well. you can probably reduce gh to 4 even with your shrimps.
> that po4 level should be fine, but if you want to follow marschner ratio. raise it to maybe 0.24ppm P. as for micros this is from csmb? i would suggest making your own. I had very good results from just changing my micros. happis tenso clone works very well, and you can adjust it from there.


Unfortunately the salts for DIY micros are extremely hard to come by in small enough quantities in Australia to make it viable. I have switched over to Yara Rexolin (same manufacturer as Tenso) and added in my own nickel. I am also using 13% EDTA Fe to add a different chelator (Rexolin is DTPA) and keep micro numbers down/closer to tenso numbers.


----------



## plantnoobdude

JacksonL said:


> Unfortunately the salts for DIY micros are extremely hard to come by in small enough quantities in Australia to make it viable. I have switched over to Yara Rexolin (same manufacturer as Tenso) and added in my own nickel. I am also using 13% EDTA Fe to add a different chelator (Rexolin is DTPA) and keep micro numbers down/closer to tenso numbers.


I would suggest not adding the edta. tenso's fe:mn ratio is 10:7. I would suggest raising yours to atleast 2:1.


----------



## Garuf

So to get this down for sake of brevity, can it be summarised as: lower uptake in hard water makes lean dosing difficult/impossible without running into deficiencies even if offset with a low temp?


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @Sudipta,



Sudipta said:


> Thanks @Happi  for the nice summary.
> I just want to clarify couple of things regarding my setups because I was probably not clear enough in my description at TPT thread.
> 1. Light - I am using lights rich in red and blue spectrum (various Chihiros models for all 4 of them).


How long is your photoperiod?



Sudipta said:


> 2. Temperature - I wrote in my TPT thread that I see better results at low 70F (I didn't mean an exact number - 70F), I was trying to refer the lower range of 70F (70-75F). I don't think that my observation skills are good enough to see any noticeable difference in plant health in that range. It becomes more noticeable to be when the temperature starts to get higher than 76F, close to 80F and beyond. I am really sorry for this confusion.
> I just measured the temperature using a cheap tds meter for all of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks as shown below.
> 
> 3.Substarte - I do think that soil based substrate will give the best result because I think the majority of CO2 is coming from the sediment. I can't prove it right now but based on what I know, the atmospheric CO2 dissolution is almost negligible at these conditions (less than 1 ppm, probably close to 0.5 ppm). I believe the organic components of soil are getting decomposed by microbes and providing majority of CO2 for these systems. Lower pH (low KH) along with lower temperature are helping in this regard as well.


That makes sense to me.    I am not planning to switch out the substrate in the tank I'm using for this experiment. It is inert gravel, but being over 2 years old now I would assume it hosts enough microbial activity to make up for it - if needed I could supplement with occasional root tabs.  

 As for temperature I think I am going for somewhere between 73-74 F (~23 C).       

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

@MichaelJ​May I suggest this to increase the microbial activity?


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Sudipta,
> 
> 
> How long is your photoperiod?
> 
> 
> That makes sense to me.    I am not planning to switch out the substrate in the tank I'm using for this experiment. It is inert gravel, but being over 2 years old now I would assume it hosts enough microbial activity to make up for it - if needed I could supplement with occasional root tabs.
> 
> As for temperature I think I am going for somewhere between 73-74 F (~23 C).
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Michael, you will need something that will decompose in the substrate, the bacteria need to eat something that will produce some Co2 in Return. root tabs are not going to do this job, unless you add some organic soil into those capsule and then burry them into your substrate, or something similar. you can repeat this process every few months. lets see what @Sudipta thinks about this


----------



## Wookii

Sudipta said:


> Although I am using soil based substrate but none of these are extremely high in organics



Could you outline exactly what type of substrate you are using?


----------



## Happi

Substrates Analysis for those who are interested.






						Aquarium
					






					www.golias.net


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> Michael, you will need something that will decompose in the substrate, the bacteria need to eat something that will produce some Co2 in Return.


Hi @Happi,  Sure thing, and thats kind of what I was alluring to with my 2 year old substrate with lots of organic material presumably decomposing in it already.  The question of course, if its enough...



Happi said:


> unless you add some organic soil into those capsule and then burry them into your substrate, or something similar. you can repeat this process every few months. lets see what @Sudipta thinks about this


... Yes, some soil or capsules with organic matter to enrich the substrate, that might be a good idea.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

is this available in the UK ??


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> @MichaelJ​May I suggest this to increase the microbial activity?
> 
> View attachment 184153





Cheers! I am more of a bourbon guy myself!


----------



## Wookii

Happi said:


> Substrates Analysis for those who are interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aquarium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.golias.net



That’s a great link, thanks for posting @Happi 



Happi said:


> is this available in the UK ??
> 
> View attachment 184158



I can’t seem to find it online. We do have Westland Aquatic Compost - I don’t know how different they are though:









						Westland Aquatic Planting & Potting Mix Peat Free - Garden Health
					

Westland Aquatic Planting & Potting Mix peat free compost is specially formulated to support the healthy development of all aquatic plants.




					www.gardenhealth.com


----------



## Happi

Wookii said:


> That’s a great link, thanks for posting @Happi
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t seem to find it online. We do have Westland Aquatic Compost - I don’t know how different they are though:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Westland Aquatic Planting & Potting Mix Peat Free - Garden Health
> 
> 
> Westland Aquatic Planting & Potting Mix peat free compost is specially formulated to support the healthy development of all aquatic plants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gardenhealth.com


yes this one could be used in the aquarium as well. the one I posted have a really high content of organic carbon, would have been perfect for the Non Co2 project. not saying the other one wont work, but they have slightly less organic carbon content, which is still high enough.


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Sudipta,
> 
> 
> How long is your photoperiod?
> 
> 
> That makes sense to me.    I am not planning to switch out the substrate in the tank I'm using for this experiment. It is inert gravel, but being over 2 years old now I would assume it hosts enough microbial activity to make up for it - if needed I could supplement with occasional root tabs.
> 
> As for temperature I think I am going for somewhere between 73-74 F (~23 C).
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Hello Michael,
The photo period is 7 hours. However, my lights turn on around 4 PM (I prefer to see my tanks when I am back from work). The tanks don't get any direct sunlight during the daytime but they do receive the ambient light for the entire day.

You can definitely try inert substrate (I saw in your other comment that the substrate is quite old and should have decent amount of organic matter trapped). This is something I have never tried, so I am also interested to see the results. Try to keep the light intensity lower for the first couple of weeks after planting and then slowly increase the light intensity as plants start to grow (while keeping an eye on algae).


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @Sudipta,



Sudipta said:


> Hello Michael,
> The photo period is 7 hours. However, my lights turn on around 4 PM (I prefer to see my tanks when I am back from work). The tanks don't get any direct sunlight during the daytime but they do receive the ambient light for the entire day.


The photo period is probably something I will try and tweak  but initially I will stick to the 7-8 hours



Sudipta said:


> Try to keep the light intensity lower for the first couple of weeks after planting and then slowly increase the light intensity as plants start to grow (while keeping an eye on algae).


Yes, that was another thing I believe I noticed on your TPT journal that it looked like you started out quite low with the intensity and gradually increased it?  A very sound approach.

Where do you get your plants from? Online or locally here in twin-cities?   Almost all my plants I bought in recent year I've purchases from aquariumplantfactory.com out of California.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Sudipta,
> 
> 
> The photo period is probably something I will try and tweak  but initially I will stick to the 7-8 hours
> 
> 
> Yes, that was another thing I believe I noticed on your TPT journal that it looked like you started out quite low with the intensity and gradually increased it?  A very sound approach.
> 
> Where do you get your plants from? Online or locally here in twin-cities?   Almost all my plants I bought in recent year I've purchases from aquariumplantfactory.com out of California.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I have bought plants from multiple sources in the past including APF, Buceplant.com, pet stores, FB auction page, eBay, Liquid creations, pearling plants from Florida and also from local hobbyists. There is a Facebook group called MN planted tank aquatics buy/sell/trade where you can get plants at significantly cheaper prices.
If you are not in a hurry then I can give you few plants in couple of weeks (I keep mainly stem plants though).
Thanks,


----------



## MichaelJ

Sudipta said:


> I have bought plants from multiple sources in the past including APF, Buceplant.com, pet stores, FB auction page, eBay, Liquid creations, pearling plants from Florida and also from local hobbyists. There is a Facebook group called MN planted tank aquatics buy/sell/trade where you can get plants at significantly cheaper prices.
> If you are not in a hurry then I can give you few plants in couple of weeks (I keep mainly stem plants though).
> Thanks,


Hi @Sudipta   Thanks for the info and offer! much appreciated. I am going to start transitioning the tank in a couple of weeks.   

Also it would be great if you could identify a couple of the plants from your setup that I am not 100% sure about:






Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123

my guess (1) L. Super Red (2) R. Tulandensis (3) A. Pedicatella


----------



## Sudipta

Happi said:


> @Sudipta you have mentioned that you had issue with high tech setup with co2 and fertilizer. Can you shine more lights on this?
> Why you think there are less issues with non co2 tank? Because most people if they were to run high lights without co2 would have ended up with tons of algae.


I think the biggest reason why I struggled with my hightech tank initially was my inexperience in the hobby; irregular water changes, high light while the tank is not mature and the biggest of them was my inability to optimize CO2 injection.  I haven't mastered this aspect of the hobby quite yet but I am definitely heading in the right direction. I made this video about 8 months ago and I have reduced the number of fishes by more than half.

Now coming to your next question regarding less issues with non-CO2 supplemented tanks;
Although all the factors I mentioned earlier regarding my setups are very important such as good flow, soil based substrate, good lighting and regular maintenance, however low KH (pH) and temperature are probably the biggest reasons for the better forms of the plants in these systems.
If there is any detectable KH in the water then the pH of the system is going to be close to 7 or higher. This simply means less CO2 for the plants (as shown in the picture below).
This is probably one the biggest reasons why most people get a lot of algae with medium/high light in non-CO2 systems. I am not saying that I don't get algae but I can keep it manageable because my system's low pH keeps most of the available CO2 in the form of dissolved gas (CO2/H2CO3) rather than bicarbonate (very low water column nutrients also help significantly to slow down algae growth). Although many aquatic plants can use bicarbonate as a carbon source but it is not energetically favorable for them. So all aquatic plants including the so called bicarbonate users will prefer CO2 as carbon source even in the presence of bicarbonate.
Non-CO2 supplemented tanks are already limited in terms of CO2 availability and if you keep very low lights then the plants are now limited in terms of light as well. That's why most people can't keep many of the harder to grow species in non-CO2 environment. Higher lights will allow the plants to focus more on CO2 assimilation rather than investing a lot in their light harvesting system.


----------



## Sudipta

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Sudipta   Thanks for the info and offer! much appreciated. I am going to start transitioning the tank in a couple of weeks.
> 
> Also it would be great if you could identify a couple of the plants from your setup that I am not 100% sure about:
> 
> 
> View attachment 184176
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Hello Michael,
@erwin123 is absolutely correct about the plants.


----------



## Happi

@Sudipta

Did you find link between higher nutrient levels and algae growth?
Can high light with low nutrients increase algae growth?
You have high light with low nutrients and no injected CO2. Is it working because of active substrate and cold temperature, or is there more conditions?
Did you find ammonium to be preferred nitrogen source?
Did you see connection between PO4 and green spot algae?
What do you think about nutrient toxicity?

Edited the Post


----------



## erwin123

The best way to welcome new members is not by starting a "fight" 😅


----------



## Happi

well, this forum allows me to ask any question that is related or relevant to this thread *"Lean dosing pros and cons"* and its also up to the person to answer them or not, they are not obligated to answer these questions. I believe some of the questions has already been answered in the previous post by @Sudipta *“very low water column nutrients also help significantly to slow down algae growth”*

maybe some people don't want to hear what the answer might be, because it might go against their principles?

@Sudipta have a degree in biochemistry and microbiology, he have lot of knowledge and experience to answer questions related to plant and nutrients, but he isn't required to answer them if he choose to.


----------



## Wookii

Happi said:


> well, this forum allows me to ask any question that is related or relevant to this thread *"Lean dosing pros and cons"* and its also up to the person to answer them or not, they are not obligated to answer these questions. I believe some of the questions has already been answered in the previous post by @Sudipta *“very low water column nutrients also help significantly to slow down algae growth”*
> 
> maybe some people don't want to hear what the answer might be, because it might go against their principles?
> 
> @Sudipta have a degree in biochemistry and microbiology, he have lot of knowledge and experience to answer questions related to plant and nutrients, but he isn't required to answer them if he choose to.



This thread has been really interesting and informative so far, I've been enjoying following it - I think it would be a miss-step to turn it into the old 'do excess nutrient cause algae' debate, which is neither necessary nor useful - perhaps just carry on with the very useful discussion on the practical application of lean dosing and urea dosing techniques.


----------



## Happi

I guess you are right, we don't need to Debate because the truth is already unfolding.


----------



## MichaelJ

Wookii said:


> This thread has been really interesting and informative so far, I've been enjoying following it - I think it would be a miss-step to turn it into the old 'do excess nutrient cause algae' debate, which is neither necessary nor useful - perhaps just carry on with the very useful discussion on the practical application of lean dosing and urea dosing techniques.


I agree @Wookii. It seems to me that we are making the most progress and having the most educational discussions when we discuss the different approaches on their own terms.
As long as we are providing a stabile environment in our tanks, sufficient maintenance and an adequate amount of nutrients we can choose whatever meaningful approach we like and be successful. I don't think its helpful to try and reduce this to binary choices. There is a host of prerequisites that needs to be met depending on what approach we choose it seems - and probably more so for the lean-highlight-lowCO2  approach.  And that is what I am here to educate myself about.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

just edited the post #540 and hopefully that was put in a better word.


----------



## John q

Happi said:


> just edited the post #540 and hopefully that was put in a better word


Brilliant. 

We've managed to get this thread to 28 pages without desending down the usual route of falling out, which usually tends to end these types of discussions. 

I think it's refreshing that we have somewhere to learn about this approach, ask questions, test the theory's and ultimately post our results, good or bad.  

Let's keep the good things going guys 👍


----------



## Hufsa

Happi said:


> maybe some people don't want to hear what the answer might be, because it might go against their principles?


Thank you for editing your post @Happi , there are a lot of us who are following this thread and it would be such a waste if it just turns into the typical "You're a myth!" "No YOU'RE a myth!".
We can go back to the earlier pages of this thread and see where it started to derail. Usually with absolute statements about true or false, myth or not myth, and a confrontational wording. Even if we have strong opinions, we have seen time and again that it wont be very productive to approach it that way.

Not meaning to pour fuel onto the embers, but I dont understand why everyone keeps insisting to write "nutrients = algae yes/no". That statement, written either for yes or no, is leaving out several big factors in my opinion. Light and CO2 mainly.

CO2 is technically a nutrient, but not usually treated as such in these discussions. Is there anyone who advocates that CO2 causes algae? Legitimately wondering. CO2/carbon the nutrient itself, not the application of it including potential fluctuations.

There is also the case of ammonia which seems to have its own rules, from what I remember it plays an important role in signaling proliferation of algae. So this nutrient is maybe also given its own category, much like carbon is.

In my mind I keep coming back to this picture



Setup #1 seems a lot like a type of lean dosing to me. Pretty high light, moderate CO2 and fairly low nutrient levels. Growth can be pretty slow depending on added nutrients but for some pro's this is a bonus, means they have to do less trimming.
Setup #2 looks a bit like how my newbie low tech tank was for a while. Too high light, EI ferts and not nearly enough CO2. Plants were stunting left and right and it was an algae-fest.
Setup #3 looks like a high tech tank turned up to 11, running nosebleed everything.

Im however wishing there were a few more setups in this picture, especially the following one that I have taken the liberty to badly photoshop:
Setup #4: Low tech with EI ferts. Barely any CO2 because we dont inject it, we keep light slightly more limiting than CO2 and find that we can add as much ferts as we like. We are many who run this setup on this forum, @MichaelJ for example.




The takeaway is that none of these systems are competing with each other for "the truth". 
Changing nutrients in setup #1 doesnt have the same effect as changing nutients in setup #4. 
So why do we insist in arguing like they are all the same?

To be continued.
I want to post my thoughts and questions about enzymes, light and CO2 efficiency and the Tropica study, but my SO wishes to watch telly with me and I was only able to buy 10 more minutes to finish this post with the argument "I just want to post this before they derail the thread!"


----------



## plantnoobdude

lovely visual. but I think this is the key. *"seems a lot like a type of lean dosing to me."
B*ut not the type Happi is doing. the Idea is to put it in the amount of nutrients that plants need, no more. Now we won't be able to get right at the correct numbers, but I believe we can get pretty close. the other type is ADA this is to limit one nutrient severely. downside? plants grow very slowly. I think it is important do differentiate between "lean dosing". edward from pps is also closer to happis approach. Happis approch gets big full leaves, good colour, and more importantly very fast growth and minimal water changes.
to put in my experience. when I do a water change, the incoming water is remineralised to 65ppm. then, it raises to 100ppm because of soil. after that the tds stays stable within +-5ppm for two weeks untill next water change. this is the benefit of happis approach. when the tank is "balanced" you can go for months without water changes, similar to edwards approach. and still get very fast growth.


----------



## Hufsa

plantnoobdude said:


> I think this is the key. *"seems a lot like a type of lean dosing to me."
> B*ut not the type Happi is doing.


That seems fair, there is room for every setup, I can think of many more than what are pictured 
I didnt make the original picture, in fact I am not entirely sure where it is from, I just like it a lot.

Feel free to add some more visual setups yourself anyone 

Maybe if there are distinct differences in types of lean dosing methods, we should start using more specific terms when discussing them?
Just to keep things as clear as possible? I will leave the naming up to someone else, Happy-Lean just made me think of all sorts of jokes 🤭

EI is technically not "just one" method either I guess, since people dose 1/2 EI, full EI and other variations, but it doesnt seem to matter in the same way. Correct me if I am wrong but isnt the EI method based on light being the limiting factor, and thats why we can dose so much nutrients or any percentage of full EI without seeing any changes, as long as the plants get enough. Basically as long as the (purple) nutrient factor is floating a bit above the others, the setup could be described as EI.

Maybe I am missing something obvious but I feel the reason algae studies in nature and "EI principles" do not agree is precisely because of the intense light given out by the sun. If you try to compare them directly you need to keep in mind you are comparing different setups.

Obviously the picture I shared is a gross simplification of all of it, but its usefulness is (imo) to keep a big picture mindset.


[Edit] I just saw this is my 1000 post on the forum. Im not sure I have gotten much better at growing plants but I must say I am having a good time trying. Cheers!


----------



## Happi

@Hufsa
My  visuals look something like this, sorry I was referring to  my painting skills. still need more time to make the proper version

@dw1305 wait for it, still working on my Visuals.



Edit: better drawing has been updated in post# 555


----------



## MichaelJ

Hufsa said:


> we keep light slightly more limiting than CO2 and find that we can add as much ferts as we like. We are many who run this setup on this forum, @MichaelJ for example.



Hi @Hufsa    Yes, this has proven out to really work for me in both my tanks (slow growth, very healthy plants and zero algae to speak of). Although I generally like the simplification, I think a lot of other parameters / conditions needs to be painted into the picture. These tanks are very densely planted with plants in the easy (and "lower light demand")  category (Lots various crypts, various Anubis, ferns, swords, buces, frogbit, pennyworth, duckweed ... all the easy stuff). Only until quite recently I had both my KH fairly high at 4-5 KH and pH at 7.2-7.4...  After I started to lower my KH/pH, thus improving uptake and availability,  I also very gradually began to lower my NPK dosing, The water is now ~1 KH and fairly acidic at 6.2-6.5 pH in both my tanks and the NPK dosing is roughly half of what it used to be (NO3 is still pretty high at 15 ppm but down from over 20ppm), but my PO4 is down to less than 5ppm from >10ppm the past and my K is 18 ppm down from 40-50ppm.  My trace dosing is mostly unchanged. My Ca and Mg is also lower in the tank where I will do the experiment now <5 GH down from 6.5 ...  With the high light experiment I am going to cut those values further - perhaps in half, and replace most/all the NO3 with Urea. Other than that I am going to lower my temperature a bit and slowly crank the light! ... and of course assign blame if I see an algae under my microscope! 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> @Hufsa
> My  visuals look something like this, sorry I was referring to  my painting skills. still need more time to make the proper version
> 
> @dw1305 wait for it, still working on my Visuals.
> View attachment 184206


Nice drawing @Happi


----------



## MichaelJ

Hufsa said:


> [Edit] I just saw this is my 1000 post on the forum. Im not sure I have gotten much better at growing plants but I must say I am having a good time trying. Cheers!


Congratulations!

Here is your group photo with all of us:


----------



## Happi

This is my perspective based on observation and Experiments. High Lights, Med-Low Co2, Low Nutrients, fast plant growth, less algae.


----------



## KirstyF

I would add to the above that we also need to consider peoples objectives and experience level.

For example: 
Person A wants to use tap water…. Well there goes any method that requires or significantly benefits from a specific KH. (I look at @MichaelJ ’s fairly high 4-5KH with a wry smile, as my tap is around 12KH)

Person B wants low TDS and has the experience and/or confidence to experiment. @MichaelJ ur back in! 

Person C needs to run their tank at high temps (eg discus tanks) so maybe @Sudipta s method may be less successful here.

Person D is a complete newbie, so a method that requires them to recognise something as simple as what stunting looks like, and adjust accordingly, might be a step too far. Here simplicity may be the over-riding factor in their initial success.

My personal feeling is that ‘different strokes for different folks’ always has to be at the back of our minds, and many different approaches have merits for different reasons! 

Long may we continue to explore them. 😊


----------



## eminor

I still can't turn plant red even with low N (around 1 ppm), l always dose K high (25ppm), the light is medium, 12 hours long. soil is clean

maybe i have an answer to my question, i was wondering if i can make plant turn red without high light, it seems difficult.


There was a topic about water parameters in famous rivers like Brazil etc, the amount of nutrients was incredibly low, nothing like ei, even lower than some lean dosing example here


----------



## Karmicnull

Many years ago, I couldn't wait for Tuesdays.  Tuesdays were the day the Beano came out, and I got to find out what Dennis The Menace had been up to.  A few years later it was Saturdays, and 2000AD.  Judge Dredd and The Strontium Dogs.  Now we live in age of instant gratification, and I  put my feet up every evening with a cup of tea and catch up with the latest instalments of the Lean Dosing thread.

@Sudipta thanks for your extremely comprehensive response to my questions (now several pages back).  Fuelled with Lean excitement I dug out my test kit, wiped the dust off it, and did things with chemicals.  My tank currently has KH4, GH5 and PH 6.9  I'm going to gradually reduce the percentage of tap water in the mix to bring KH and GH down further.  I may also bite the bullet and cut over from tap water to remineralising, but a bit more research is needed on that first.  @MichaelJ seeing as I appear to be following loosely in your footsteps I might steal your remin stats as a starting point.

A couple of questions for everyone on two things I haven't really understood yet.  
First off how do you reduce baseline PH?  I can see how you converge on 7, but how do you get lower?  @Roland is using lignite, the interweb suggest peat moss, and there's the driftwood / cattapa / blackwater route, but I'm not quite sure what other ways there are?  TBH I'm slightly baffled as to why mine is sitting below 7 - especially as the scape has carboniferous limestone in it.

Secondly I think @KirstyF's analysis is dead on.  If you're a beginner get some soil in there, fill up with whatever comes out of your tap, dose EI, plant easy plants, keep the light low, and you're off to a promising start.  Which brings me to my other question: Generally speaking the received wisdom (as experienced buy @Hufsa in her case#2 above) is that if you limit light, you don't get Algae, whereas if you have plenty of light and ferts but limit CO2, then you can grow algae to your heart's content.  Why is that - do algae just not need carbon as much as more sophisticated plants do?

Cheers,
 Simon


----------



## MichaelJ

Karmicnull said:


> First off how do you reduce baseline PH?


Hi @Karmicnull  The only way I have been able to reduce pH consistently, stable and naturally is by first lowering the KH way down and add botanicals (Cattapa / Indian Almond Leaves) We had a thread on the topic recently. Way in the past I used Acid buffers / pH down and all sorts of terrible stuff that never stabilized anything and just made my TDS skyrocket... For a long time I essentially ignored pH and just compensated for possible lack of uptake/precipitation - and a bunch of other things that is going on in a higher pH environment that I don't fully understand, by dosing more ferts. I am not saying you can't obtain low and stable pH by other means than botanicals, but for me at least it was the simplest way that worked. Low KH is essential though - the higher the contents of CO3 the more the water will resist change to pH and _be more inclined_ to creep back toward the equilibrium. Things did not change much for me even with the botanicals before I got my KH down to the 2 KH range - right now I am at ~1 KH. Now, the tannins worried me a little bit as well initially but in my experience, to wind the pH down from the 7.2-7.4 range down to ~6.2 I only have to add a few leaves (sized around 4x6 inch) per month and it wont really tint the water that much (the weekly WC helps a lot to avoid the water to turn tea color) - well, I also got used to it and learned to live with it 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123

Karmicnull said:


> @Sudipta thanks for your extremely comprehensive response to my questions (now several pages back).  Fuelled with Lean excitement I dug out my test kit, wiped the dust off it, and did things with chemicals.  My tank currently has KH4, GH5 and PH 6.9  I'm going to gradually reduce the percentage of tap water in the mix to bring KH and GH down further.  I may also bite the bullet and cut over from tap water to remineralising, but a bit more research is needed on that first.  @MichaelJ seeing as I appear to be following loosely in your footsteps I might steal your remin stats as a starting point.


former Beano and Dandy reader here too 😅
My tap water KH is 3-4, Gh6.  Tapwater ph is 7.5 but my tank water, it never gets higher than 6.9 as well.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @eminor,


eminor said:


> There was a topic about water parameters in famous rivers like Brazil etc, the amount of nutrients was incredibly low, nothing like ei, even lower than some lean dosing example here


Yes, you might be thinking of this thread on amazon water types vs natural fertilizer levels.  In many ways it was an eye-opener for me - there are many good insights in the thread, but we have to be careful when extrapolating between natural habitats and our glass boxes, but it is indeed very interesting.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

Happi said:


> View attachment 184209
> 
> This is my perspective based on observation and Experiments. High Lights, Med-Low Co2, Low Nutrients, fast plant growth, less algae.


Happi in my opinion your mistake is that you extrapolate your observation to the entire hobby. I can point out and know many of the best and most famous plant growers in the world who observe different results. And I personally know people who have very successful tanks with high macros, low macros, high micros, low micros, low/no CO2, nosebleed levels high CO2, inert substrate, active substrate, NO3: P04 ratios at 10:1, 5:1 and 2:1, NO3 :K ratios at 1:2, 2:2, and 3:2, soft water hard water, low dKH/high dKH, N source NO3, Urea, Ammonium Nitrate...........etc. etc. 

There is no one way for success. Each tank is a unique bio system. The reliance on ratios and nutrient tunnel vision does not help the average aquarist. There are far more important things to be focused on. 

100's /1,000's of people have followed my friend Tom Barrs methods with great success. The same for my friend Xiaozhaung Wong. These are solid methods that are repeatable in the hobby. If you get to know them, they place much less emphasis on nutrient levels than anyone would believe. Their approach is more holistic on a tank by tank basis. And while not sexy, the thing we discuss the most is maintenance and horticulture. If you get those right, you have a lot of leeway with everything else. 

Now as to your method very few people that I know have successful algae free tanks with high light, low dosing, and low CO2. It has not proven to be repeatable on a large scale. And I know a lot of people in the hobby, from all over the world. However I do believe it's possible and you get the results you claim. The thing is it's not the only way.

In a similar theme my friend Sudipta just started his journal here about his non-CO2 high light which is fascinating. But again the tricky thing about his method is to determine if it is repeatable. That is, can someone follow that method and reasonably expect to get the same/similar results. So far the answer is no. One or two people demonstrating success with a method means little. And again Sudipta is my friend and I follow his journey with great interest. If more people could duplicate this success it would be much more compelling to the hobby. But so far it's an outlier. 

So my thought in general is that if you have developed a method that works for you, that is a good thing. But to disparage others who enjoy great success but do not share your beliefs is narrow minded. There are many, many ways to have a successful planted tank. And there are many, many very successful planted tankers all over the world that use different methods than yours. Their success is not less valid than yours.


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> Happi in my opinion your mistake is that you extrapolate your observation to the entire hobby.



Hi @GreggZ  Fascinating post.  I am not entirely sure that @Happi is trying to extrapolate across the entire hobby (correct me if I am wrong @Happi)... I always felt that he was trying to drive home the point that there are alternative ways to achieve great results - a conversation that's been somewhat absent in the short amount of time I've been a member here -  and trying to go up against "dogmas" (or "myths" as the combatants call it, when the discussions gets heated)...  For me Happi's and recently @Sudipta input is _a shot in the arm_.... we are not going to make much progress by embracing the status quo...  But otherwise I agree with your thoughtful post - _many roads leads to Rome_ and thats how its always been and always going to be...  And I certainly agree that hobbyists that do not wish to be on the bleeding edge of _alternative or experimental _approaches can find plenty of almost bulletproof approaches prescribed by Barr and his followers (which includes me btw) and that is  all fine.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

@MichaelJ
That is correct, am not saying that you cannot grow plants in lean or high dosing, I  already demonstrated that with various pictures under all kinds of dosing approaches. Where you can see both good and bad.

The main purpose of this thread was, can you grow plants with lean dosing and the answer is Yes, some people were worried that they will get algae if they didn't lower their light or keep the co2 high, I demonstrated that is not the case and you can run high light with low nutrients and low co2, no problem. Far as the algae goes it was also demonstrated in some of those pictures and posts.

Take plantnoobdude setup for example, he was struggling to grow plants but after some tweaks he saw the improvement, he mainly changed his dosing approach. He just recently changed his soil and he might have some algae as well but he is doing much better. My advice to him was that he is not obligated to dose how I dose my tank, he can tweak and adjust the nutrients as he wish to achieve his goals. One of His goals were to reduce the water changes and maintain low TDS and he seems to understand how to get their.

I notice that people are talking about KH again, it was already covered in multiple threads that the lower KH is best for plants, almost 0.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


erwin123 said:


> former Beano and Dandy reader here too


Same for me, but a while ago.


Karmicnull said:


> ......... Many years ago, I couldn't wait for Tuesdays. Tuesdays were the day the Beano came out, and I got to find out what Dennis The Menace had been up to. A few years later it was Saturdays, and 2000AD. Judge Dredd and The Strontium Dogs. Now we live in age of instant gratification, and I put my feet up every evening with a cup of tea and catch up with the latest instalments of the Lean Dosing thread.....


What more could any-one wish for than a <"life well lived">?


MichaelJ said:


> ow KH is essential though - the higher the contents of CO3 the more the water will resist change to pH and _be more inclined_ to creep back toward the equilibrium. Things did not change much for me even with the botanicals before I got my KH down to the 2 KH range - right now I am at ~1 KH. Now, the tannins worried me a little bit as well initially but in my experience, to wind the pH down from the 7.2-7.4 range down to ~6.2


Yes, <"botanicals" will only work"> if you have very low levels of  dKH.

cheers Darrel


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @GreggZ  Fascinating post.  I am not entirely sure that @Happi is trying to extrapolate across the entire hobby (correct me if I am wrong @Happi)... I always felt that he was trying to drive home the point that there are alternative ways to achieve great results - a conversation that's been somewhat absent in the short amount of time I've been a member here -  and trying to go up against "dogmas" (or "myths" as the combatants call it, when the discussions gets heated)...  For me Happi's and recently @Sudipta input is _a shot in the arm_.... we are not going to make much progress by embracing the status quo...  But otherwise I agree with your thoughtful post - _many roads leads to Rome_ and thats how its always been and always going to be...  And I certainly agree that hobbyists that do not wish to be on the bleeding edge of _alternative or experimental _approaches can find plenty of almost bulletproof approaches prescribed by Barr and his followers (which includes me btw) and that is  all fine.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Michael I agree most of this discussion is best for the cutting edge and folks who really know what they are doing. And that was kind of my point about  extrapolating this across the entire hobby.

Let me expand on that. 

When I say it's difficult to extrapolate that across the entire hobby, what I am referring to is questioning whether this is a method that can be reliably be followed by a wide group of people and can they expect to have similar results. In my opinion so far the answer is no. And I'm not doubting Happi's observation of his own tanks. But one or two people having success with a method tends to be an outlier. It's very interesting as like you said it's experimental and on the cutting edge. But in terms of the broader hobby I think you need to be careful. 

As an example I have hundreds of friends in the hobby and hundreds of people who have reached out to me about their tanks over the years. A typical problem might be someone who is blasting very high light, has poor CO2 levels, and is dosing very lean. And they have a serious algae farm.

In some cases they are getting advice from a local fish store that is telling them that nutrients cause algae and they should starve algae to death. Or they even suggest something like a PO4 remover as they they tell them that the main cause of algae is too much PO4. Myths. Or they have read they need to limit NO3 to bring out reds, but they don't really understand what an N limited tank means.  So they have a tank full of plants that are being driven hard and are starving for nutrients and CO2. Those starving plants are a magnet for algae.

Most times turning down the light, turning up the CO2, and dosing more nutrients brings their tank into balance. Plants are getting what they need and suddenly they start growing in healthy form. Pretty soon algae starts disappearing and the tank is on it's way to being successful. In general I have seen more algae as the result of under dosing not over dosing. No question about that to me over many, many years.

Now take that to the broader discussion of rich vs. lean dosing. First you need to define them. Standard EI dosing is NO3: PO4: K at 22:4:22 weekly. Buy very, very few successful people I know dose at that level. I dose at 12:4:15. Xiaozhaung's APT Complete is 6:2.8:16. But keep in mind that is for your average tank, not a very high light tank full of fast growing flowery stems. Also note K is almost 3 times NO3. And that mix is being used successfully and being sold in the tens of thousands of bottles. APT EI is at 15:4.5:14. Less than standard EI but still pretty high PO4. It would interest people to know that Tom Barr does not currently dose EI levels. It's something less. The point is today's "rich" dosing is not EI levels and is not terribly rich in the scheme of things. 

And I could go on and on. Happi mentioned Merian Sterian and quoted him. What he left out is that Merian doses 5 x the daily dose right after a water change to bring nutrient levels back up. He believes in keeping nutrient levels stable which is something I also subscribe to. But his dosing is not what I would call lean when you add it all up.

The Vin Kutty rotala kill tank experiments are extremely interesting. Very rich soil and very low to no dosing. Works very well on some species. And it kills others. If you ask Vin how he doses his Dutch tank, it's with good nutrient levels in the water column. We were discussing this just the other day. He said that every time his dosing gets too low in that tank it declines, and when he increases dosing and it recovers.

So in the end I find the discussion interesting, and it is something to be explored. Can it be suggested to the masses and help them in their planted tank journey. My opinion is no. But again this only my opinion. Even in the example above where someone mentioned some improvement from dosing leaner, that person also just recently changed their soil. That will have a far greater impact than dosing and tanks with fresh soil need little dosing (other than PO4).


----------



## plantnoobdude

GreggZ said:


> So in the end I find the discussion interesting, and it is something to be explored. Can it be suggested to the masses and help them in their planted tank journey. My opinion is no. But again this only my opinion. Even in the example above where someone mentioned some improvement from dosing leaner, that person also just recently changed their soil. That will have a far greater impact than dosing and tanks with fresh soil need little dosing (other than PO4).


the benefits I noticed even before changing soil.
post #261, #309 , #338, #341
is where I show photos before i used new soil.


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> the benefits I noticed even before changing soil.
> post #261, #309 , #338, #341
> is where I show photos before i used new soil.


Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt your observations.

Wallachii has never been known to do well in rich conditions and does better in lean water column. Just saying no surprise there.

Myself and many others have been growing Macranda Variegated well in richer conditions with NO3 dosing for many, many years.

Here is it at about 25 ppm NO3 in the water column from KNO3. 






I am glad you have seen improvements. It's also been a very short period of time to really understand the effects of changes that you have made. 

And sometimes we assign causal effect where this is none. The premise Urea + Macranda Variegated = better health. I can point you to dozens of folks who would say makes no difference. 

But again all in all this is still an interesting discussion and I will continue to follow along. I'm still not sold on how it can be implemented across the broader hobby, but heck I am been wrong before.  Keep at it and keep the updates coming.


----------



## medlight

GreggZ said:


> And I could go on and on. Happi mentioned Merian Sterian and quoted him. What he left out is that Merian doses 5 x the daily dose right after a water change to bring nutrient levels back up. He believes in keeping nutrient levels stable which is something I also subscribe to. But his dosing is not what I would call lean when you add it all up.


This is something that was commented on very privately, and its system was debated, although little information was given about it, they are very selective and private methods


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


GreggZ said:


> In some cases they are getting advice from a local fish store that is telling them that nutrients cause algae and they should starve algae to death. Or they even suggest something like a PO4 remover as they they tell them that the main cause of algae is too much PO4. Myths. Or they have read they need to limit NO3 to bring out reds, but they don't really understand what an N limited tank means. So they have a tank full of plants that are being driven hard and are starving for nutrients and CO2. Those starving plants are a magnet for algae.


I think that is probably fair comment.  For me the most important thing is a <"reasonable plant mass in active growth">.  Once you have that, <"as an under-pinning">, everything else tends to fall into place. Personally I'm really interested in the <"probable, not the possible"> and I'm not particularly interested in growing more difficult plants etc.

If I had a sudden desire to grow "trickier" plants, I'd look at the techniques used by @Geoffrey Rea and @Roland etc, because they are <"obviously pretty successful">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> Michael I agree most of this discussion is best for the cutting edge and folks who really know what they are doing. And that was kind of my point about  extrapolating this across the entire hobby.
> 
> Let me expand on that.
> 
> When I say it's difficult to extrapolate that across the entire hobby, what I am referring to is questioning whether this is a method that can be reliably be followed by a wide group of people and can they expect to have similar results. In my opinion so far the answer is no. And I'm not doubting Happi's observation of his own tanks. But one or two people having success with a method tends to be an outlier. It's very interesting as like you said it's experimental and on the cutting edge. But in terms of the broader hobby I think you need to be careful.



Hi @GreggZ I agree.  The Lean-highlight-lowCO2 approach is not a mainstream approach and whether it will ever be is doubtful, but fascinating nevertheless. If you just look at some of the prerequisites (correct me if I am wrong):


Rich substrate:  Expensive - but probably the least of the hurdles, unless you have to switch it out.
Low KH/pH making RO/DI almost mandatory:  Costly, elaborate and impractical for many.
low(er) temperature:  Excluding a lot of livestock that prefer warmer waters. (and may require a chiller in warmer climates)
Finely tuned and specialized fertilization: Requiring quite a bit of insights, and possibly lots of experimentations to get it just right.   This is probably where most hobbyists will take a pass.

The practical advice given by many (including myself) on this forum, in addition to stable conditions and proper maintenance,  is very much in line with derivations of the EI approach; provide enough ("rich") of everything in terms of NPK and traces and you don't have to worry about fertilizers or water parameters.  If you get that down, and provide enough flow/circulation to make sure nutrient distribution is up to par and make sure your light intensity is in line with stable nutrients/CO2 availability (whether you inject or not..) you wont go wrong.  I still have to see a convincing case where all these conditions are met over time and the hobbyist still struggles with algae or poor plant health.  In a tank like this, it generally doesn't matter to your plants (except for certain picky soft-water  species)  what the water parameters (KH/GH/pH) are. It's a very straight forward approach in my opinion and its been working wonderfully for me in the past and so many others around here. To me there is no conflict here; we have to make a distinction between what is technically possible for the folks among us who are ready to make the commitment (to the lean-highlight-lowCO2 approach or other experimental approaches) , and what is practical for most folks in the hobby who are not.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

medlight said:


> This is something that was commented on very privately, and its system was debated, although little information was given about it, they are very selective and private methods


I have spoken about this with Marian and he posted it publicly on several FB groups. When he mentioned it, it became a topic of discussion.  It has to do with what happens when you perform a water change. Remove 50% of your water and you have removed 50% of your nutrients. Some sensitive plants don't react well to the sudden drop in nutrients. They prefer very stable conditions. 

This is something that has been discussed for years now. Xiaozhaung talks about stability regularly. One mistake people make is to create sudden changes in the system. Plants are very adaptable, but once they settle in with a set of parameters they don't like large sudden changes. It takes time for them to adjust and many times folks don't have the patience to let that happen. So they change things again, then change things again, and the plants never get into a rhythm.

It's why I started front end loading all of my macro nutrients right after a water change many years ago. It keeps nutrient levels as stable as possible. In my tank my fish generated nutrients are about the same as my plant uptake. Front end loading keeps my NO3/PO4 at almost exactly levels at all times. I can measure and get pretty much the same reading any day of the week, including right before and right after a water change. That goes the same for TDS. I can test my TDS any day of the week and it's almost exactly the same. If it isn't then something is off.


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> It's why I started front end loading all of my macro nutrients right after a water change many years ago.


Hi @GreggZ  I have been doing this with macros and minerals for a long time now as well... mixing the weeks "use" of NPK and Ca/Mg into the weekly 40% WC water straight away.  Makes the whole routine easier and safer as well as it avoids fluctuations.... I always take the TDS of the WC water to make sure I got the target right as well.  My traces I add the day after and then again mid week.   I even let my RO water degas for a day before using it to avoid CO2 spikes. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @GreggZ I agree.  The Lean-highlight-lowCO2 approach is not a mainstream approach and whether it will ever be is doubtful, but fascinating nevertheless. If you just look at some of the prerequisites (correct me if I am wrong):
> 
> 
> Rich substrate:  Expensive - but probably the least of the hurdles, unless you have to switch it out.
> Low KH/pH making RO/DI almost mandatory:  Costly, elaborate and impractical for many.
> low(er) temperature:  Excluding a lot of livestock that prefer warmer waters.
> Finely tuned and specialized fertilization: Requiring quite a bit of insights, and possibly lots of experimentations to get it just right.   This is probably where most hobbyists will take a pass.
> 
> The practical advice given by many (including myself) on this forum, in addition to stable conditions and proper maintenance,  is very much in line with derivations of the EI approach; provide enough ("rich") of everything in terms of NPK and traces and you don't have to worry about fertilizers or water parameters.  If you get that down, and provide enough flow/circulation to make sure nutrient distribution is up to par and make sure your light intensity is in line with stable nutrients/CO2 availability (whether you inject or not..) you wont go wrong.  I still have to see a convincing case where all these conditions are met over time and the hobbyist still struggles with algae or poor plant health.  In a tank like this, it generally doesn't matter to your plants (except for certain picky soft-water  species)  what the water parameters (KH/GH/pH) are. It's a very straight forward approach in my opinion and its been working wonderfully for me in the past and so many others around here. To me there is no conflict here; we have to make a distinction between what is technically possible for the folks among us who are ready to make the commitment (to the lean-highlight-lowCO2 approach) , and what is practical for most folks in the hobby who are not.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Agree with everything you said. I also find outlier tanks fascinating. I've been talking to Sudipta for quite a long time about his non CO2 tanks. Still amazes me to this day.

And yes, it takes a special kind of commitment to follow some of these methods.  Not for the average hobbyist. What I would love to see is if some of these methods could be repeatable on a large scale. That always seems to be the missing link.


----------



## KirstyF

GreggZ said:


> again all in all this is still an interesting discussion and I will continue to follow along. I'm still not sold on how it can be implemented across the broader hobby, but heck I am been wrong before. Keep at it and keep the updates coming.



For me…..The Tom Barr method is aimed very squarely at a broad ‘market’. (I include myself right here) It’s easy to understand, relatively easy to implement and will, in most cases, give good results. It’s not foolproof perhaps but IMO it’s a pretty good yardstick.

Happi’s methods are a bit trickier to understand, you need to know more to implement them well and IMO they hold a greater risk of going wrong for the average joe, because of that. There is, however, still a market for them.

Potentially the more they are explored and tested and tried out, the more knowledge is gained of both the pro’s and cons…..and this forum seems like the perfect place to do that.

Would I use Happi’s methods right now…..no! I’m fully aware of my own limitations and believe I need a better grasp of the basics before going ‘off piste’. 

But……I also consistently come back to this thread and read it with interest. It challenges folks to think, and to question….and this is how we learn! 

I may never use Happi’s methods but if I did ever want to experiment with lean dosing, I’d know a lot more about it than I ever did before this thread came up! 😊


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @GreggZ  I have been doing this with macros and minerals for a long time now as well... mixing the weeks "use" of NPK and Ca/Mg into the weekly 40% WC water straight away.  Makes the whole routine easier and safer as well as it avoids fluctuations.... I always take the TDS of the WC water to make sure I got the target right as well.  My traces I add the day after and then again mid week.   I even let my RO water degas for a day before using it to avoid CO2 spikes.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I love it. I have been doing so for years as well. 

If nothing else it sure is a lot more convenient.


----------



## GreggZ

KirstyF said:


> For me…..The Tom Barr method is aimed very squarely at a broad ‘market’. (I include myself right here) It’s easy to understand, relatively easy to implement and will, in most cases, give good results. It’s not foolproof perhaps but IMO it’s a pretty good yardstick.
> 
> Happi’s methods are a bit trickier to understand, you need to know more to implement them well and IMO they hold a greater risk of going wrong for the average joe, because of that. There is, however, still a market for them.
> 
> Potentially the more they are explored and tested and tried out, the more knowledge is gained of both the pro’s and cons…..and this forum seems like the perfect place to do that.
> 
> Would I use Happi’s methods right now…..no! I’m fully aware of my own limitations and believe I need a better grasp of the basics before going ‘off piste’.
> 
> But……I also consistently come back to this thread and read it with interest. It challenges folks to think, and to question….and this is how we learn!
> 
> I may never use Happi’s methods but if I did ever want to experiment with lean dosing, I’d know a lot more about it than I ever did before this thread came up! 😊


Agreed and a good example of the thoughts of many in the hobby. And learning and evolving is a great thing. I've been challenging some common notions for years too.


----------



## Happi

KirstyF said:


> Happi’s methods are a bit trickier to understand, you need to know more to implement them well and IMO they hold a greater risk of going wrong for the average joe, because of that. There is, however, still a market for them.




this risk is with any approach that you might follow, anyone can fail even with the best approach.


----------



## Hanuman

What I see and read is that we keep on talking about low dosing + high light + no/low CO2 but not much is said about temperature and its criticality. In my opinion it is perhaps the most important ingredient that will make the low dosing + high light + no/low CO2 work. That's also perhaps why this method cannot be applied to the majority because most people don't have a chiller. Those that live in cold countries or countries where you have 4 seasons you can make this work for a time of the year but then summer come and the rest is history. That's why the EI methods or the ones derived thereof are more applicable to the masses since temperature is less critical to maintain the tank in good condition.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> What I see and read is that we keep on talking about low dosing + high light + no/low CO2 but not much is said about temperature and its criticality. In my opinion it is perhaps the most important ingredient that will make the low dosing + high light + no/low CO2 work. That's also perhaps why this method cannot be applied to the majority because most people don't have a chiller. Those that live in cold countries or countries where you have 4 seasons you can make this work for a time of the year but then summer come and the rest is history. That's why the EI methods or the ones derived thereof are more applicable to the masses since temperature is less critical to maintain the tank in good condition.


Hi @Hanuman  I added your point about a chiller to my lists of prerequisite in my post above - a very good point, that is easily overlooked unless you live in a climate that would require it  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

The temperature has nothing to do with effectiveness of the lean dosing with high light, it will work weather your temperature is 70 or 78, Long as you are adding some co2. 

However, if you were to add some co2 with cooler temperature with high lights and lean dosing, your tank will do even better.


----------



## Hanuman

Happi said:


> The temperature has nothing to do with effectiveness of the lean dosing with high light


How does temperature has nothing to do with affecting this method? Temperature drives plant metabolism rate hence nutrient uptake (CO2 and ferts). Lower it, less uptake, increase it, higher uptake. Happens in both kingdoms extensively: flora and fauna.



Happi said:


> it will work weather your temperature is 70 or 78, Long as you are adding some co2.


The "_as long as adding some CO2_" says it all and confirms the temperature argument.
70F or 78F is 21C-25C which is low and averagely low in my book. Go on and keep increasing that to above 25C and you will see what happens at every degree point with low dosing, high light and low CO2. Things will start degrading. You need to increase CO2 and perhaps nutrients (depending the soil and plants) because plants will increase their requirement/uptake else they'll start showing deficiencies  and eventually starve even with a rich substrate if CO2 is low etc etc. There is a reason why low tech people don't go blasting high lights in their tanks. And again,  what is high light in your book? In mine, medium to high starts at ~100PAR and above. I know some that blast 500PAR. Without very high CO2 levels the tank would be a fine pile of junk. So perhaps before we can keep talking about this low, low, high method it would be best to define all baseline factors (for CO2, ferts, light, temperature) in terms of actual numbers/ranges so that we can all agree on something as a starter.

Also, this discussion is very broad since not all plants have the same requirements. What can work for one plant might not work for another. That's why CO2 was introduced in the hobby in the first place so that we could have a wider variety of plants kept in one tank because without CO2 we were limited in terms of color, form and variety. In any case, ferts in my opinion are perhaps the most overblown topic of all because there are so many levers we think we can pull on it that we think it's the answer to everything, while we dismiss the most straight forward factors, like light, CO2 and temperature. I don't see any other factor other than temperature that will allow you to get away with "low" fert + "high" light and possibly "low" CO2.


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> What I see and read is that we keep on talking about low dosing + high light + no/low CO2 but not much is said about temperature and its criticality. In my opinion it is perhaps the most important ingredient that will make the low dosing + high light + no/low CO2 work. That's also perhaps why this method cannot be applied to the majority because most people don't have a chiller. Those that live in cold countries or countries where you have 4 seasons you can make this work for a time of the year but then summer come and the rest is history. That's why the EI methods or the ones derived thereof are more applicable to the masses since temperature is less critical to maintain the tank in good condition.


Agreed.

You can throw very low/no dKH into the argument, and also the specific plants make a big difference too.

I was chatting with Tom Barr about temperature just last week, and here is a quote from him. I think that sums it up pretty well.

_"Some poor guy with dKH of 12, tropics and his tank is 35C vs a guy in Denmark with their low kh of 2, temps at 20C…the differences are massive."_


----------



## Happi

@Hanuman
Maybe you are not reading carefully what am saying? The effectiveness of lean dosing is not reduced weather you add 10 or 30 ppm co2, weather the temperature is low or high. Because uptake of the nutrients is no where near as what people think.


----------



## swyftfeet

GreggZ said:


> Agree with everything you said. I also find outlier tanks fascinating. I've been talking to Sudipta for quite a long time about his non CO2 tanks. Still amazes me to this day.
> 
> And yes, it takes a special kind of commitment to follow some of these methods.  Not for the average hobbyist. What I would love to see is if some of these methods could be repeatable on a large scale. That always seems to be the missing link.


People that don't have a saltwater or aren't breeding shrimp likely won't have an RO unit.  A lot of journals that Ive read thru generally have med to hard water,   My local water supply only published "total hardness" which doesn't break down the values of GH and KH, so I don't even know what Ive got to be honest.

I think theres a significant number of people like myself that "choose" Low tech out of lack of hobby funds or unsure how deep we want to dive into it.  If budget was unlimited I'd have purchased all that extra stuff (RO and CO2 system).

I think (for me and a number of others) it makes testing this prohibitively expensive for a mock up as I'd have to pony up for an RO b/c my tap water is closer to liquid rock.  I'd prob be better off getting a CO2 system than an RO unit.

Its going to take someone who can propagate plants from an existing tank and either is lucky enough with their water supply, or already has an RO unit.

Celestial Pearl Danios are one of my favorite fish, and I think they would be perfect for a low temp lower pH tank.   I'd be interested just to learn which plants are ok for this method and which plants fail.


----------



## swyftfeet

Happi said:


> @Hanuman
> Maybe you are not reading carefully what am saying? The effectiveness of lean dosing is not reduced weather you add 10 or 30 ppm co2, weather the temperature is low or high. Because uptake of the nutrients is no where near as what people think.


I understood plants prefer lower temps b/c  CO2 remains dissolved in the water?    The reason I think adding CO2 for planted tropical aquarium is two-fold:
1) it seems a lot of the plants we prefer like <7pH and the  CO2 -> carbonic acid does this during the CO2-on/ lights-on period (no clue why, but when ever I see a plant I like its always preferring nominal 6.5pH when I do more research about it, im guessing it makes the req'd elements for growth more transferable in the plant structure).
2) it replaces the CO2 that gasses off unused due to the higher temps that tropical fish prefer.

Likely the topic is flying over my head, but I'm just trying to learn more.  I have extremely thick skin and dont mind being told that I'm way off.

What @Sudipta is doing is just keeping the pH lower and lowering the temps which keeps the CO2 available and likely has CO2 generated with the thicker substrate and all the bacteria living there.


----------



## MichaelJ

It would be interesting if the impact of the temperature difference could be quantified.  Anecdotally, I definitely believe my low-tech tanks improved when I went from 78 F (~26C) down to 75 F (~24C)... I did this for the sole purpose of lowering plant metabolism and optimizing dissolved CO2 - sort of a _one-two punch_.  It wasn't a black and white scenario, but I do think I am having better overall plant health, and have to do less leaf trimming to give room for new growth. I can go weeks without trimming anything and I am pretty intolerant when it comes to leaves that appear to be struggling.  I think that low temperature is an important factor - especially in a non injected tank.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## eminor

I had a bad needle valve which made it impossible to not get algae, EI or lean dosing. From my experience, stable CO2 is way more important than anything else, even with my phosphate at near 0, i get no algae.

i also run my tank near 22°c, rotala are growing so fast that i need to trim every week

On my no tech tank i use lean dosing too, but with nitrogen urea, ammonia, plant are pearling in a non co2 tank...


----------



## MichaelJ

eminor said:


> I had a bad needle valve which made it impossible to not get algae, EI or lean dosing. From my experience, stable CO2 is way more important than anything else, even with my phosphate at near 0, i get no algae.



Hi @eminor  Your absolutely right - stability is essential. 



eminor said:


> i also run my tank near 22°c, rotala are growing so fast that i need to trim every week


Awesome! You have become quite a plant aficionado - with difficult plants even.



eminor said:


> On my no tech tank i use lean dosing too, but with nitrogen urea, ammonia, plant are pearling in a non co2 tank...



I would love of to see a full tank picture of that tank! 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> It would be interesting if the impact of the temperature difference could be quantified.  Anecdotally, I definitely believe my low-tech tanks improved when I went from 78 F (~26C) down to 75 F (~24C)... I did this for the sole purpose of lowering plant metabolism and optimizing dissolved CO2 - sort of a _one-two punch_.  It wasn't a black and white scenario, but I do think I am having better overall plant health, and have to do less leaf trimming to give room for new growth. I can go weeks without trimming anything and I am pretty intolerant when it comes to leaves that appear to be struggling.  I think that low temperature is an important factor - especially in a non injected tank.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Temperature has an effect on both CO2 and Non CO2 tanks. It's been noted for years by many of the best plant growers in the world. As a general rule tanks are just a bit easier in the cooler months. I am in touch with a lot of people in the hobby and that is widely known.


----------



## GreggZ

eminor said:


> I had a bad needle valve which made it impossible to not get algae, EI or lean dosing. From my experience, stable CO2 is way more important than anything else, even with my phosphate at near 0, i get no algae.
> 
> i also run my tank near 22°c, rotala are growing so fast that i need to trim every week
> 
> On my no tech tank i use lean dosing too, but with nitrogen urea, ammonia, plant are pearling in a non co2 tank...


Agreed. Folks fiddle around with a lot of nonsense sometimes but getting CO2 optimized and stable makes every single other thing easier.  Has a lot more influence than changing dosing in my experience. Put it this way, if you don't get things like light, CO2, and maintenance/horticulture right, all the fiddling around with fert dosing is not likely to save you.


----------



## eminor

GreggZ said:


> Agreed. Folks fiddle around with a lot of nonsense sometimes but getting CO2 optimized and stable makes every single other thing easier.  Has a lot more influence than changing dosing in my experience. Put it this way, if you don't get things like light, CO2, and maintenance/horticulture right, all the fiddling around with fert dosing is not likely to save you.



i had trouble since a year or so, no way to beat BBA, since i fixed, it just disappeared, i also have near a perfect diffusion thanks to clive, i use spray bar, i have medium light, my rotala are full of leaves even in the bottom, somes are pink...

EI is too much work for me, i want to change my water every 2 weeks, at least in my head, in reality i change it every week...


----------



## eminor

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @eminor  Your absolutely right - stability is essential.
> 
> 
> Awesome! You have become quite a plant aficionado - with difficult plants even.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love of to see a full tank picture of that tank!
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


i'll upload photo in few weeks once plant will be large enough and to tell my recipe and see how it goes , i can't change myself, i have bunch of hard plant in that tank, macandra, walichii, tuberculatum, high tech plants but i'm sure it's possible to grow them in there =)

i love plants, i want to succeed, i have a way better skill than few years ago thanks to you guys


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


swyftfeet said:


> My local water supply only published "total hardness" which doesn't break down the values of GH and KH, so I don't even know what Ive got to be honest.


General Hardness (dGH) and Carbonate Hardness (dKH) are likely to be similar in water where <"the hardness"> is supplied by <"calcium carbonate (CaCO3)">. Because of the geology of the <"Mid-west of the USA"> you are likely to have MgCO3, as well as CaCO3, and that will cause slight differences, but they are slight.

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> General Hardness (dGH) and Carbonate Hardness (dKH) are likely to be similar in water where <"the hardness"> is supplied by <"calcium carbonate (CaCO3)">. Because of the geology of the Mid-west of the USA you are likely to have MgCO3, as well as CaCO3, and that will cause slight differences, but they are slight.
> 
> cheers Darrel


That seems consistent with my experience at least here in the upper mid-west. Our city water (before any household water-treatment)  KH and GH is about the same.  The KH is a few degrees lower... I think we get all the Ca from CaCO3 essentially, and we get a fair bit of Mg as well, which explains the difference.  After the household water softening (using KCl resin) we are down to "zero" GH but the same (original) KH witch is essentially from KHCO3 (I assume?).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## KirstyF

Happi said:


> this risk is with any approach that you might follow, anyone can fail even with the best approach.
> View attachment 184254



Couldn’t agree with you more and that fact is very well supported by the number of folks that we have on here still having issues of one kind or another. 😊

I think ur approach is less prescriptive than some, there are more moving parts and a greater understanding is needed to use it, however, I also think that the point at which we can learn the most about our hobby is often when we move away from prescriptive routines.  

The more we do so, the more we take the tiger by the tail, and the more we move outside of many peoples comfort zones, but our failures (or at least, the bumps along the way) might just teach us more than a ‘standardised’ approach would.



Happi said:


> Because uptake of the nutrients is no where near as what people think.



Logic says you’re right, at least when compared to EI. EI was designed to exceed the maximum amount of ferts that your tank could possibly ever need with a view to ferts being non-limiting. By its nature it should be far more than plants require.

It follows therefore that using less ferts is perfectly reasonable. Figuring out how much of what in any given situation is the tricky bit and this complexity alone is likely enough to take it from a broad to a narrow market I think. 

Whether or not one approach ultimately gives you ‘better’ or different results than any other approach will continue to be debated I’m sure. For my part, I think it probably depends on what you are trying to achieve. 😊


----------



## GreggZ

KirstyF said:


> It follows therefore that using less ferts is perfectly reasonable.


This brings up another argument that has been discussed and debated for years. Let's say a tank consumes 1 ppm NO3 daily. Does that mean that 1 ppm NO3 in the water column is the optimal level?? Or will a higher level be optimal and make it easier for plants to get the uptake they need? Perhaps some factor of the daily uptake in the water column? 

An analogy I have seen used compares it to oxygen. There is enough oxygen to sustain life at the top of the highest mountain and sea level. However it's harder to extract the needed oxygen at higher elevations.  Is this similar to nutrient concentrations in the water column? Is it easier for plants to extract nutrients when there is some excess in the water column? Food for thought.


----------



## KirstyF

GreggZ said:


> This brings up another argument that has been discussed and debated for years. Let's say a tank consumes 1 ppm NO3 daily. Does that mean that 1 ppm NO3 in the water column is the optimal level?? Or will a higher level be optimal and make it easier for plants to get the uptake they need? Perhaps some factor of the daily uptake in the water column?
> 
> An analogy I have seen used compares it to oxygen. There is enough oxygen to sustain life at the top of the highest mountain and sea level. However it's harder to extract the needed oxygen at higher elevations.  Is this similar to nutrient concentrations in the water column? Is it easier for plants to extract nutrients when there is some excess in the water column? Food for thought.



My response would be that if a method is results based and not prescriptive it speaks for itself.

 As a simplified example: 
I added 1ppm of NO3, X plant grew fine
I added 2ppm of NO3, X plant grew better
I added 3ppm of NO3, I saw no further improvement 

For X plant 2ppm is optimal!

What is therefore the minimum optimal ppm when factoring in all plants in my system.

Am I prepared to accept a less than optimal response in plant A, that prefers particularly lean dosing (Wallichii maybe!)  in order to achieve optimal results in plant B, that ‘prefers’ richer dosing….

….and/or should I select plants most suited to achieving goal C - minimal TDS. 

And so on. 

If a ‘lean dosing’ regime is not a prescribed number or target for all situations and is in fact variable, then your plants and or goals would indicate how much less is still enough, would they not? 

There may be continued debate over at what point a dosing regime becomes ‘lean’ of course, but I think we could fairly put EI into a ‘rich dosing’ category.


----------



## GreggZ

KirstyF said:


> What is therefore the minimum optimal ppm when factoring in all plants in my system.
> 
> Am I prepared to accept a less than optimal response in plant A, that prefers particularly lean dosing (Wallichii maybe!)  in order to achieve optimal results in plant B, that ‘prefers’ richer dosing….


Well put. Very few people take this into account. If I were judged on my ability to grow Wallachii well, I might get a B- at best. I can keep it alive and growing but not at peak health. But matters little as my tank is set up to keep a different group of plants happy.  

Part of the art of the hobby is finding levels that keep as broad as range as you can near peak health at one time. That means having to give up on some species. And that's hard to do. I've never grown AR mini particularly well,  but once in a while I decide to try it again and bang my head against the wall one more time. 

The hobby is easier if you stick with plants that like the soup you serving.


----------



## Hanuman

swyftfeet said:


> I understood plants prefer lower temps b/c CO2 remains dissolved in the water?


CO2 dissolution decreases with temperature so technically you need to inject less CO2 at lower temperatures to reach a specific target compared to higher temperatures.



MichaelJ said:


> It would be interesting if the impact of the temperature difference could be quantified. Anecdotally, I definitely believe my low-tech tanks improved when I went from 78 F (~26C) down to 75 F (~24C)... I did this for the sole purpose of lowering plant metabolism and optimizing dissolved CO2 - sort of a _one-two punch_. It wasn't a black and white scenario, but I do think I am having better overall plant health, and have to do less leaf trimming to give room for new growth. I can go weeks without trimming anything and I am pretty intolerant when it comes to leaves that appear to be struggling. I think that low temperature is an important factor - especially in a non injected tank.


I think low temperature benefits any tank, low tech or high tech. Some plants may naturally do better at let's say at 22C, some others at 24/25C or slightly more. So it's all about finding a middle point where most will grow decently. My tanks are on average at 27/28C and even 29C when I am not home and no air con is used during the day. My CO2 stream is insane. If I don't do that, it's no bueno as I will have much less CO2 in the water column. Some stems need trimming weekly, some no.



eminor said:


> i also run my tank near 22°c, rotala are growing so fast that i need to trim every week


I don't know what rottala that is but in the grand scheme of things, the higher the temperature > the increased metabolism > which means more demands for nutrients, CO2 etc. This is something where @dw1305 can respond but I think not all plants have the same sweet spots and at higher temperature they could simply do worse.


----------



## erwin123

eminor said:


> i'll upload photo in few weeks once plant will be large enough and to tell my recipe and see how it goes , i can't change myself, i have bunch of hard plant in that tank, macandra, walichii, tuberculatum, high tech plants but i'm sure it's possible to grow them in there =)
> 
> i love plants, i want to succeed, i have a way better skill than few years ago thanks to you guys



I know there are some that only post photos when they deem their tank to be 'perfect', but we can learn a lot from the journey, so posting fortnightly or even more frequently than that will help everyone learn , even if you think your plants are not 'perfect' yet.

looking forward to the next update of your journal! - A noob vs some hardest plants


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> I think low temperature benefits any tank, low tech or high tech. Some plants may naturally do better at let's say at 22C, some others at 24/25C or slightly more. So it's all about finding a middle point where most will grow decently. My tanks are on average at 27/28C and even 29C when I am not home and no air con is used during the day. My CO2 stream is insane. If I don't do that, it's no bueno as I will have much less CO2 in the water column. Some stems need trimming weekly, some no.



Hi @Hanuman  you make a good point.

Another proposition I want to make - and please anyone, correct and educate me if you think I am wrong;  I just want to expand on my ability to keep more difficult plants. Plants that are usually associated with high light and CO2 injection - basically what @Sudipta, @Happi and others have shown.  I am beginning to think perhaps the dosing (be it _lean_ or _fat - ie. EI_)  likely plays a lesser role - not unimportant, but lesser - than I initially thought, and the main operational parameters are really  low/no KH, low pH,  low(er) temperature and rich/mature substrate.  Thats the theory I might be testing out.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Another proposition I want to make - and please anyone, take issue and educate me if you think I am wrong; I just want to expand on my ability to keep more difficult plants, plants that are usually associated with CO2 injection - basically what @Sudipta, @Happi and others have shown. I am beginning to think perhaps the dosing (be it _lean_ or _fat_) likely plays a lesser role - not unimportant, but lesser - than I initially thought, and the main operational parameters are really low/no KH, low pH, low(er) temperature and rich/mature substrate. Thats the theory I might be testing out.


Yes, the point of EI was simply to be sure their ain't any deficient nutrient. That's about it. Now it's not really pratical to know the exact consumption of each plant sp hence also why some more ferts is preferable to a certain degree. It is possible that plants need way less but if you have a bunch of plants coming from all around the world they will all have different requirements. And that is the whole problem nowdays. Most people (me included) are making tanks with plants that would never be close to each other in the wild and that have very different requirements, yet we expect them to be at their fullest in our tank. 🧐 That's what makes these discussions never ending because the combination of parameters + plants makes it extremely hard if not impossible to find a perfect middle ground. You will always find someone saying this or that because the plants is behaving like this or like that.

Each plant has its prefered parameters. Most plants will do fine in higher KH levels but they will also do better in lower KH as well. Some plants will simply not thrive and die above KH 3, like certain Eriocaulon or Centrolepis drummondiana (blood vomit). But in general I would say a large majority of plants we grow in the hobby will do fine with a KH ~ 3-4 and above. The higher you go and the more the plants will struggle. There a few exception where some plants require a good amount of KH to thrive. So I will say this again, ferts are overblown, yes, but the reason we add more rather than less is to prevent those "possible" deficiencies, nothing more, nothing less and it certainly is not because the plants need all that excess nutrient as prescribed by EI.


----------



## Sudipta

Hanuman said:


> Yes, the point of EI was simply to be sure their ain't any deficient nutrient. That's about it. Now it's not really pratical to know the exact consumption of each plant sp hence also why some more ferts is preferable to a certain degree. It is possible that plants need way less but if you have a bunch of plants coming from all around the world they will all have different requirements. And that is the whole problem nowdays. Most people (me included) are making tanks with plants that would never be close to each other in the wild and that have very different requirements, yet we expect them to be at their fullest in our tank. 🧐 That's what makes these discussions never ending because the combination of parameters + plants makes it extremely hard if not impossible to find a perfect middle ground. You will always find someone saying this or that because the plants is behaving like this or like that.
> 
> Each plant has its prefered parameters. Most plants will do fine in higher KH levels but they will also do better in lower KH as well. Some plants will simply not thrive and die above KH 3, like certain Eriocaulon or Centrolepis drummondiana (blood vomit). But in general I would say a large majority of plants we grow in the hobby will do fine with a KH ~ 3-4 and above. The higher you go and the more the plants will struggle. There a few exception where some plants require a good amount of KH to thrive. So I will say this again, ferts are overblown, yes, but the reason we add more rather than less is to prevent those "possible" deficiencies, nothing more, nothing less and it certainly is not because the plants need all that excess nutrient as prescribed by EI.


I absolutely agree with you regarding what you said about different species preferring different water parameters.
However I am not so sure about what you said regarding some plants preferring higher KH. Are you suggesting some plants prefer bicarbonates even in the presence of saturating CO2 or you are referring to their preference for higher pH (higher KH)?


----------



## Hanuman

Sudipta said:


> However I am not so sure about what you said regarding some plants preferring higher KH.


Some plants can still grow at higher KH (>10)  such as vals, anubias and a few others. Some soft plants will have already died long ago.



Sudipta said:


> Are you suggesting some plants prefer bicarbonates even in the presence of saturating CO2





Hanuman said:


> There a few exception where some plants require a good amount of KH to thrive.


I see where you are getting that. I might not have expressed myself appropriately. English is only my third language. What I want to say is that a certain category of plants can still grow perfectly fine at higher KH. Will they do better if KH is lower with more dissolved CO2? Maybe. Why exactly is that the case? I can't tell you. I am no botanist but I suspect it has to do with the fact that not all plants need all the same things at the same level and so that's where some plants don't require the PH to be as low as others.

EDIT: actually it would be  a good question to ask to a botanist. Are there any plant sp that would prefer a higher bicarbonate content than others in the presence of CO2? It could be but I think the exceedingly large majority will prefer CO2 and a slightly acidic environment.


----------



## swyftfeet

I think I get the lower KH requirement.    Could someone with scientific knowledge rate the following   with True/False/ Unknown


CO2 can be generated from fish & also from bacteria that live in the substrate
If the CO2 is being generated by the substrate bacteria and fish, unused CO2 changes to Carbonic Acid
A minor change in in the unused dissolved CO2 drops the PH easier because there is no buffer (low KH)
The lower pH allows all the ferts to be more readily available to the plants. they're less likely to precipitate
maybe they move easier in the plant structure

Nitrification(autotrophic) bacteria grow better in pH of 7.5-8.0 ,  it will not  grow sub 6pH.  it will start to die around 4 pH.
Inhibiting  growth of nitrification bacteria which eats CO2 makes CO2 more available (this I think is my weak point, I think @dw1305 has found more evidence that nitrification bacteria consume oxygen , but if they use both O2 and CO2 then this position is still ok)
If you have less nitrification bacteria  you have more ammonia
at lower PH alot of the ammonia is in the from of ammonium NH4
inhibited growth of autotrophic bacteria increases availability of raw materials (NH3 and NH4) for plants which are autotrophic
Plants love ammonium and its non toxic to fish, plants will flourish
flourishing plants will also take up remaining NH3
Lower temp is key to allowing the CO2 to not off-gas

The system cannot work if you have any of

high KH - cant swing the pH to keep ammonia as NH4 and keep the ferts mobile
higher temp - cant hold the CO2 which keeps encourages the pH to be low
not enough heterotrophic bacteria (needs mature soil) - our CO2 factory which lowers the pH -> inhibits the growth of nitrification bacteria


----------



## eminor

i managed to grow 95% of plant in water with KH > 12 but plant like rotala get stunted quickly if the co2 is not perfect, i haven't seen stunted plant since i use soft water

the 5% left are indian plants, thing that surprised me is cabomba furcata was growing better in hard water than soft

lots of my problem was not hard water back then but co2 stability, i still think that it's way easier to grow plants in soft water


----------



## erwin123




----------



## eminor

So here's my tiny 1.5 gallons tank, running since a week or so, there is wallichii, tuberculatum, tripartita, ludwigia sp red, macandra and myrriophyllum red stem in there.  keep in mind that i used bleach before adding them in the tank because of algae in backup tank.

The light is 10 hours long, led bulb, rgb, up to 806lm, high light right now.
There is snails in there, I don't know how they live without water movement, but they do...

So far almost no algae at all, it's impressive how roots grow fast in coco. the water is trouble because tetra compost have white clay in it 

there's the fertilization routine, once a week :

0.5 ppm N divided between (urea, ammonia)
5 ppm K
0.12 ppm P2O5
0.06 ppm DTPA iron

Here's the soil which is a bit weird i must agree, there is tetra pond aquatic compost in the bottom, then coconut hush then qwartz






funny thing is that i have hard time growing triparta in co2 tank and never had issue in low tech...




rotala macandra is okay, i don't know which type of macandra it is; walichii start to grow new leaves, the stem you see was in a bad health in the other tank that's why it looks weird




tripartita have fun in there, ludwigia is doing fine, it's an easy plant, but hard to keep it red all along




here's the video, you can see some pearling stuff, don't know if it's a bad sign, there's also some new tuberculatum shoots but i don't think you can see it right now

*video here*


----------



## GreggZ

eminor said:


> i managed to grow 95% of plant in water with KH > 12 but plant like rotala get stunted quickly if the co2 is not perfect, i haven't seen stunted plant since i use soft water
> 
> the 5% left are indian plants, thing that surprised me is cabomba furcata was growing better in hard water than soft


See this is where it gets tricky to assign causal effect. Was it harder water or something else that made Cabomba Furcata do better for you?

Here's mine with pure RO no carbonates added.....very, very low to zero dKH so about as soft as it gets.


----------



## eminor

GreggZ said:


> See this is where it gets tricky to assign causal effect. Was it harder water or something else that made Cabomba Furcata do better for you?
> 
> Here's mine with pure RO no carbonates added.....very, very low to zero dKH so about as soft as it gets.
> 
> View attachment 184307


yes, i think there will never get an answer to it, because there are so many variables, ought, cabomba natural habitat is really soft water


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
@swyftfeet I think that is about right, there are a few things that might need some clarification.


swyftfeet said:


> If the CO2 is being generated by the substrate bacteria and fish, unused CO2 changes to Carbonic Acid


Only 0.15% of the CO2 turns into carbonic acid (H2CO3), the rest will remain in solution as CO2, and if the amount in solution rises above the equilibrium value with the atmosphere (dependent upon atmospheric pressure, atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature) it will out-gas.  The rate that this happens will depend upon the gas exchange surface area to  volume ratio.


swyftfeet said:


> Nitrification(autotrophic) bacteria grow better in pH of 7.5-8.0 , it will not grow sub 6pH. it will start to die around 4 pH.


I think you can ignore that, nitrification may be slightly compromised, but the microbes that perform nitrification <"are much more diverse than was thought">  and aren't anything like as limited by <"low pH and carbonate hardness">.


swyftfeet said:


> Inhibiting growth of nitrification bacteria which eats CO2 makes CO2 more available (this I think is my weak point, I think @dw1305 has found more evidence that nitrification bacteria consume oxygen , but if they use both O2 and CO2 then this position is still ok)


I'd guess that oxygen is much more important than CO2, because nitrification is an oxygen intensive process (you've gone from NH3/NH4+ to NO3-).  You get a large amount of CO2  evolved during waste water treatment, but you have a <"huge Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) to start with">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Conort2

erwin123 said:


>



I lost all my crypt flamingo when I had super soft water. A lot of my other crypts just about hung in there and are doing much better now I add sufficient gh booster.


----------



## erwin123

eminor said:


> yes, i think there will never get an answer to it, because there are so many variables, ought, cabomba natural habitat is really soft water



looking forward to updated photos of your Furcata and Tuberculatum! Are they both ok with lean dosing?


----------



## eminor

erwin123 said:


> looking forward to updated photos of your Furcata and Tuberculatum! Are they both ok with lean dosing?


no difference with furcata, lots with tuberculatum


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Conort2 said:


> I lost all my crypt flamingo when I had super soft water.


If I walk around the housing estate, where I live I'm going to see plenty of shrubs of _Forsythia spp, Syringa spp., Philadelphus spp., Ribes sanguineum & Cistus spp. etc,  _what I'm not going to see are bushes of _Rhododendron spp. , Camellia spp. & Pieris_ spp. and if I do see one? It is in a tub. We have limy ground and Rhododendrons etc won't grow in it.

Aquatic plants are going to be exactly the same as terrestrial plants. Some will naturally occur in base rich conditions, and some will naturally <"occur in base poor conditions"> and some <"aren't going to be bothered"> by the base status of the water.  These plants grow along a continuum  from base poor (plants Like _Brasenia_ _schreberi_ and _Tonina_ spp.) to <"base rich"> (plants like _Ceratophyllum demersum_).

cheers Darrel


----------



## John q

@Happi 
Quick question if you don't mind. You've often mentioned csm+b trace mix as not being ideal. I've stumbled across a slightly different mix (thats if we believe the advertised %) and was wondering if you thought this mix was any better, worse or indifferent. Here's the breakdowns.
*Current mix:
Analysis:* 
Fe 8.2% (EDTA Chelated)
Mn 1.82% (EDTA Chelated)
Zn 1.16% (EDTA Chelated)
B 1.05%
Cu 0.23% (EDTA Chelated)
Mo 0.15%

*Alternative mix:*
Fe – 7,80%, Mn- 2,00%, B – 1,40%,
Zn- 0,40%, Cu – 0,10%, Mo – 0,06%
E 202 & E 300, EDTA Chelated

Thoughts?


----------



## Wookii

John q said:


> @Happi
> Quick question if you don't mind. You've often mentioned csm+b trace mix as not being ideal. I've stumbled across a slightly different mix (thats if we believe the advertised %) and was wondering if you thought this mix was any better, worse or indifferent. Here's the breakdowns.
> *Current mix:
> Analysis:*
> Fe 8.2% (EDTA Chelated)
> Mn 1.82% (EDTA Chelated)
> Zn 1.16% (EDTA Chelated)
> B 1.05%
> Cu 0.23% (EDTA Chelated)
> Mo 0.15%
> 
> *Alternative mix:*
> Fe – 7,80%, Mn- 2,00%, B – 1,40%,
> Zn- 0,40%, Cu – 0,10%, Mo – 0,06%
> E 202 & E 300, EDTA Chelated
> 
> Thoughts?


I’d like to know this as well, as I need to buy some more micros as my APFUK pack is about to run out after 2 years.


----------



## Hanuman

If I was you guys I would buy each individual salt. Will cost you more initially but you'll have enough for the rest of your natural life and you'll be able to play the alchemist. Not chelated preferably.
For the Fe, preferably buy higher %, such as 10%, 11% or 13.2%.


----------



## KirstyF

Hanuman said:


> If I was you guys and I would buy each individual salt. Will cost you more initially but you'll have enough for the rest of your natural life and you'll be able to play the alchemist. Not chelated preferably.
> For the Fe, preferably buy higher %, such as 10%, 11% or 13.2%.



What is the reason for non chelated? Curious as I use DTPA chelated FE due to high KH.


----------



## John q

Hanuman said:


> If I was you guys and I would buy each individual salt.


I'd love to do this but all the recipes I've seen seem rather complicated involving serial dilution and the likes. Anybody got a simple to follow recipe (even if it includes seriel dilution)? Obviously I have 0.01 scales at hand.


----------



## Hanuman

KirstyF said:


> What is the reason for non chelated? Curious as I use DTPA chelated FE due to high KH.


hehe Fe being the only exception . All others can be non chelated. The amount of traces you are adding are so minute that you don't really need chelation and anyway plants prefer the raw staff! Micros are also being dosed normally daily (at least more often than macros if you frond load them) so no real need for chelated traces. Finally some chelates have some PH requirements and they are not the same for all traces. Read < here > onwards.


----------



## Hanuman

John q said:


> I'd love to do this but all the recipes I've seen seem rather complicated involving serial dilution and the likes. Anybody got a simple to follow recipe (even if it includes seriel dilution)? Obviously I have 0.01 scales at hand.


Well the IFC calculator (DIYTraceCalculator sheet) allows you to clone other commercial traces, so there isn't much thinking involved.


----------



## Hanuman

@John q For the serial dilution we made things in the calculator pretty simple. The calculator actually explains in plain words what steps you need to take to make a serial dilution. Serial dillution is usually only really needed for Cu, Mo, Ni and Co. I personally don't even add Co and I think pretty much no one does.

Edit: by "needed" I meant advisable/recommended. The majority of us common mortals don't have lab grade high precision analytical scales with a 0.001g accuracy hence why serial dilution is preferable to weighting minute amounts.


----------



## John q

Thanks @Hanuman  I'll have to get my daughter to download it for me and take a look. Pc's aren't my strong point lol.


----------



## Wookii

Hanuman said:


> you'll be able to play the alchemist



That’s exactly the reason I don’t want them individually! 😂

Does anyone even know the ideal ratio of all the micros for aquatic plants?


----------



## KirstyF

John q said:


> Thanks @Hanuman  I'll have to get my daughter to download it for me and take a look. Pc's aren't my strong point lol.



Whilst the serial dilution might seem a bit faffy at the outset, the joy of it is that once you’ve done them, they last a looooong time.

For example, this little bottle has been going for 14wks already so I reckon I’ll get close to a year out of it and making up the micro from the dilutions is easy peasy. I’ve diluted everything except FE just for convenience.


----------



## Hanuman

Wookii said:


> That’s exactly the reason I don’t want them individually! 😂
> 
> Does anyone even know the ideal ratio of all the micros for aquatic plants?


You don't need to know them, simply clone commercial traces


----------



## Wookii

Hanuman said:


> You don't need to know them, simply clone commercial traces



So which is the best commercial trace mix to clone?  😆


----------



## John q

Wookii said:


> So which is the best commercial trace mix to clone?  😆






Lol 😆


----------



## erwin123

One advantage of lean dosing is that it makes the commercial all-in-one ferts last longer! 
I'm using a 500ml bottle of APT EI. According to instructions, I should be dosing 2.5ml a day but I'm only dosing 0.9ml which will last me 555 days. The cost to me is manageable.


----------



## Hanuman

Wookii said:


> So which is the best commercial trace mix to clone?  😆


The one you wish to clone. . That one will be the best one.


----------



## Wookii

John q said:


> View attachment 184356
> 
> Lol 😆


----------



## Wookii

Hanuman said:


> The one you wish to clone. . That one will be the best one.


----------



## Hanuman

@Wookii The one I used without the gluconate.


----------



## Happi

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> @swyftfeet
> Only 0.15% of the CO2 turns into carbonic acid (H2CO3), the rest will remain in solution as CO2, and if the amount in solution rises above the equilibrium value with the atmosphere (dependent upon atmospheric pressure, atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature) it will out-gas.  The rate that this happens will depend upon the gas exchange surface area to  volume ratio.
> 
> cheers Darrel



Would this apply equally to zero dKH, 1 dKH and 10 dKH water?"


----------



## Happi

@Wookii​you can pick up any of the Micro/Fe recipes that I have posted. many people use Edward's PPS system, this recipe should work with any system you like: PPS PRO based custom Micro Recipe

here is the full complete clone version of Seachem Flourish Trace if you are interested: Seachem Flourish Trace Clone


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> View attachment 184356
> 
> Lol 😆



A middle of the road approach would be starting our with a good trace mix such as the Nilocg Plantex CMS-B (which is the one I am using). If I want add of something which is absent from this mix (such as Nickel, Na, Fe Gluconate),  I  just add that to the mix when I am making the 500 ml bottles for my two tanks. Currently a bottle last for 16 weeks.  Of course, If you want that full control over the ingredients and ratios, as you would need to do a clone, there is no other way than buying and mixing everything yourself. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

Wookii said:


> View attachment 184360


I would recommending cloning tenso numbers. they work very well for me. from there you can work on it to make a good mix for your tank.
anywhere from 0.05~0.2ppm should work well weekly. with soft water (low gh/kh) you can choose a smaller dose.  with higher gh (above 4-5) I would choose 0.1-0.2ppm weekly of Fe.
the numbers should be
0.1ppm Fe dtpa
0.067ppm Mn EDTA
0.014ppm Cu  EDTA
0.014ppm Zn   EDTA
0.014 B                 boric acid
0.003ppm Mo   nh4mo
0.0001ppm Ni  (optional)

what I am doing now, is raising Fe to 0.15ppm weekly. Cu is at half dose 0.007.
I am also using Urea, very low K (around 2ppm per week) and moderate P. 
I prefer chelated metals to keep animals safe. if you have more gh then you can add more of the micros witohut risk to fish. but the exact dose will depend on other factors. 
I observed positive results from just swapping micros and keeping at EI macros. less issues with macrandra, wallichii and cuphea.  everything else stayed the same really. If the mix doesnt work for you, you can always clone something else similar to csm+b. 
I am not sure If a tank can be maintained long term with tenso and EI macros long term, but I have a feeling it'd be worth a try.


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> A middle of the road approach would be starting our with a good trace mix such as the Nilocg Plantex CMS-B (which is the one I am using). If I want add of something which is absent from this mix (such as Nickel, Na, Fe Gluconate),  I  just add that to the mix when I am making the 500 ml bottles for my two tanks. Currently a bottle last for 16 weeks.  Of course, If you want that full control over the ingredients and ratios, as you would need to do a clone, there is no other way than buying and mixing everything yourself.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


the major problem with CSM+B is below:




when you take a spoon or whatever gram and mix it in the water, you are not 100% sure if you are adding more or less of several nutrients, look at this picture for example: if you took a spoon of CSM+B from the upper part, you will be adding more Copper, if you take a spoon from the lower part, it might be lacking copper. considering some of the nutrients that are needed in low ppm, you might be either missing those or they might not be present in the ppm that you should be getting. 

I use to modify csm+b with Mnso4 and Fe DTPA, people who still want to use CSM+B should benefit from this : Perpetual Preservation System - Nutrient imbalance TE

also do consider that some seller do add Boron separately to CSM, how accurately they add them and mix them would be another question.


----------



## GreggZ

Happi said:


> the major problem with CSM+B is below:
> View attachment 184362
> 
> when you take a spoon or whatever gram and mix it in the water, you are not 100% sure if you are adding more or less of several nutrients, look at this picture for example: if you took a spoon of CSM+B from the upper part, you will be adding more Copper, if you take a spoon from the lower part, it might be lacking copper. considering some of the nutrients that are needed in low ppm, you might be either missing those or they might not be present in the ppm that you should be getting.
> 
> I use to modify csm+b with Mnso4 and Fe DTPA, people who still want to use CSM+B should benefit from this : Perpetual Preservation System - Nutrient imbalance TE
> 
> also do consider that some seller do add Boron separately to CSM, how accurately they add them and mix them would be another question.


Agree with above. What most don't understand is that CSM is meant to be mixed in vats with hundreds/thousands gallons of water and sprayed on crops. So the 1/8 or 1/16 tsp someone scoops out can vary wildly in it's composition. And then you have the added Boron which can also be a problem. If your scoop contains a large amount of Boron it can wreak some havoc on a tank. It's one of the micros that get toxic quickly in too high amounts. 

If someone is using CSM+B, they can increase their odds of uniformity by creating a solution in a large container.

Many of us have been making our own micros for years. But I understand it's not for everyone. Much depends on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. Like others have said, once you buy the ingredients you have a lifetime supply of most.

My mix is listed in my tank parameter spreadsheet below. I know quite a few successful people who are using  a very similar blend. But as always your mileage may vary.


----------



## Happi

and here is a better mix if people just want to keep things simple: GLA (EDTA+DTPA) Micromix Aquarium Fertilizer - 1lb Jar
this is also the same product that Edward's PPS Pro use and further modify it here: Perpetual Preservation System - Nutrient imbalance TE


----------



## John q

GreggZ said:


> . Much depends on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.


I so know that sentence is taken from the heart, how far did you go down it, and did you find Alice?? 😁


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> the major problem with CSM+B is below:
> View attachment 184362
> 
> when you take a spoon or whatever gram and mix it in the water, you are not 100% sure if you are adding more or less of several nutrients, look at this picture for example: if you took a spoon of CSM+B from the upper part, you will be adding more Copper, if you take a spoon from the lower part, it might be lacking copper. considering some of the nutrients that are needed in low ppm, you might be either missing those or they might not be present in the ppm that you should be getting.



That is true and I can definitely see that as a problem for small batches..   before I make my trace mixes I do shake up the bag vigorously as recommended...  for the 500 ml bottles I make ( I actually make 1000 ml and divvy it up in two bottles and use about 45 grams of the trace mix... ). That said, I somewhat have a hard time thinking it really matters much if dose 0.08 ppm/wk of Boron for a couple of months and then 0.12 ppm/wk for another couple of months instead of the ideal 0.1 ppm/wk consistently...  Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it would be a disservice to the concept if we make this more academical than it needs to be.  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> I so know that sentence is taken from the heart, how far did you go down it, and did you find Alice?? 😁


Yes, when she is 10 ft tall!


----------



## John q

MichaelJ said:


> Yes, when she is 10 ft tall!


🤪 obviously on acid @MichaelJ  🤓

Thing is for me this is cutting edge stuff. For the likes of @ceg4048 @GreggZ  And  @Happi  they've been discussing it for years and suspect they will never agree to eat pink pies with the Cheshire cat 😸


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> 🤪 obviously on acid @MichaelJ  🤓


... more like "Fertilizer" burn!


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> That is true and I can definitely see that as a problem for small batches..   before I make my trace mixes I do shake up the bag vigorously as recommended...  for the 500 ml bottles I make ( I actually make 1000 ml and divvy it up in two bottles and use about 45 grams of the trace mix... ). That said, I somewhat have a hard time thinking it really matters much if dose 0.08 ppm/wk of Boron for a couple of months and then 0.12 ppm/wk for another couple of months instead of the ideal 0.1 ppm/wk consistently...  Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it would be a disservice to the concept if we make this more academical than it needs to be.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


the worse case scenario would be when people try to use csm+b for a lean dosing.


----------



## John q

Happi said:


> the worse case scenario would be when people try to use csm+b for a lean dosing.


Why is that? Educate the un educated.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Happi said:


> @dw1305)wrote Only 0.15% of the CO2 turns into carbonic acid (H2CO3),...........Would this apply equally to zero dKH, 1 dKH and 10 dKH water?"


Yes in theory, because the total amount of Total Inorganic Carbon /  Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (TIC / DIC)  remains constant, but the proportion of  CO2 changes (and therefore the amount of H2CO3, which becomes H+ and HCO3-).  Acids are <"proton (H+ ion) donors"> and the pH falls, unless you have a buffer of carbonate (dKH) which can go into solution and neutralise the "extra" H+ ions.

It is this process that leads to pH changes in the CO2 ~ HCO3- equilibrium. When you get to pH 8, you don't have any free CO2,  <"all the TIC is bicarbonate (HCO3-)">.




cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

dw1305 said:


> Only 0.15% of the CO2 turns into carbonic acid (H2CO3)


Does the 0.15% change across the pH range?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Happi said:


> Does the 0.15% change across the pH range?


No, it is just the proportion of CO2 that changes, but when you get to pH8 it is a theoretical 0.15% because none of the TIC is CO2.  

When you continually  add CO2 it mimics an atmosphere much richer in CO2 and the pH equilibrium point changes, this is how a drop checker works.

cheers Darrel


----------



## KirstyF

Sometimes I think I would understand this stuff better if I was on the same gear as that caterpillar!!


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


John q said:


> Why is that? Educate the un educated.





Happi said:


> the worse case scenario would be when people try to use csm+b for a lean dosing.


I'm guessing that if you try and dry dose very small amounts of CSM+B you aren't likely to get all of the micronutrients, because of the granular nature of the product. Think of it like you have a bag of M & Ms , if you take a handful chances are  you will have all the colours, but as that handful gets smaller colours will go missing until your smallest selection is just one colour.

If you make up a stock solution, and then  serially dilute it, you don't have this problem. Personally  I'm not a fan of trying to <"weigh small weights"> so I would always use serial dilution. If you want to <"look like pro"> have a look at @X3NiTH's offering.

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> Think of it like you have a bag of M & Ms , if you take a handful chances are you will have all the colours, but as that handful gets smaller colours will go missing until your smallest selection is just one colour.


That was the point I was trying to make ... In my case I totally see how I could possibly skew the ratios in a seriously bad way if I would make a 100 ml dose and only use 4.5 grams as opposed to 45 grams in 1000 ml.... its like if you flip an honest coin 5 vs. 50 times... and write down the result... your not going to see the convergence towards 50% chance of head vs. tail until you flip it a reasonably number of times....

Cheers,
Michael

PS:: mmmmm..... M&M's 😋


----------



## Happi

dw1305 said:


> No, it is just the proportion of CO2 that changes, but when you get to pH8 it is a theoretical 0.15% because none of the TIC is CO2.


What kills fish when too much CO2 is injected to pH8 water, CO2 or H2CO3?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Happi said:


> What kills fish when too much CO2 is injected to pH8 water, CO2 or H2CO3?


I'm <"not a CO2 user">, but I'm pretty sure it is the CO2, because both oxygen and CO2 <"bind to the haemoglobin in the blood">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

John q said:


> @Happi
> Quick question if you don't mind. You've often mentioned csm+b trace mix as not being ideal. I've stumbled across a slightly different mix (thats if we believe the advertised %) and was wondering if you thought this mix was any better, worse or indifferent. Here's the breakdowns.
> *Current mix:
> Analysis:*
> Fe 8.2% (EDTA Chelated)
> Mn 1.82% (EDTA Chelated)
> Zn 1.16% (EDTA Chelated)
> B 1.05%
> Cu 0.23% (EDTA Chelated)
> Mo 0.15%
> 
> *Alternative mix:*
> Fe – 7,80%, Mn- 2,00%, B – 1,40%,
> Zn- 0,40%, Cu – 0,10%, Mo – 0,06%
> E 202 & E 300, EDTA Chelated
> 
> Thoughts?


sorry about the late reply on this one.

Current mix:
Analysis:
Fe -     0.1
Mn -   0.022
Zn  -    0.014
B  -       0.0128
Cu -     0.0028
Mo  -   0.00183

*if this is your current mix, then it would be much better than the one below. if you modify it with 0.02 MnSo4 and 0.05 ppm Fe DTPA, it will perform even better.  *


Alternative mix (EDTA Chelated):
Fe –       0.1 ppm
Mn -      0.025 ppm
 B –       0.018 ppm
Zn -      0.0051 ppm
 Cu –    0.00128 ppm
 Mo –  0.000768 ppm


----------



## Happi

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm <"not a CO2 user">, but I'm pretty sure it is the CO2, because both oxygen and CO2 <"bind to the haemoglobin in the blood">.
> 
> cheers Darrel


But didn't you say none of the TIC is CO2 in pH8 ?


----------



## MichaelJ

KirstyF said:


> Sometimes I think I would understand this stuff better if I was on the same gear as that caterpillar!!


Hey @KirstyF   Just remember what the dormouse said: "Feed your head. Feed your head. Feed your head"


----------



## KirstyF

MichaelJ said:


> Hey @KirstyF   Just remember what the dormouse said: "Feed your head. Feed your head. Feed your head"



Fabulous tune…..and boy are we showing our age here, even admitting we’ve heard of Jefferson Airplane! 😂

Though I do think this was released before I was born!! Classic! 👍


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Happi said:


> But didn't you say none of the TIC is CO2 in pH8 ?


I did, but if you had enough CO2 to asphyxiate your fish the pH wouldn't be pH8, it would be much lower, because of the 0.15% that goes into solution as H2CO3. It is back to how the drop checker works.

CO2 is very soluble as a gas, much, much more soluble than oxygen, but oxygen is 21% of the atmosphere and CO2 only 400 ppm.

You can dissolve an <"absolutely vast amount of CO2"> in water under pressure. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

dw1305 said:


> I did, but if you had enough CO2 to asphyxiate your fish the pH wouldn't be pH8, it would be much lower, because of the 0.15% that goes into solution as H2CO3.


Well, I am confused. What if I was adding more bicarbonate to keep the pH8 while injecting more CO2. Would there still be no CO2 ?


----------



## Happi

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that if you try and dry dose very small amounts of CSM+B you aren't likely to get all of the micronutrients, because of the granular nature of the product. Think of it like you have a bag of M & Ms , if you take a handful chances are  you will have all the colours, but as that handful gets smaller colours will go missing until your smallest selection is just one colour.
> 
> If you make up a stock solution, and then  serially dilute it, you don't have this problem. Personally  I'm not a fan of trying to <"weigh small weights"> so I would always use serial dilution. If you want to <"look like pro"> have a look at @X3NiTH's offering.
> 
> cheers Darrel


been using serial dilution for quite some time now, but I think people still attempt to add 0.01 gram of Mo, Cu etc.  on their gram scale and this is the most inaccurate thing to do.


----------



## GreggZ

John q said:


> I so know that sentence is taken from the heart, how far did you go down it, and did you find Alice?? 😁


LOL I've taken a pretty deep dive.  Still searching for Alice!

Here's the thing. Like many things in life, it seems complicated until you apply yourself a bit. Then suddenly things click and it makes perfect sense. Years ago created I post where I showed step by step how to make custom micros. Once you see it done it's really not so mysterious. After that there were dozens of people I know rolling their own too. Now years later it's pretty common practice.


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> That said, I somewhat have a hard time thinking it really matters much if dose 0.08 ppm/wk of Boron for a couple of months and then 0.12 ppm/wk for another couple of months instead of the ideal 0.1 ppm/wk consistently...  Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it would be a disservice to the concept if we make this more academical than it needs to be.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Well you picked a good one to make an example of. A few years back I spent some time testing upper and lower limits of various micros. Like you suggest, most work well within a range. 

But there are limits. When I was testing the upper limits of Boron I mixed a batch with quite a bit more than usual. Within a few hours my Macranda Variegated lost all of it's color. I mean it went completely pale. And many other plants also stunted and rebelled.  

And therein is the issue that can come up with CSM-B. If your scoop has something that is way out of whack, there can be pretty immediate reactions. So best practice is to make a solution to mitigate the risk. And dose sparingly. Most tanks need a LOT less micros than is suggested by the websites that sell them.


----------



## Hanuman

GreggZ said:


> My mix is listed in my tank parameter spreadsheet below. I know quite a few successful people who are using  a very similar blend. But as always your mileage may vary.
> 
> View attachment 184384


Curious why you are adding Calcium Chloride as a trace and not as a remin.


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> Curious why you are adding Calcium Chloride as a trace and not as a remin.


LOL you have a good eye. 

You may know of my friend Chris Hendy. He is a lot like me in that we like to try things and take the everything but the kitchen table approach. He noted that many commercial fertilizers include some Chloride. He started adding a small amount and he recruited me to do the same. 

Honestly I don't know if it makes any difference at all. Once I run out not sure I will add it again. Of course things are going pretty darn well, so who knows might just decide to keep in in the mix. So I can't really say if I recommend or not.


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> @GreggZ There was a movie done on the subject I beleive. Most sponsors are Chinese, not sure what that means...😂
> View attachment 184389


I have to check with Tom to see why he put 2018 on this. The peak of the microtox wars were in late 2015 early 2016. It was a brutal battle, and many are still scarred. You had to be there to understand how out of it control it became. 

The thing was there some merit to the idea. But it had the wrong messengers. They insisted that every single problem in every single tank was the result of microtox. It wasn't. Half the people they suggested it to weren't even dosing micros. 

But if you recall at one time EI recommended 5 ppm Fe by proxy weekly. Folks using CSM+B and dosing those levels could easily hit a toxic level if some micro got out of whack. Some time back a few years ago a bunch of us had that lowered to 2 ppm weekly. But even that is way more than most tanks need. 

For several years I have been at about 0.40. And I know some who have great tanks who dose even less......and some more closer to 1.0 ppm weekly.


----------



## Hanuman

GreggZ said:


> I have to check with Tom to see why he put 2018 on this


Re-release. Extra scenes and improved toxicity ratios.


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> Re-release. Extra scenes and improved toxicity ratios.


LOL!! No I take that back. ROTFLMAO! Thanks I did a spit take when I read that.


----------



## Hanuman

Happi said:


> but I think people still attempt to add 0.01 gram of Mo, Cu etc. on their gram scale and this is the most inaccurate thing to do.


Indeed. I have a high precision scale with a readability of 0.001g (1mg). Even then I wouldn't use it to weight those amounts because repeatability error of that scale is ±0.005 g and the non-linear error is ±0.005 g so basically a potential to go over or under board x5.

High precision analytical scales with extreme precision and reliability cost an arm and two legs and I am pretty sure no one has that other than professional lab people.


----------



## MichaelJ

KirstyF said:


> Fabulous tune…..and boy are we showing our age here, even admitting we’ve heard of Jefferson Airplane! 😂
> 
> Though I do think this was released before I was born!! Classic! 👍



Right on @KirstyF    Surrealistic Pillow by Jefferson was released the year I was born. 1967…. I grew up with so much great music in a very "liberal" environment - as it is called these days. I’m very grateful for the different perspectives and the abundance of silly nonsense I was exposed to when growing up.... most of it stuck...  don't take things too seriously  

Cheers
Michael


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Happi said:


> Well, I am confused. What if I was adding more bicarbonate to keep the pH8 while injecting more CO2. Would there still be no CO2 ?


You are into the area of solubility and carbonates,  so I'm going to say that the simple answer if that the pH would keep falling.  I think this is still the drop checker situation, where the colour of the bromothymol blue pH indicator changes due to its state of protonation. When people get to a yellow drop checker, as well as dead fish, it just means that the <"bromothymol blue is fully protonated">. 

If you didn't have any calcium (Ca++) or magnesium (Mg++) ions (or any other cations of higher valency) and added a soluble carbonate (Na2CO3 or K2CO3) you might be able to match the rate of CO2 addition to the addition of carbonates. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## JacksonL

KirstyF said:


> Whilst the serial dilution might seem a bit faffy at the outset, the joy of it is that once you’ve done them, they last a looooong time.
> 
> For example, this little bottle has been going for 14wks already so I reckon I’ll get close to a year out of it and making up the micro from the dilutions is easy peasy. I’ve diluted everything except FE just for convenience.
> 
> View attachment 184342


Do these need to be kept in the fridge to keep for that long?


----------



## KirstyF

JacksonL said:


> Do these need to be kept in the fridge to keep for that long?



I understand that it needs to be kept at cooler temps and away from light to prevent degradation of the solutions, so I think the short answer is yes. Mine is in the fridge, but these are only 100ml bottles so they don’t take up much space. 

I couldn’t advise on degradation rates if not kept in those conditions, but one of our ferts experts might chip in.


----------



## Hanuman

JacksonL said:


> Do these need to be kept in the fridge to keep for that long?


You could although not sure it would serve much of a purpose. If you used pure H2O and have a properly sealed container, that solution should remain stable and no water should evaporate.  Plus these are single compound dilution. So no real interaction happening I think. Keeping it away from light is perhaps a good idea. Mine are in a box, in the storage room.


----------



## KirstyF

Hanuman said:


> You could although not sure it would serve much of a purpose. If you used pure H2O and have a properly sealed container, that solution should remain stable and no water should evaporate.  Plus these are single compound dilution. So no real interaction happening I think. Keeping it away from light is perhaps a good idea. Mine are in a box, in the storage room.



@JacksonL This is likely good advice. How to keep micro’s was advice received on one of my very early queries on the forum and I think I hijacked someone else’s thread at the time, so can’t find it. It may well be that ‘best kept in the dark’ was the more critical factor!


----------



## JacksonL

Thank you both! Into a dark box they go.


----------



## Hanuman

Just to make this clear, refrigerating them wouldn't hurt. That's for sure. But I prefer to keep chemicals out of my fridge.


----------



## JacksonL

Hanuman said:


> Just to make this clear, refrigerating them wouldn't hurt. That's for sure. But I prefer to keep chemicals out of my fridge.


Agreed, especially ones that may look like colourful sugary drinks to children. The blue nickel solution always looks thirst quenching 😂


----------



## Happi

dw1305 said:


> You are into the area of solubility and carbonates, so I'm going to say that the simple answer if that the pH would keep falling


Do I understand it right?
No matter how much CO2 we inject, we still have no CO2 when it is pH8 or higher. So no free CO2 available to plants.
And if we go further, is it correct to say,  having pH7 after CO2 injection has only up to 20% of potential CO2 in water. Based on your chart in post# 650.

pH9 0% of CO2
ph8 0%
pH7 20%
pH6 60%
pH5 95%
pH4 100%

This may be one of the reasons why most plants are doing better in lower KH water. Because they have more available CO2 lower the pH is. Can this be true?


----------



## Maf 2500

Happi said:


> This may be one of the reasons why most plants are doing better in lower KH water. Because they have more available CO2 lower the pH is. Can this be true?


Highly likely to be one of the reasons, yes.


Happi said:


> No matter how much CO2 we inject, we still have no CO2 when it is pH8 or higher. So no free CO2 available to plants.


I think if you were constantly adding CO2 it would be impossible to maintain a ph of 8 and it would inevitably fall


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Happi said:


> No matter how much CO2 we inject, we still have no CO2 when it is pH8 or higher. So no free CO2 available to plants.


Yes, I think that is where we are. I don't know enough about the chemistry of inorganic carbon (at higher than ambient CO2 levels) to give a definitive answer.


Maf 2500 said:


> I think if you were constantly adding CO2 it would be impossible to maintain a ph of 8 and it would inevitably fall


That would be my guess. I don't know what the practical<" limits of CO2 injection"> are (in a non sealed vessel) but judging by what happens, <"with even fairly flat, coke"> when you open the bottle I'm going to guess that you reach that limit relatively quickly.


Happi said:


> .......... Because they have more available CO2 lower the pH is. Can this be true?


That definitely true.


Happi said:


> This may be one of the reasons why most plants are doing better in lower KH water.


That is going to depend upon the plant, plants from harder water are going to be <"adapted to using HCO3- as their carbon source"> and will often be encrusted with calcium carbonate (CaCO3) via <"biogenic decalcification">. Plants from softer water won't be able to use HCO3- and may also struggle <"to uptake iron (Fe++(+)) etc">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

@dw1305​Thank you for your Answers


----------



## Wookii

Happi said:


> Current mix:
> Analysis:
> Fe - 0.1
> Mn - 0.022
> Zn - 0.014
> B - 0.0128
> Cu - 0.0028
> Mo - 0.00183
> 
> *if this is your current mix, then it would be much better than the one below. if you modify it with 0.02 MnSo4 and 0.05 ppm Fe DTPA, it will perform even better. *



So the APFUK mix would be good enough but with the extra Mn (and Fe DTPA) -  is the listed quantity of Mn insufficient then? Out of interest what are the deficiency symptoms of Mn?

Also regarding your point on the problem with CSM+B mixes, and getting an uneven mix of elements - if I’m mixing 30g in 2.5 litre of water for an auto-doser, I assume that’s not something I need to worry about?

Also the above analysis of the APFUK mix doesn’t mention Ni - should we be looking to include that also?


----------



## Happi

Wookii said:


> So the APFUK mix would be good enough but with the extra Mn (and Fe DTPA) -  is the listed quantity of Mn insufficient then? Out of interest what are the deficiency symptoms of Mn?
> 
> Also regarding your point on the problem with CSM+B mixes, and getting an uneven mix of elements - if I’m mixing 30g in 2.5 litre of water for an auto-doser, I assume that’s not something I need to worry about?
> 
> Also the above analysis of the APFUK mix doesn’t mention Ni - should we be looking to include that also?


the deficiency symptoms of Mn is very similar to Fe deficiency for our aquatic plant, sometime it looks like the leaves are getting white spots/patches on them, but  am not fully convinced if we could apply this 100% to our aquatic plant but this is what it looks like in terrestrial plant:  Manganese - OMEX 

0.02 ppm Mn might be sufficient under several scenario but I have given it a much more importance considering all the factors that I have discussed in this thread. 0.05-0.07 weekly is Sufficient even under high light fast growing plants. but this too will vary if your water quickly oxidize or precipitate the Mn. 

the mix might be good enough but you might find yourself dosing more just to meet the Mn and Fe demand, which is needed and required in much higher amount compare to other Micros. 

 CSM+B, depends on where you get it from. Nilocg buy CSM and B separately and Mix them together later on, I believe he also use Borax rather than using Boric Acid, unless this has changed. even if you were mixing 30g or more, the ppm you are targeting for might be slightly off, Mo being the lowest ppm would be at the highest risk of being lower than the targeted ppm.  if you were to clone the csm+b numbers with chemicals, I guarantee that you will get much better results compared to the original csm+b. 

its up to you if you want to add Ni, according to the Science they are recognizing it as an important Micro Nutrient, also highly beneficial if dosing Urea as N.

if you look around you will find several thread on making recipes, use them as a guide and make your own and control them the way you want them.


----------



## Happi

Maf 2500 said:


> I think if you were constantly adding CO2 it would be impossible to maintain a ph of 8 and it would inevitably fall


Right, but I mentioned "when it is pH8 or higher". We are discussing CO2-H2CO3 relationship.


----------



## Maf 2500

Happi said:


> Right, but I mentioned "when it is pH8 or higher". We are discussing CO2-H2CO3 relationship.


Yes. If you start with pH 8 or higher and inject CO2 the pH will drop because you are directly affecting the CO2-H2CO3 relationship.


----------



## Happi

Maf 2500 said:


> Yes. If you start with pH 8 or higher and inject CO2 the pH will drop because you are directly affecting the CO2-H2CO3 relationship.


Right, but we were trying to establish how large portion of C02 is available to plants at different pH values. For example, plants have no CO2 available in pH 8 if we inject CO2 or not. In pH7 only 20% of CO2 is available, in pH6 60%, in pH5 95% and in pH4 100%. Thanks to dw1305 we now know how this works.


----------



## Maf 2500

Happi said:


> Right, but we were trying to establish how large portion of C02 is available to plants at different pH values. For example, plants have no CO2 available in pH 8 if we inject CO2 or not. In pH7 only 20% of CO2 is available, in pH6 60%, in pH5 95% and in pH4 100%. Thanks to dw1305 we now know how this works.


Yes, I understand all that. What I meant was that the water will not stay at pH8 if you inject CO2, but will become lower and therefore a more hospitable environment for CO2.

I am not sure if we are actually disagreeing with each other or just talking round in circles?

Maybe some African cichlid keepers have tried injecting CO2? I feel it would still bring the pH down during the period of injection despite all the limestone and crushed coral and such that normally buffers the water.


----------



## ElleDee

Maf 2500 said:


> Yes, I understand all that. What I meant was that the water will not stay at pH8 if you inject CO2, but will become lower and therefore a more hospitable environment for CO2.
> 
> I am not sure if we are actually disagreeing with each other or just talking round in circles?
> 
> Maybe some African cichlid keepers have tried injecting CO2? I feel it would still bring the pH down during the period of injection despite all the limestone and crushed coral and such that normally buffers the water.



Maybe in this hypothetical there's a baking soda fairy sprinkling it in constantly to offset the acidification from the CO2.


----------



## Wookii

ElleDee said:


> Maybe in this hypothetical there's a baking soda fairy sprinkling it in constantly to offset the acidification from the CO2.



I think that was Darrels point above though, that you will eventually hit the solubility limit for the carbonates, and will not be able to maintain the higher pH, so CO2 will always drive the pH down regardless.

Should be easy enough to test in a jug of water with some Carbonate/Bicarbonate and some injected CO2.


----------



## Happi

Maf 2500 said:


> What I meant was that the water will not stay at pH8 if you inject CO2, but will become lower and therefore a more hospitable environment for CO2.


You agree there can be pH8 water with CO2 injection that was pH9 before CO2 injection? So no, the pH8 water with CO2 injection, in our case, is the final stage where pH8 remains with the CO2 injection. And this example is not fantasy, at 20 dKH we have 0.6 ppm CO2 at pH9, and 6 ppm CO2 at pH8. Doable?


----------



## GreggZ

At one place I lived I had 20 dKH well water.

Fully degassed pH always measured at 8.2. If I drove that down to 7.2 CO2 concentration would be 37.98 according to the charts/calculators.

But I actually drove it down to 6.8. That would correlate to a CO2 ppm concentration of 95.4.

Just saying you can easily drive down 20 dKH water and have plenty of CO2 in the water column. And the CO2/pH charts graphs are not a reliable method to know how many ppm  CO2 you actually have. Watch the plants and fish to optimize CO2. 

In my current set up the charts/calculators would say I have 100+ ppm CO2. Do I really? I highly doubt it.


----------



## Hanuman

Wookii said:


> So the APFUK mix would be good enough but with the extra Mn (and Fe DTPA) -  is the listed quantity of Mn insufficient then? Out of interest what are the deficiency symptoms of Mn?
> 
> Also regarding your point on the problem with CSM+B mixes, and getting an uneven mix of elements - if I’m mixing 30g in 2.5 litre of water for an auto-doser, I assume that’s not something I need to worry about?
> 
> Also the above analysis of the APFUK mix doesn’t mention Ni - should we be looking to include that also?


That's why I told you that any one you chose will be the best one. Reality is no one will be able to tell you with precision the requirement of each trace for each plant. That's also why they are called traces, as in we only need minute amounts. There are many people using APFUK without adding anything more in it and they are doing just fine.
Something also people seem to forget is that most if not all of those micronutrients are present in the soil as well if you are using a rich substrate like Amazonia or the like.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Maf 2500 said:


> What I meant was that the water will not stay at pH8 if you inject CO2, but will become lower and therefore a more hospitable environment for CO2.


Yes that is it, it is how the <"drop checker works">. Because pH is both a ratio and a log10  value there <"isn't a linear relationship"> between pH and CO2 value, unless you stay in log10 values.


GreggZ said:


> At one place I lived I had 20 dKH well water. Fully degassed pH always measured at 8.2. If I drove that down to 7.2 CO2 concentration would be 37.98 according to the charts/calculators. But I actually drove it down to 6.8. That would correlate to a CO2 ppm concentration of 95.4.


I think a one unit pH drop is always about 30 ppm CO2. I'd guess after that the log linear pH ~ CO2 correlation start to break down, but I don't know enough chemistry  to actually say.


Happi said:


> You agree there can be pH8 water with CO2 injection that was pH9 before CO2 injection?


To get to pH 9 you need another base (other than CO3--) present, this could be <"dissolved oxygen"> or it could be the <"hydroxide ion (OH-)"> etc. The other way to get to pH 9 would be to have an atmosphere less rich in CO2, in which case the CO2 ~ HCO3- ~ pH equilibrium point would move up the pH scale.


Happi said:


> So no, the pH8 water with CO2 injection, in our case, is the final stage where pH8 remains with the CO2 injection. And this example is not fantasy, at 20 dKH we have 0.6 ppm CO2 at pH9, and 6 ppm CO2 at pH8.


Yes, you would definitely have some free CO2, but I'm not sure how much.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Wookii

Happi said:


> sorry about the late reply on this one.
> 
> Current mix:
> Analysis:
> Fe -     0.1
> Mn -   0.022
> Zn  -    0.014
> B  -       0.0128
> Cu -     0.0028
> Mo  -   0.00183
> 
> *if this is your current mix, then it would be much better than the one below. if you modify it with 0.02 MnSo4 and 0.05 ppm Fe DTPA, it will perform even better.  *



Sorry @Happi, still just trying to get my head around this. How did you work out the ppm values from the percentages that @John q posted?

Also, where do you apply the 0.02ppm MnSO4, to the weekly dose total, or the basic analysis above? For example, if we are targeting 0.4ppm Fe per week, Mn will be 4 x 0.022ppm = 0.088ppm - do we then add the 0.02ppm Mn to that to take it up to 0.108ppm per week?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Hanuman said:


> Reality is no one will be able to tell you with precision the requirement of each trace for each plant. That's also why they are called traces, as in we only need minute amounts. There are many people using APFUK without adding anything more in it and they are doing just fine.


<"Same for me">, unless we add enough to get <"into areas of toxicity">, the only difference is <"_some_", rather than "_none_">.


> ........... Plants that are adapted to nutrient poor condition may be extremely efficient at scavenging scarce resources in nutrient depleted soils, but poor competitors in more normal conditions. An example of this would be plants (and their associated symbionts) in the Protaceae, from SW Australia, South Africa etc which will poison themselves in soils with more than trace amounts of phosphorus <"Phosphorus toxicity in the Proteaceae: A problem in post-agricultural lands">..........



cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

Wookii said:


> Sorry @Happi, still just trying to get my head around this. How did you work out the ppm values from the percentages that @John q posted?
> 
> Also, where do you apply the 0.02ppm MnSO4, to the weekly dose total, or the basic analysis above? For example, if we are targeting 0.4ppm Fe per week, Mn will be 4 x 0.022ppm = 0.088ppm - do we then add the 0.02ppm Mn to that to take it up to 0.108ppm per week?


Fe 8.2 % / *1.603* = 5.115 ppm
then 5.115/0.1 = 51.15
then 5.115/51.15 = 0.1 ppm Fe

Mn 1.82% / *1.603* = 1.135 ppm
then 1.135/51.15 = 0.022 ppm Mn

Zn 1.16% / 1.603 = 0.723
then 0.723/51.15 = 0.014

do the same for others and you will get the ppm

Fe 8.2%                   5.115         0.1
Mn 1.82%             1.135          0.022
Zn 1.16%              0.723          0.014
B 1.05%                0.655           0.0128
Cu 0.23%             0.1435        0.0028
Mo 0.15%            0.0936        0.00183


Fe 8.2%                   0.1 (additional 0.05 Fe DTPA added)
Mn 1.82%             0.022 (additional 0.02 Mn added)
Zn 1.16%              0.014
B 1.05%                0.0128
Cu 0.23%             0.0028
Mo 0.15%            0.00183

Final:
Fe 8.2%                   0.15
Mn 1.82%             0.042
Zn 1.16%              0.014
B 1.05%                0.0128
Cu 0.23%             0.0028
Mo 0.15%            0.00183

if you were to dose 0.4 ppm Fe weekly:

Fe               0.4 ( Fe EDTA 0.266 ppm, DTPA Fe 0.133 ppm)
Mn             0.112
Zn               0.037
B                 0.034
Cu              0.0074
Mo             0.0048


this applies to POST #7


----------



## GreggZ

dw1305 said:


> I think a one unit pH drop is always about 30 ppm CO2. I'd guess after that the log linear pH ~ CO2 correlation start to break down, but I don't know enough chemistry  to actually say.


Yes the relationship is not linear.

But that’s only the beginning. Next is exploring methodology. Folks will often list tank parameters and say their CO2 is at 30 ppm. But is it? Best answer is “maybe”.

There are loads of ways to introduce errors into that equation. Let’s start with measuring dKH. Let’s take an example where someone measures their dKH at 5 and measures their fully degassed pH at 7.6. That would indicate a CO2 concentration of 3.78 which would be reasonable at equilibrium with the atmosphere. So they drop pH to 6.6 and claim they have 30 ppm CO2. The first mistake is that fully degassed water already has some CO2 in it so that actually calculates to 37.8 CO2 ppm..

But let’s say their measurement is off. 99% of folks use a liquid drop kit to measure dKH. If the true dKH is actually 5.7 CO2 would now calculate to 43.09. If the true dKH is 4.1 then CO2 concentration is 31 ppm. Either would be easy to do as we are not measuring down to tenths.

So there’s one variable that can have an effect on how we report CO2 concentration. Next is the methodology of measuring pH. Some folks use test strips or liquid kits that can be off by quite a bit. Using the same example above let’s say that that instead that instead of degassed pH at 7.6 it’s really 7.4 and instead of dropping to 6.6 it’s really 6.8. This is extremely easy to do when using a test kit and deciphering shades of color. Now CO2 concentration would calculate to 23.85.

And it’s even true when using calibrated probes. A long time ago I tested 3 different calibrated pen type pH meters against each other. They all gave different readings. Next best is a higher quality BNC connected type probe. More accurate but still not lab grade equipment.

So the point is many times the reality is that measuring pH drop and dKH are a garbage in garbage out methodology. And when you combine errors in both readings you can begin to see how two people testing the same water could come to wildly different conclusions about their CO2 ppm. So when someone says my CO2 is at 30 ppm, most times they really have no idea if that is true or not.

Then you can also bring in other variables which can affect pH. Our tank is not a lab. There are many other forces at play. Source water dKH can change over time, even seasonally in many places. Some municipalities inject things like Sodium Hydroxide to alter pH. And the list goes on. Even a difference in plant mass and CO2 uptake can throw things off.

So then the question is why does it matter? In my experience optimizing CO2 makes every single other thing easier. If you get CO2 right, you have much more leeway as to nutrient dosing, as a wider range will still produce very good results. Folks love to discuss dosing down to the smallest detail. This ratio vs that ratio. Lean vs rich. K must be below NO3. PO4 must be limited. And the list goes on and on. In my experience if you take the time to get CO2 right, these topics become far less important.

So if we can’t trust the CO2 ppm calculation, how do we dial in CO2? First is having a reliably constant flow rate of CO2. Many cheap needle valves drift. Counting bubbles accurately is all but impossible and bubbles are not a uniform measurement. I use a flow meter and even that can have limitations. So the odds of someone’s CO2 ppm being constant is low.

For me the best method is trial and error and patience. Closely observe both fish and plants while dialing in CO2 slowly over a period of time. Plants will provide subtle clues as you get closer to your optimum concentration. If fish show distress time to back it off just slightly. And one thing many don’t consider is that O2 and CO2 are not mutually exclusive. That is you can have and want high levels of each. If you have good surface agitation (O2) you can have higher levels of CO2 without affecting livestock.

I can tell you this. If I see something wonky in my tank, the first thing I do is check and double check CO2 levels. If it’s off I could waste a lot time playing whack-a-mole with ferts when the real issue is something completely different.


----------



## Hanuman

Da novel! Spot on.


----------



## Happi

let me also add that if you ever feel like you need to change anything with;

Fe 0.4 ( Fe EDTA 0.266 ppm, DTPA Fe 0.133 ppm)
Mn 0.112

I would try to aim for this:
Fe 0.4 ( Fe EDTA 0.266 ppm, DTPA Fe 0.133 ppm)
Mn 0.26

plant seems to enjoy the Fe:Mn ratio that is close to 2:1


----------



## Wookii

Happi said:


> Fe 8.2 % / *1.603* = 5.115 ppm
> then 5.115/0.1 = 51.15
> then 5.115/51.15 = 0.1 ppm Fe
> 
> Mn 1.82% / *1.603* = 1.135 ppm
> then 1.135/51.15 = 0.022 ppm Mn
> 
> Zn 1.16% / 1.603 = 0.723
> then 0.723/51.15 = 0.014
> 
> do the same for others and you will get the ppm
> 
> Fe 8.2%                   5.115         0.1
> Mn 1.82%             1.135          0.022
> Zn 1.16%              0.723          0.014
> B 1.05%                0.655           0.0128
> Cu 0.23%             0.1435        0.0028
> Mo 0.15%            0.0936        0.00183
> 
> 
> Fe 8.2%                   0.1 (additional 0.05 Fe DTPA added)
> Mn 1.82%             0.022 (additional 0.02 Mn added)
> Zn 1.16%              0.014
> B 1.05%                0.0128
> Cu 0.23%             0.0028
> Mo 0.15%            0.00183
> 
> Final:
> Fe 8.2%                   0.15
> Mn 1.82%             0.042
> Zn 1.16%              0.014
> B 1.05%                0.0128
> Cu 0.23%             0.0028
> Mo 0.15%            0.00183
> 
> if you were to dose 0.4 ppm Fe weekly:
> 
> Fe               0.4 ( Fe EDTA 0.266 ppm, DTPA Fe 0.133 ppm)
> Mn             0.112
> Zn               0.037
> B                 0.034
> Cu              0.0074
> Mo             0.0048
> 
> 
> this applies to POST #7



Thanks @Happi - this will probably transpire to be a stupid question, but where does the "1.603" come from?


----------



## ElleDee

GreggZ said:


> Some municipalities inject things like Sodium Hydroxide to alter pH.



Man, is that what is with my tap water? Based on kh alone my water should be 6.9 or 7.0, but it's more like 7.4-7.6. TDS is very low (~60), so I've toyed with trying to acidify the water to increase available CO2, but pH chasing is always highly discouraged.


----------



## Happi

Wookii said:


> Thanks @Happi - this will probably transpire to be a stupid question, but where does the "1.603" come from?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


GreggZ said:


> So there’s one variable that can have an effect on how we report CO2 concentration. Next is the methodology of measuring pH. Some folks use test strips or liquid kits that can be off by quite a bit. Using the same example above let’s say that that instead that instead of degassed pH at 7.6 it’s really 7.4 and instead of dropping to 6.6 it’s really 6.8. This is extremely easy to do when using a test kit and deciphering shades of color. Now CO2 concentration would calculate to 23.85.


Agreed, that is it.

We are back in Donald Rumsfeld territory, too many <"_unknown unknowns_>.  It is  partially why <"I don't like pH meters"> or <"dKH" test kits">.

I'm not <"a CO2 user">, but <"one advantage I can see for the drop checker"> is that you can make up the <"4 dKH"> solution <"accurately">, so that takes away <"one source of uncertainty">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## GreggZ

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Agreed, that is it.
> 
> We are back in Donald Rumsfeld territory, too many <"_unknown unknowns_>.  It is  partially why <"I don't like pH meters"> or <"dKH" test kits">.
> 
> I'm not <"a CO2 user">, but <"one advantage I can see for the drop checker"> is that you can make up the <"4 dKH"> solution <"accurately">, so that takes away <"one source of uncertainty">.
> 
> cheers Darrel


Yes it takes out one source of uncertainty but again is still far from accurate. Drop checkers have own their problems. It's basically using a liquid pH test to calculate CO2 ppm.

The first problem is that they are lagging indicator and are only showing you what was happening several hours ago. The second goes back to reading colors. How absolute is that reading if we are discerning between shades of blue, green, yellow? In my opinion not very accurate at all. Then you have other things in the tank that could also be affecting pH.

And then the next question is what is the best color? Most people say green. In my tank and the tanks of people I follow in the hobby it's pretty much pure yellow.  In the end drop checkers can also lead to false assumptions.


----------



## GreggZ

ElleDee said:


> Man, is that what is with my tap water? Based on kh alone my water should be 6.9 or 7.0, but it's more like 7.4-7.6. TDS is very low (~60), so I've toyed with trying to acidify the water to increase available CO2, but pH chasing is always highly discouraged.


Are you testing the tank water or the tap? With either how long are you letting it degas and come to equilibrium with atmosphere?


----------



## Parablennius

ElleDee said:


> Man, is that what is with my tap water? Based on kh alone my water should be 6.9 or 7.0, but it's more like 7.4-7.6. TDS is very low (~60), so I've toyed with trying to acidify the water to increase available CO2, but pH chasing is always highly discouraged.


Well, yes, they add Caustic soda, ( Sodium hydroxide ) to your drinking water to avoid acidic damage to the supply system. Sounds good dunnit?


----------



## ElleDee

GreggZ said:


> Are you testing the tank water or the tap? With either how long are you letting it degas and come to equilibrium with atmosphere?


All of the above. From the tap, from the tank in the middle of the night, from the tank at the end of the photoperiod, after sitting in a bucket for a few days, it all looks about the same on the API test kit, which I know is not a great way to measure pH to begin with. I am pretty confident in my ability to discriminate colors, but I'd need to do quite a bit of fudging to get to atmospheric levels from the chart as I understand it. I thought this was puzzling and a bit disappointing (at the time I was trying to accumulate CO2 overnight as per Walstad methods, don't @ me), but my plants were growing and I just shrugged it off. 



Parablennius said:


> Well, yes, they add Caustic soda, ( Sodium hydroxide ) to your drinking water to avoid acidic damage to the supply system. Sounds good dunnit?


What are the downstream effects of that to our water chemistry besides affecting pH? Just that?


----------



## KirstyF

GreggZ said:


> For me the best method is trial and error and patience. Closely observe both fish and plants while dialing in CO2 slowly over a period of time. Plants will provide subtle clues as you get closer to your optimum concentration. If fish show distress time to back it off just slightly. And one thing many don’t consider is that O2 and CO2 are not mutually exclusive. That is you can have and want high levels of each. If you have good surface agitation (O2) you can have higher levels of CO2 without affecting livestock.



I’m gonna throw in a little challenge here, if you’ll forgive me, and apologies for being controversial. 😊

I have no doubt this method would work, I feel the need, however, to highlight that it might not be best for all or at least to add a word of caution. 

Best method for experienced and knowledgeable hobbyists, maybe. 

Happi’s methods are what I would call ‘next level’ ferts. 
EI is prescriptive and therefore simple -and it is fairly effective. 
Dosing whatever it says on the bottle is also simple but possibly less effective.
Lean Dosing (or just dosing enough) is not simple but can be effective if properly implemented by knowledgable hobbyists. 

Your description is ‘next level’ Co2.
Take your off-gassed level, drop your ph by one unit and keep Ph stable throughout photoperiod, is simple (as a theory at least, not always so easy to do) and fairly effective in most cases. (Not foolproof and watching fish for distress always being the caveat with Co2 injection) 

Deciding on ur Co2 by evaluating response of plants and fish - not always simple - but can be effective if properly implemented by knowledgeable hobbyists. 

A little like Happi and his ferts, to do this, you have to be able to recognise the responses you are looking for. In this case, in both your fish and your plants. 
If you get it wrong, your plants may punish you by failing. If you get it badly wrong, your fish may punish you by dying. 

You have very clearly said to watch your fish closely and I totally respect that, but there are, as you say, many things that can impact the Co2 in your tank, from dirty filters to biomass levels to flow patterns and a big clear out, for example, may be all it takes to make enough of a change to turn that yellow drop checker lethal. 

You need to have a pretty good handle on cause and effect to push Co2 limits, no? 

Until you’ve learned that, I’m thinking green seems like a good colour. 😊


----------



## GreggZ

KirstyF said:


> Until you’ve learned that, I’m thinking green seems like a good colour. 😊


LOL I enjoyed that post, and yes you are correct. My thoughts are in relation to high light tanks packed full of fast growing flowery colorful stems. 

Much depends on ones ambition and how deep in the hobby they want to progress. For medium/low light tanks any CO2 is better than none and a green drop checker is fine. 

As one progresses they usually start adding more light and more sensitive species. Light is the gas pedal that drives the tank. Turn it up and increase the demand for CO2 and nutrients. At that point keeping CO2 optimized can be the difference between success and failure. Tom Barr has been saying this for years and he is correct. 

My main point was that when people say their CO2 is at 30 ppm and is optimized, many times it's not. Getting CO2 truly optimized is complicated and takes time and patience. There are loads of ways to get it wrong and it pays to get it right.

And yes one must always keep the health of the livestock in mind. I've been doing this for years and still to this day only adjust CO2 in small increments on weekends when I can be there and observe. My tank is full of Rainbowfish that take years to mature and color up and they are way too important to me to risk otherwise.


----------



## Happi

Wookii said:


> Thanks @Happi - this will probably transpire to be a stupid question, but where does the "1.603" come from?


Wookii, am gonna give you a little homework. Try to breakdown the microplex miller's % into ppm using the same method.


----------



## Wookii

Happi said:


> Wookii, am gonna give you a little homework. Try to breakdown the microplex miller's % into ppm using the same method.



Not interested in homework mate. I’m happy to use a technique that works when I need it, but I like to know why it works, not just use it blindly parrot-fashion. Obviously if you don’t know how the 1.603 is derived, just say so 😉


----------



## KirstyF

GreggZ said:


> LOL I enjoyed that post, and yes you are correct. My thoughts are in relation to high light tanks packed full of fast growing flowery colorful stems.
> 
> Much depends on ones ambition and how deep in the hobby they want to progress. For medium/low light tanks any CO2 is better than none and a green drop checker is fine.
> 
> As one progresses they usually start adding more light and more sensitive species. Light is the gas pedal that drives the tank. Turn it up and increase the demand for CO2 and nutrients. At that point keeping CO2 optimized can be the difference between success and failure. Tom Barr has been saying this for years and he is correct.
> 
> My main point was that when people say their CO2 is at 30 ppm and is optimized, many times it's not. Getting CO2 truly optimized is complicated and takes time and patience. There are loads of ways to get it wrong and it pays to get it right.
> 
> And yes one must always keep the health of the livestock in mind. I've been doing this for years and still to this day only adjust CO2 in small increments on weekends when I can be there and observe. My tank is full of Rainbowfish that take years to mature and color up and they are way too important to me to risk otherwise.



The first scaping forum I ever read was the Barr report and I can certainly recall a tank or two with wet & dry trickle filters for great oxygenation, along with some eye watering light and Co2 levels…..and some stunning results….so I’m getting you. 

As a newbie, running my first ever high tech tank, I also think one of the most important things I’ve learnt here is that for long term good results and a happy healthy tank, be patient (ish 😂) and learn to walk before you run.  (Especially with Co2)

I think that puts us on the same page…..different paragraphs perhaps. 😂


----------



## GreggZ

KirstyF said:


> As a newbie, running my first ever high tech tank, I also think one of the most important things I’ve learnt here is that for long term good results and a happy healthy tank, be patient (ish 😂) and learn to walk before you run.  (Especially with Co2)


These are true words. Patience is a virtue in this hobby. And there is a learning curve.

When I first got started in the hobby I read where someone said it takes about a year for a newbie to learn how to have a successful tank. I laughed and thought come on how hard can it be? You get a light, some CO2, some ferts, and bam instant underwater garden. I was naïve.

But today people have a big advantage. There are great sources of information out there that can really help. And the fastest path to success is to seek out people who can demonstrate success. Then study their methods. I have found most all to be very generous with their time and knowledge.


----------



## Hanuman

KirstyF said:


> I’m gonna throw in a little challenge here, if you’ll forgive me, and apologies for being controversial. 😊
> 
> I have no doubt this method would work, I feel the need, however, to highlight that it might not be best for all or at least to add a word of caution.
> 
> Best method for experienced and knowledgeable hobbyists, maybe.
> 
> Happi’s methods are what I would call ‘next level’ ferts.
> EI is prescriptive and therefore simple -and it is fairly effective.
> Dosing whatever it says on the bottle is also simple but possibly less effective.
> Lean Dosing (or just dosing enough) is not simple but can be effective if properly implemented by knowledgable hobbyists.
> 
> Your description is ‘next level’ Co2.
> Take your off-gassed level, drop your ph by one unit and keep Ph stable throughout photoperiod, is simple (as a theory at least, not always so easy to do) and fairly effective in most cases. (Not foolproof and watching fish for distress always being the caveat with Co2 injection)
> 
> Deciding on ur Co2 by evaluating response of plants and fish - not always simple - but can be effective if properly implemented by knowledgeable hobbyists.
> 
> A little like Happi and his ferts, to do this, you have to be able to recognise the responses you are looking for. In this case, in both your fish and your plants.
> If you get it wrong, your plants may punish you by failing. If you get it badly wrong, your fish may punish you by dying.
> 
> You have very clearly said to watch your fish closely and I totally respect that, but there are, as you say, many things that can impact the Co2 in your tank, from dirty filters to biomass levels to flow patterns and a big clear out, for example, may be all it takes to make enough of a change to turn that yellow drop checker lethal.
> 
> You need to have a pretty good handle on cause and effect to push Co2 limits, no?
> 
> Until you’ve learned that, I’m thinking green seems like a good colour. 😊


I feel you but then you have very often noobs adding 200/300 PAR of light with a green DC and wondering what's going wrong.... or adding ferts once a week, or changing water every 2/3 weeks. The CO2 advice is not just something you do and that's it. It requires adjustment of other parameters sometimes. People have a lot of expectations and hope things will work right out of the box just because they wish so. Ain't happening.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> microplex miller



Millers Microplex ? This one. Do you recommend switching to this one for the lean-regime?

As for @Wookii 's homework here it goes:

As the label suggest, If you target 0.4 ppm of Fe

Mg    0.54 ppm
Cu    0.15 ppm
Mo    0.01 ppm
B    0.05 ppm
Mn    0.4 ppm
Zn    0.15 ppm
Co    0.005 ppm

It beats me as well where the 1.603 comes from...

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

Wookii said:


> Not interested in homework mate. I’m happy to use a technique that works when I need it, but I like to know why it works, not just use it blindly parrot-fashion. Obviously if you don’t know how the 1.603 is derived, just say so 😉


Ofcource I do, otherwise why would I use it to begin with? Just apply that number to whatever fertilizer % you are trying to convert into ppm and it will work everytime. That's why I said go do the homework by using Miller microplex or any other fertilizer and see if you get the correct ppm and compare it with calculator like rotalabutterfly.com and you will get your answer.

 It's interesting that you just told me I don't know how I derived that number but at the same time i just broken down the percentage into ppm for you and for others.  It's rather a simple math but let's just pretend that I don't know how I got there and Thanks for the compliment as well.


----------



## erwin123

KirstyF said:


> I’m gonna throw in a little challenge here, if you’ll forgive me, and apologies for being controversial. 😊
> 
> I have no doubt this method would work, I feel the need, however, to highlight that it might not be best for all or at least to add a word of caution.
> 
> Best method for experienced and knowledgeable hobbyists, maybe.
> 
> Happi’s methods are what I would call ‘next level’ ferts.
> EI is prescriptive and therefore simple -and it is fairly effective.
> Dosing whatever it says on the bottle is also simple but possibly less effective.
> Lean Dosing (or just dosing enough) is not simple but can be effective if properly implemented by knowledgable hobbyists.


"Lean dosing" does not necessarily mean going the DIY route. If you use Tropica all-in-one Fert at the manufacturer's recommended dose, you are lean dosing already - so thats the simplest way to do lean dosing.😅

My Lean(er) dosing experiment was conducted with APT EI. I started with the manufacturer recommendation at 2.5ml/day. Then I acquired some A. Pedicatella which stunted at that dosing level. I then slowly reduced the daily dose.

I switched to 2.3ml/day for 1 week, then 2.1ml/day for week, then 1.9ml/day for 1 week (and took a photograph every week for my reference) and eventually ended up with 0.9ml/day.

Some plants clearly preferred the richer 2.5ml/day (S. Macrocaulon and L. Pantanal)
A. Pedicatella  prefers 0.9ml/day
The other plants don't really care.


----------



## Hanuman

Happi said:


> Of cource I do, otherwise why would I use it to begin with? Just apply that number to whatever fertilizer % you are trying to convert into ppm and it will work everytime. That's why I said go do the homework by using Miller microplex or any other fertilizer and see if you get the correct ppm and compare it with calculator like rotalabutterfly.com and you will get your answer.


So what is 1.603? I am interested as well. Is that a factor? and how is it calculated? Could be very simple but I guess my brain is refusing to behave properly this morning. Been under quarantine for 2 weeks now and still got a week to go.


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Millers Microplex ? This one. Do you recommend switching to this one for the lean-regime?
> 
> As for @Wookii 's homework here it goes:
> 
> As the label suggest, If you target 0.4 ppm of Fe
> 
> Mg    0.54 ppm
> Cu    0.15 ppm
> Mo    0.01 ppm
> B    0.05 ppm
> Mn    0.4 ppm
> Zn    0.15 ppm
> Co    0.005 ppm
> 
> It beats me as well where the 1.603 comes from...
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


no I do not recommend this fertilizer especially  if you have shrimps. 

far as how I got to 1.603, lets pretend I don't know how I got there but manage to crack the code at the same time. here's how I calculate my other work far as making my own micros if you are interested, its rather a simple straightforward formula that I shared there : Custom EDTA/DTPA Trace/Fe Recipe

now lets take a look at https://www.millerchemical.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Microplex-Huber-Logo-Specimen.pdf 

Microplex Miller
GUARANTEED ANALYSIS
Iron (Fe)  4.0 %
Manganese (Mn)  4.0 %
Mg     5.43%
Boron (B)  0.5%
Cobalt (Co) 0.05%
Copper (Cu)  1.5 %
Molybdenum (Mo) 0.1 %
Zinc (Zn)  1.5 %

starting with Fe:
Fe 4.0% / 1.603 = 2.495
2.495 / 0.4 = 6.238
2.495/6.238 = 0.399

Zn 1.5% / 1.603 = 0.9357
0.9357/6.238= 0.15

B 0.5% / 1.603 = 0.312
0.312/6.238 = 0.05

Mo 0.1% / 1.603 = 0.06238
0.06238/6.238 = 0.01

Now lets compare this to rotala butterfly calculator:

Fe    0.4
Mn    0.4
Mg    0.54
Zn    0.14
Mo    0.01
B    0.05
Co    0.01
Cu    0.15

you can use that 1.603 code with any fertilizer


----------



## Happi

erwin123 said:


> "Lean dosing" does not necessarily mean going the DIY route. If you use Tropica all-in-one Fert at the manufacturer's recommended dose, you are lean dosing already - so thats the simplest way to do lean dosing.😅


This is exactly what people need to understand. DIY is not for everyone if it's too much hassle, even though I strongly recommend it.


----------



## Wookii

Happi said:


> It's interesting that you just told me I don't know how I derived that number



I didn’t, I ‘asked’ you, and originally ‘asked’ you how you derived it - something you still haven’t explained?



Happi said:


> It's rather a simple math



Then explain it? I don’t understand why you’re making such a big deal about it? This thread, indeed this forum, is about sharing knowledge and experience, you have shared a lot of useful stuff already, so I don’t quite understand why you are being so precious and aloof about explaining a simple calculation?



Happi said:


> Thanks for the compliment as well.



Which one? 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## Hanuman

@Wookii


----------



## John q

Wookii said:


> I don’t understand why you’re making such a big deal about it?


----------



## Wookii

Happi said:


> you can use that 1.603 code with any fertilizer



OK @Happi, I've done my 'homework', and put a bit of time and effort into this, took it back to 'first principles', and the magic number of *1.603*, it is in fact . . . . _drum roll_ . . . . complete and utter . . .





In fact, I think the magic number should actually be *1.2345*!! Lets try it . .

Microplex Miller
GUARANTEED ANALYSIS
Iron (Fe) 4.0 %
Manganese (Mn) 4.0 %
Mg 5.43%
Boron (B) 0.5%
Cobalt (Co) 0.05%
Copper (Cu) 1.5 %
Molybdenum (Mo) 0.1 %
Zinc (Zn) 1.5 %

Starting with Fe:
Fe 4.0% / 1.2345 = 3.240
3.2402 / 0.4 = 8.100
3.240  / 8.10 = *0.40 ppm*

Zn 1.5% / 1.2345 = 1.215
1.215 / 8.100 = *0.15 ppm*

B 0.5% / 1.2345 = 0.405
0.405 / 8.100 = *0.05 ppm*

Mo 0.1% / 1.2345 = 0.081
0.0815 / 8.100 = *0.01 ppm*

How am I doing? . . . . . Actually, you know what - I think I got the magic number wrong. I think it should actually have been *67.89*!! Lets try it . . .

Starting with Fe:
Fe 4.0% / 67.89 = 0.0589
0.0589 / 0.4 = 0.1473
0.0589 / 0.1473 = *0.40 ppm*

Zn 1.5% / 67.89 = 0.022
0.022 / 0.1473 = *0.15 ppm*

B 0.5% / 67.89 = 0.007
0.007 / 0.1473 = *0.05 ppm*

Mo 0.1% / 67.89 = 0.0015
0.0015 / 0.1473 = *0.01 ppm*

Truth is the 'magic number' is as pointless as most of the extraneous calculations - all we are doing is normalising the relative ppm's of all the other elements to a random target Fe ppm using a scale factor - there can't be any 'real' ppm because we're stating neither the mix nor dose volumes. So the easy way to do the calculation, stripping out all the gumpf is:

Fe % / Target Fe ppm = Scale factor . .  Then (Mineral)% / Scale factor = Relative ppm . . .

So one last time, doing it properly:

Starting with Fe:
Fe 4.0% / 0.4 = 10 (Scale factor)

Target ppm for Fe is already set at 0.4ppm - no need to calculate in a circle again. Therefore:

Zn 1.5% / 10 = *0.15 ppm*
B 0.5% / 10 = *0.05 ppm*
Mo 0.1% /10 = *0.01 ppm*

Trying it for the APFUK micro mix:



John q said:


> Fe 8.2% (EDTA Chelated)
> Mn 1.82% (EDTA Chelated)
> Zn 1.16% (EDTA Chelated)
> B 1.05%
> Cu 0.23% (EDTA Chelated)
> Mo 0.15%


Starting with Fe - target ppm = 0.1ppm:

Fe 8.2% / 0.1 = 82 (Scale factor)

Target ppm for Fe is already set at 0.1ppm - no need to calculate again. Therefore:

Zn 1.16% / 82 = *0.01415 ppm*
Mn 1.82% / 82 = *0.02220 ppm*
B 1.0% / 82 = *0.01220 ppm*
Cu 0.23% / 82 = *0.00280 ppm*
Mo 0.15% /82 = *0.00183 ppm*

What do I win?


----------



## John q

Wookii said:


> What do I win?


Expulsion from the magic circle. 
_"indocilis privata loqui"_


----------



## Happi

@Wookii​am glad you put some effort into it and got it figured out. see it wasn't that complicated and it was just a simple math. and no "1.603" isn't a magic number, you can actually use any numbers, long as you calculate with the same formula. there are many way to do this weather you add 2+2 = 4, 1+3= 4,  it will give you the same answer.

so how does these formula help others?
if someone is relying on Guaranteed Analysis and say they want to shoot the target of 0.1 ppm Fe based on the Guaranteed Analysis, this will help them get there, they can break down rest of the numbers once they get the Fe number going. 

again am happy to see that you were able to use the given formula while using different numbers to get the same answer. I salute your effort.


----------



## swyftfeet

OOH I KNOW!  RAISES HAND!

in Faraday constant: *F = eNA*  electron charge  *e* = 1.603 x10^-19  coulombs!

what do I win? and why is it important???


----------



## MichaelJ

Wookii said:


> OK @Happi, I've done my 'homework', and put a bit of time and effort into this, took it back to 'first principles', and the magic number of *1.603*, it is in fact . . . . _drum roll_ . . . . complete and utter . . .
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, I think the magic number should actually be *1.2345*!! Lets try it . .
> 
> Microplex Miller
> GUARANTEED ANALYSIS
> Iron (Fe) 4.0 %
> Manganese (Mn) 4.0 %
> Mg 5.43%
> Boron (B) 0.5%
> Cobalt (Co) 0.05%
> Copper (Cu) 1.5 %
> Molybdenum (Mo) 0.1 %
> Zinc (Zn) 1.5 %
> 
> Starting with Fe:
> Fe 4.0% / 1.2345 = 3.240
> 3.2402 / 0.4 = 8.100
> 3.240  / 8.10 = *0.40 ppm*
> 
> Zn 1.5% / 1.2345 = 1.215
> 1.215 / 8.100 = *0.15 ppm*
> 
> B 0.5% / 1.2345 = 0.405
> 0.405 / 8.100 = *0.05 ppm*
> 
> Mo 0.1% / 1.2345 = 0.081
> 0.0815 / 8.100 = *0.01 ppm*
> 
> How am I doing? . . . . . Actually, you know what - I think I got the magic number wrong. I think it should actually have been *67.89*!! Lets try it . . .
> 
> Starting with Fe:
> Fe 4.0% / 67.89 = 0.0589
> 0.0589 / 0.4 = 0.1473
> 0.0589 / 0.1473 = *0.40 ppm*
> 
> Zn 1.5% / 67.89 = 0.022
> 0.022 / 0.1473 = *0.15 ppm*
> 
> B 0.5% / 67.89 = 0.007
> 0.007 / 0.1473 = *0.05 ppm*
> 
> Mo 0.1% / 67.89 = 0.0015
> 0.0015 / 0.1473 = *0.01 ppm*
> 
> Truth is the 'magic number' is as pointless as most of the extraneous calculations - all we are doing is normalising the relative ppm's of all the other elements to a random target Fe ppm using a scale factor - there can't be any 'real' ppm because we're stating neither the mix nor dose volumes. So the easy way to do the calculation, stripping out all the gumpf is:
> 
> Fe % / Target Fe ppm = Scale factor . .  Then (Mineral)% / Scale factor = Relative ppm . . .
> 
> So one last time, doing it properly:
> 
> Starting with Fe:
> Fe 4.0% / 0.4 = 10 (Scale factor)
> 
> Target ppm for Fe is already set at 0.4ppm - no need to calculate in a circle again. Therefore:
> 
> Zn 1.5% / 10 = *0.15 ppm*
> B 0.5% / 10 = *0.05 ppm*
> Mo 0.1% /10 = *0.01 ppm*
> 
> Trying it for the APFUK micro mix:
> 
> 
> Starting with Fe - target ppm = 0.1ppm:
> 
> Fe 8.2% / 0.1 = 82 (Scale factor)
> 
> Target ppm for Fe is already set at 0.1ppm - no need to calculate again. Therefore:
> 
> Zn 1.16% / 82 = *0.01415 ppm*
> Mn 1.82% / 82 = *0.02220 ppm*
> B 1.0% / 82 = *0.01220 ppm*
> Cu 0.23% / 82 = *0.00280 ppm*
> Mo 0.15% /82 = *0.00183 ppm*
> 
> What do I win?



Hi @Wookii   Let's not take the mocking too far - not necessary.   There is obviously no significance to the constant in the calculations *above* - as a matter of fact its superfluous like dividing or multiplying by 1.  For any fixed amount of one of the elements its trivial to calculate the proportional amount you get from the other elements if their content are known.    otherElementPct / (targetElementPct / targetElementPPM) = otherElementPPM

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## swyftfeet

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Wookii   Let's not take the mocking too far.  There is obviously no significance to the constant in the calculations *above* - as a matter of fact its superfluous like dividing or multiplying by 1.  For any fixed amount of one of the elements its trivial to calculate the proportional amount you get from the other elements if their content is known.    otherElementPct / (targetElementPct / targetElementPPM) = otherElementPPM
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


in all seriousness, I think its in good fun,  I think I would pay several thousand bucks (actual cost of flight, cab and hotel) just to be in the same pub as all these guys for an evening.  I think the conversation would devolve into such bantering in a roughly calculated 42 minutes.

Im guessing @Happi is a chemist, physicist or electrical engineer who like 1.603 because reasons, I'm gathering he needed a constant and it won the lotto.


----------



## MichaelJ

swyftfeet said:


> OOH I KNOW!  RAISES HAND!
> 
> in Faraday constant: *F = eNA*  electron charge  *e* = 1.603 x10^-19  coulombs!
> 
> what do I win? and why is it important???


At some point I thought about the golden ratio actually  (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2 ~= 1.618...  which is no joke!  The golden ratio shows up in nature and biology all the time at various scales. Often when least expected.

Anyway, lets get back to talking about lean dosing.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Wookii

swyftfeet said:


> OOH I KNOW!  RAISES HAND!
> 
> in Faraday constant: *F = eNA*  electron charge  *e* = 1.603 x10^-19  coulombs!
> 
> what do I win? and why is it important???



You get to be in “charge”! 😝 



MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Wookii Let's not take the mocking too far - not necessary.



It’s all in good spirit @MichaelJ  😉


----------



## KirstyF

Hanuman said:


> I feel you but then you have very often noobs adding 200/300 PAR of light with a green DC and wondering what's going wrong.... or adding ferts once a week, or changing water every 2/3 weeks. The CO2 advice is not just something you do and that's it. It requires adjustment of other parameters sometimes. People have a lot of expectations and hope things will work right out of the box just because they wish so. Ain't happening.



You’re absolutely right and learning all that stuff is part of the journey. You can mess with your ferts and your flow and ur light and ur biomass and worst case, you’ll get some algae and kill some plants and learn something along the way. Running high Co2, however, can be a whole lot more dangerous in inexperienced hands. 

I think so long as we all remember that that box is in fact Pandora’s box and don’t get complacent, we’re all good! 😊

Or alternatively just run a plant only tank and blast that sucker with as much Co2 as you like. 😂


----------



## MichaelJ

Wookii said:


> It’s all in good spirit @MichaelJ  😉


Hi @Wookii  I understand. Unfortunately, as we all know, all too often this media  just doesn't lend itself well to irony and the implied spirit of a message. Even less so when interacting with people from different cultures, language backgrounds etc. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## KirstyF

As for the rest of the thread since my earlier post, I’m voting for the golden ratio…mostly cos I have no idea what the Faraday thingy whatsit is……and P.S…..this thread is way better than watching evening TV you know. 😂


----------



## Happi

@KirstyF​sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to some of your question about lean approach. but you do not need to go DIY to get there, but DIY gives you better overall control. now look at what we have discussed so far in this thread, we talked about the nutrients levels in the water in nature where most plant are originated from, we looked at Ratio, type of nutrients present in those water. we combined data from nature and those who have done real experiment, we combined what I have to offer and you can use this information for your reference and build your own dosing based on it and be more successful.


----------



## medlight

As the colleague commented, starting from adding 0.1 Fe of this contributing compound:
Zn 0.014146
Mn 0.022195
Bo 0.012805
Cu 0.002805
Mo 0.001829


----------



## John q

MichaelJ said:


> Anyway, lets get back to talking about lean dosing.


With that in mind.

Another quick question for @Happi  if you don't mind or anybody else that wants to chime in.

Planning on tweaking my micro dosing mix (again) appreciate you probably would advise against this mix as its not exactly lean but would appreciate any feedback you have.
For the last 2 weeks or so I've been dosing this without any major issues.


Elementppm/degreeFe0.25 + 0.09dtpaMn0.055Zn0.035B0.032Mo0.005Cu0.007

The new mix will use a bit less Fe via csm+b, a tad more Fe from dtpa and extra Mn.

Elementppm/degreeFe0.2 + 0.1 dtpaMn0.132Zn0.028B0.026Mo0.004Cu0.006

Are there any other trace ratios that are majorly out of whack here? 

Muchas Gracias.


----------



## KirstyF

Happi said:


> @KirstyF​sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to some of your question about lean approach. but you do not need to go DIY to get there, but DIY gives you better overall control. now look at what we have discussed so far in this thread, we talked about the nutrients levels in the water in nature where most plant are originated from, we looked at Ratio, type of nutrients present in those water. we combined data from nature and those who have done real experiment, we combined what I have to offer and you can use this information for your reference and build your own dosing based on it and be more successful.



Hi Happi

I’m currently rolling my own with EI macro’s (but testing 8ppm Po4 to combat a slight GSA issue) and an APFUK clone for micro’s. The tank is just coming up to 4mths old. 

My main goal so far has been to achieve a reasonable level of stability (difficult in a new tank where everything is changing and establishing) and learn from what small changes can tell me. Moving a slow grower with GSA to a shadier spot (GSA disappeared) Did my thriving pinitifida collapse because I let it get too big and it blocked flow? My new, better trimmed plantlets may tell me. Removing the mass of failing pinitifida from in front of my gyre did alter flow and changed Co2 levels. Will a stunted stem of Rotala H’ra that was smothered, un-stunt now it has been uncovered? We’ll see….and so on.

I feel I need to understand more about these interactions and their consequences whilst maintaining a stable regime of Co2 and ferts in the background. 

I’m also only running medium light (which is more in my comfort zone) and other than the fairly minor nagging GSA on a few slow growers, I’ve had virtually no algae so far.

My first ‘brave’ move is likely to be very small incremental light increases to see how the tank responds but I suspect that playing with ferts and/or perhaps exploring a leaner dosing approach is a bit down the road for me. 

Figuring out how this stuff works is as fascinating and rewarding to me as growing beautiful plants and keeping happy fish so I have no doubt that I will experiment with things…..and re-reference this thread in the future….but for now, i’m reading with interest and taking things slow. 😊


----------



## Happi

John q said:


> 0.25 + 0.9 dtpa


I just want to make sure this is not an typo, you sure you meant 1.15 ppm Fe total over here?


----------



## John q

Erm, my bad old mix contained 0.09ppm dtpa. 🙉

I was dosing 0.34ppm total Fe. 
New mix I'm planning contains 0.3ppm Fe. 

Post above edited.


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Wookii   Let's not take the mocking too far - not necessary.   There is obviously no significance to the constant in the calculations *above* - as a matter of fact its superfluous like dividing or multiplying by 1.  For any fixed amount of one of the elements its trivial to calculate the proportional amount you get from the other elements if their content are known.    otherElementPct / (targetElementPct / targetElementPPM) = otherElementPPM
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Actually pretty much well deserved.


----------



## Hanuman

KirstyF said:


> You’re absolutely right and learning all that stuff is part of the journey. You can mess with your ferts and your flow and ur light and ur biomass and worst case, you’ll get some algae and kill some plants and learn something along the way. Running high Co2, however, can be a whole lot more dangerous in inexperienced hands.


You see that's the exact reasonning that was used to ban Gregg from TPT. In that case it was KH causing catastrophic PH swings that would kill all living matter on earth and nearby planets, and providing such "advice" to noobs was unconceivable, worse yet, evil. Noob or not it's up to the person to research and apply. No one is forcing anyone to pump the CO2 like a mad man to extreme highs without using a slice of their own brains.

The thing is you also need to mess with CO2 to learn, everyone has, preferably without fish, but we have all been there, sometimes unintentionally. I am not saying one needs to gas fish to understand but you can't be censoring your own opinion because some brain dead folk just will decide to do everything you say to the T without using 2 neurone.


----------



## Hanuman

Wookii said:


> What do I win?


The face of the Queen when the word "Boom" drops. Priceless.


----------



## KirstyF

Hanuman said:


> You see that's the exact reasonning that was used to ban Gregg from TPT. In that case it was KH causing catastrophic PH swings that would kill all living matter on earth and nearby planets, and providing such "advice" to noobs was unconceivable, worse yet, evil. Noob or not it's up to the person to research and apply. No one is forcing anyone to pump the CO2 like a mad man to extreme highs without using a slice of their own brains.
> 
> The thing is you also need to mess with CO2 to learn, everyone has, preferably without fish, but we have all been there, sometimes unintentionally. I am not saying one need to gas fish to understand but you can't be censoring your own opinion because some brain dead folk just will decide to do everything you say to the T without using 2 neurone.



But unlike TPT (or certain people from that site) opinions here are generally welcomed and certainly varied.

Gregg has offered the opinion of an experienced aquarist, which I don’t fundamentally disagree with. I have offered a word of caution from the perspective of someone new to high tech and Co2. 

The folks reading this thread will see both opinions and make up their own minds regarding their actions. 

What happened to Gregg was appalling IMO and a broad spectrum of ideas, thoughts and methodologies is one of the many valuable things that this forum has to offer. 

Please rest assured that I would never seek to censor anyones opinion, only to express my own, and always with respect where respect has been given 😊


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> You see that's the exact reasonning that was used to ban Gregg from TPT. In that case it was KH causing catastrophic PH swings that would kill all living matter on earth and nearby planets, and providing such "advice" to noobs was unconceivable, worse yet, evil. Noob or not it's up to the person to research and apply. No one is forcing anyone to pump the CO2 like a mad man to extreme highs without using a slice of their own brains.
> 
> The thing is you also need to mess with CO2 to learn, everyone has, preferably without fish, but we have all been there, sometimes unintentionally. I am not saying one needs to gas fish to understand but you can't be censoring your own opinion because some brain dead folk just will decide to do everything you say to the T without using 2 neurone.


Yikes I didn't think talking about optimizing CO2 would be controversial!! I've got watch what I say everywhere.😆

But in all seriousness I think new folks sometimes are too afraid of CO2. I was also new at one time and never gassed my fish. And I know lots of newbies I have helped over the years who have never gassed their fish either. In fact, I hardly know of anyone who has gassed their fish ever, and if so it's usually a dumb mistake/accident or a mechanical failure. 

And I wasn't suggesting someone new goes right to nose bleed levels. I was hoping by having a better understanding of how things work it could help some people learn how to dial it in. I can't tell you how many times someone has told me their CO2 is at 30 ppm and then when we really get to talking it's nowhere close. 

IMO getting it right pays dividends. Makes much of the fert discussion mute.


----------



## GreggZ

KirstyF said:


> But unlike TPT (or certain people from that site) opinions here are generally welcomed and certainly varied.
> 
> Gregg has offered the opinion of an experienced aquarist, which I don’t fundamentally disagree with. I have offered a word of caution from the perspective of someone new to high tech and Co2.
> 
> The folks reading this thread will see both opinions and make up their own minds regarding their actions.
> 
> What happened to Gregg was appalling IMO and a broad spectrum of ideas, thoughts and methodologies is one of the many valuable things that this forum has to offer.
> 
> Please rest assured that I would never seek to censor anyones opinion, only to express my own, and always with respect where respect has been given 😊


Thanks, and  I have been enjoying the discussion with you. Don't change a thing.


----------



## Hanuman

I think for beginners and even for those who have a fair amount of experience, what is important is to listen to the advice of people with more experience who have proven that their method work and which has been replicated by others over and over again. Obviously for the sake of science one can test underdogs' methods but you need to ask yourself why those methods are not wildly adopted and if there is anything else you can do to improve your current methodology before changing a bunch on things.


----------



## Hanuman

John q said:


> Planning on tweaking my micro dosing mix (again) appreciate you probably would advise against this mix as its not exactly lean but would appreciate any feedback you have.
> For the last 2 weeks or so I've been dosing this without any major issues.


Don't take this wrong or personnaly, but you see that's the problem right there that many many people do, focusing on ferts and ratios before thinking of the rest. First questions that everyone should ask themselves:

1. Did I look at optimizing light/CO2 and possibly other parameters like DO, temperature etc?
2. Can I improve my maintenance?
3. Were my plants unhappy? And did I look at macros before even looking at micros?
4. Did I notice and confidently pinpointed with a high degree of certainty that I had a trace deficiency before I started to change my micro mix?

If you were dosing micros and macros to good levels and you have an active substrate the probability that you have a micro issue is infinitely small, if not virtually inexistent unless you are overdosing. So why change it? I am making this  statements because I see this thread is turning into some alchemist cookbook recipe melting pot with hidden promises of plants turning crazy getting out of the water to hug you and thank you for your changes in ferts ratios. Ain't happening. We are not even talking anymore about the pro and cons of lean dosing here which is the thread title but rather exposing micro ratios and magical numbers, which even Tom Barr, a degreed botanist with a Ph.D, or even others can't confidently tell you how good they are.


----------



## John q

Hanuman said:


> Don't take this wrong or personnaly, but you see that's the problem right there that many many people do, focusing on ferts and ratios before thinking of the rest.


Not taken in any way other than good honest advice, I even agree with the above statement.

Why am I messing with ferts? It's a good question. I ran both my tanks for about 7~8 months dosing various levels of ei and was quite happy with the results. Then I got bored... I was also constantly hearing about how folks needed to read the plants and learn how to accurately spot genuine nutrient deficiencies, well I'd never seen a deficiency, and never would as long as I dosed ei levels of ferts.

Last November I got some gsa appearing on some leaves, so I tweaked my dosing and added some extra P04 (4ppm), the gsa disappeared. If I'd stuck to the prescribed ei dose of 3ppm P04 I'd have never seen this effect.

So it got me thinking, maybe I can mess around with various levels of nutrients and see for myself what happens. No need to read and believe what x or y says in a book, or on a forum, I get to see it, and gain first hand knowledge myself. Doing this might also help distract me from the mundane 9~5 ground hog day that I seemed to be slipping into.

Shortly after setting out on this journey of discovery I stumbled upon this thread, and to be honest thought Happi was talking a load of boll*cks (read my early posts in this thread.)
Then I realised I could test out these theory's, see if there was any truth to this snake charmers claims, maybe witness a few deficiencies along the way, hence why I'm here.

So far I've seen deficiencies, stunting, weird ass deformed growth,  algae, plants changing colour and C02 spikes, all induced and corrected (directly or indirectly) by removing or adding nutrients. I've also learnt that my plants don't require 20ppm of N03 every week.
At the very least I've had a distraction over the last few months, at best I've maybe learnt something.

My intention now regards farting about with traces is simply an extension of what I've been doing, maybe Happi will give me some magic golden ratio, maybe not. I'm willing to try it and see if it works, if it doesn't... Que sera, sera.


----------



## GreggZ

John q said:


> So far I've seen deficiencies, stunting, weird ass deformed growth,  algae, plants changing colour and C02 spikes, all induced and corrected (directly or indirectly) by removing or adding nutrients.


I love the honest representation of what you are experiencing.



John q said:


> My intention now regards farting about with traces is simply an extension of what I've been doing, maybe Happi will give me some magic golden ratio, maybe not. I'm willing to try it and see if it works, if it doesn't... Que sera, sera.


I hope you keep trying. I’ve been hearing about these magic ratios and recipes for many, many years, and have yet to see it be repeatable. Please keep us posted as to how things progress.

When I read these things I try to keep the average hobbyist in mind. If getting down to this level of detail is what makes a tank successful, I doubt many would even try. Heck I love all this talk and keep painstaking records myself, but this is taking it to a whole new level.

The reality is that there are thousands of people out there who keep successful tanks without ever worrying about these ratios and recipes. How do they do it? By trusting tried and true methodologies that have proven time and time again to work.

I am lucky in that I get to pick the brains of many of the best plant growers from around the world. Their tanks speak for themselves. The interesting thing is that while nutrient dosing comes up, it’s discussed far less frequently than most would imagine. Our discussions usually revolve around things like light, CO2, maintenance, substrates, and the most overlooked.....trimming/pruning/horticulture.

My opinion is that if you get these right you have a lot of leeway with fert dosing. Try to think of adjusting ferts like fine tuning an engine. It’s got to be running first. And if you don’t get the rest right, all the fine tuning of ferts in the world isn’t going to save you.


----------



## Happi

John q said:


> With that in mind.
> 
> Another quick question for @Happi  if you don't mind or anybody else that wants to chime in.
> 
> Planning on tweaking my micro dosing mix (again) appreciate you probably would advise against this mix as its not exactly lean but would appreciate any feedback you have.
> For the last 2 weeks or so I've been dosing this without any major issues.
> 
> 
> Elementppm/degreeFe0.25 + 0.09dtpaMn0.055Zn0.035B0.032Mo0.005Cu0.007
> 
> The new mix will use a bit less Fe via csm+b, a tad more Fe from dtpa and extra Mn.
> 
> Elementppm/degreeFe0.2 + 0.1 dtpaMn0.132Zn0.028B0.026Mo0.004Cu0.006
> 
> Are there any other trace ratios that are majorly out of whack here?
> 
> Muchas Gracias.



#1 Currently Dosing:

Fe 0.25 + 0.09dtpa (total 0.34)
Mn 0.055
Zn 0.035
B 0.032
Mo 0.005
Cu 0.007

Aquarium Plant Food Trace seems to look better than csm+b. As of now if this is working well for you then that’s great, some of these ratios will not have major impact long as you have higher GH, I usually recommend higher GH if the Micros are likely to be high. If you could I suggest Modifying the Aquarium Plant Food Trace rather than modifying the csm+b, mainly the Fe and Mn component.

#2 Future Dosing

Fe 0.25 + 0.09dtpa (total 0.34)
Mn  0.15
Zn   0.035
B      0.032
Mo     0.005
Cu      0.007

You mentioned that this is csm+b but this rather looks like Aquarium Plant Food Trace.

Future Dosing #3

Fe 0.2 + 0.1 dtpa (total 0.3)
Mn 0.132
Zn 0.028
B 0.026
Mo 0.004
Cu 0.006

#2 and #3 will work well for you, some components will buildup overtime in the aquarium but frequent water changes will keep them down.

lets assume you use 100% RO water and add Ca 25, Mg 10 to mineralize and add decent amount of Macro that also add some NH4/Urea, I don't see why you will fail.


----------



## Happi

John q said:


> Shortly after setting out on this journey of discovery I stumbled upon this thread, and to be honest thought Happi was talking a load of boll*cks (read my early posts in this thread.)
> Then I realised I could test out these theory's, see if there was any truth to this snake charmers claims, maybe witness a few deficiencies along the way, hence why I'm here.


John, you are still far from knowing the truth, but you will slowly get there. there are still several flaws in your dosing approach that will continue to give you mixed results as previously mentioned before. pick up a bottle of "Tropica Plant Growth Specialized" and watch your plant deficiencies and deformation disappear.


----------



## Happi

@John q​what is your plan for the NPK?


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @Happi,  What is your take on front-loading all Ca/Mg + NPK for the week with my weekly 40% WC.  I've been doing so for as long as I can remember.  The question is course  in the context of a leaner dosing regime.

EDIT:  If I am not mistaken I believe @John q  is doing the same, so he will probably be interested in hearing your take as well.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi,  What is your take on front-loading all Ca/Mg + NPK for the week with my weekly 40% WC.  I've been doing so for as long as I can remember.  The question is course  in the context of a leaner dosing regime.
> 
> EDIT:  If I am not mistaken I believe @John q  is doing the same, so he will probably be interested in hearing your take as well.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


there is nothing wrong with such approach, Ca/Mg NPK all can be added once a week, you can also do something similar to Micros that are strongly chelated. it wouldn't work out well if you were to use NH4 or Urea once a week, but for NO3 this is totally fine. but just remember not to add too much NO3 either because it will stunt some plants, adding 5-10 ppm NO3 weekly is sufficient. 

we don't have to worry so much about NPK, Ca, Mg being dosed once a week, but Micro and Fe are different story, like I said it will depend on how stable they are in your water and if they are stable then they last longer, even up to a week. DTPA Fe for example can stay in the water for even one full week under proper condition.


----------



## Wookii

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi,  What is your take on front-loading all Ca/Mg + NPK for the week with my weekly 40% WC.  I've been doing so for as long as I can remember.  The question is course  in the context of a leaner dosing regime.
> 
> EDIT:  If I am not mistaken I believe @John q  is doing the same, so he will probably be interested in hearing your take as well.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



I would have thought that goes against the whole lean dosing concept to be honest, as the tank won't be running on the lean level of nutrients for most of the week. The concept, as I understand it, is that nutrients aren't in significant excess at any point.

Edit: My post crossed with @Happi's and an incorrect guess from me.


----------



## Happi

@MichaelJ​you can achieve the same with lean dosing, lets say you added 5 ppm NO3 once a week with other needed nutrients, the results will be similar or even better.


----------



## Happi

Wookii said:


> I would have thought that goes against the whole lean dosing concept to be honest, as the tank won't be running on the lean level of nutrients for most of the week. The concept, as I understand it, is that nutrients aren't in significant excess at any point.
> 
> Edit: My post crossed with @Happi's and an incorrect guess from me.


dosing once a week has nothing to do with lean approach, you can dose lean or high once a week if you choose to. 5-10 ppm NO3 is already heading toward the lean direction weather you dose it once a week or cut it into 3x week.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> there is nothing wrong with such approach, Ca/Mg NPK all can be added once a week, you can also do something similar to Micros that are strongly chelated. it wouldn't work out well if you were to use NH4 or Urea once a week, but for NO3 this is totally fine. but just remember not to add too much NO3 either because it will stunt some plants, adding 5-10 ppm NO3 weekly is sufficient.


Hi @Happi Ok, that sounds good.  



Happi said:


> we don't have to worry so much about NPK, Ca, Mg being dosed once a week, but Micro and Fe are different story, like I said it will depend on how stable they are in your water and if they are stable then they last longer, even up to a week. DTPA Fe for example can stay in the water for even one full week under proper condition.


As far as my trace dosing I have an autodoser for that, so I can definitely make that work for adding traces in small _lean_ quantities as frequent or infrequent as needed.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

GreggZ said:


> I love the honest representation of what you are experiencing.



Thanks Gregg, I try and be honest describing what I see, my interpretation of cause and effect may well be flawed but that's where you guys step in and offer some words of wisdom.



GreggZ said:


> Try to think of adjusting ferts like fine tuning an engine. It’s got to be running first. And if you don’t get the rest right, all the fine tuning of ferts in the world isn’t going to save you.



Haha yes I understand that analogy, up in the North of England we have a saying "You can't polish a turd."



Happi said:


> You mentioned that this is csm+b but this rather looks like Aquarium Plant Food Trace.



This is why I love having more experienced people on hand to keep us on the straight and narrow. You are correct I am using APFT, for some strange reason I assumed that this was the same as Csm+b.
Everyday is a school day. 😃



Happi said:


> John, you are still far from knowing the truth, but you will slowly get there. there are still several flaws in your dosing approach that will continue to give you mixed results as previously mentioned before.



I appreciate all the help Happi especially when I often deviate from your prescribed advice. I suppose I could be viewed as a work in progress, some of the things you say are sinking in, some things  might take a little longer.



Happi said:


> what is your plan for the NPK?



Bear with me on this one, and feel free to reject my train of thought 😁.
In January I had some Ludwigia which for me was doing well. Here it is.





Looking back: No3 11ppm, po4 3.5ppm

I moved this to the back of the tank which had reduced lighting and crappy flow. It stunted and lost its red colour and turned green, initially under same ferts level and didn't seem to do any better under various dosing regimes I was trying at the time. Probable cause, poor Co2 and reduced lighting?

End Feb removed from back and replanted in similar position to when it looked ok, more light, good flow and Co2 misting. Nutrient levels from 1st of March were this: No3 7ppm, Po4 2.27 ppm.
Here it is on 7th March.  You can see the new growth (red leaves) old growth below.




Picture taken today: 16th March




Colouration probably worse, certainly hasn't been much growth in the last 9 days.

So hope everybody's not fallen asleep...

This plant was doing better under higher No3 and Po4, the sensible approach here would be to return to that dosing level, sit back and have a cold beer. But.... "we don't wanna do that!"

Sorry for the convoluted answer to your question Happi, I'm choosing NPK levels that are in between it doing well and current levels. New npk will be:

No3 9ppm
Po4 3ppm
K 6.9ppm

Ta.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hi @Happi,

So my _lean-experiment_ tank is currently:

KH ~1 from K2CO3
GH ~4.75 (Ca 24 ppm / Mg 6 ppm) Ca Gluconate, CaSO4 and a tiny bit of CaCl2 (for the trace amount of Cl). Mg from Mg Gluconate and Mg(NO3)2).
pH is in the 6.2-6.5 range
Temperature 75 F / 24 C (very stable all year around)
Photoperiod +12 hours at low light intensity (my tanks are in a room with very low levels of ambient or daylight exposure)
Non-injected

NO3 15 from Mg(NO3)2
PO4 4.6 from KH2PO4
K 18.0 from K2CO3 and KH2PO4

So for NPK this is my plan (starting with the next WC this weekend):

Week 1-2

NO3 10 from
PO4  3 from
K 13.0 from

Week 3-4

NO3 7 ppm
PO4  3 ppm
K 9 ppm

Week 5 ....

NO3 5 ppm
PO4  3 ppm
K 7 ppm

In addition:

Dial down the Ca contents to 18 ppm but keeping the 6 ppm of Mg. (GH ~4.0)

Dial down the temperature to ~23 C. (~73F)

I am not sure yet about micro dosing. I am thinking about slowly dialing down the Fe target to 0.25 ppm  EDTA  weekly (Nilocg Plantex CSM+B).

Of course the big one is the light intensity. I will very gradually start increasing that perhaps on week 2 and closely monitor the situation.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## eminor

Hello, i dose ammonia and urea nitrogen since few weeks, there is two big difference the first one, the plant are way greener, the second which i don't know if it's good, is that there kind of new growth between the leaves (sorry i'm french i don't know the exact name) picture will tell for me, almost all my plant have that, is that a good sign ? thx


----------



## plantnoobdude

eminor said:


> the plant are way greener,


I believe @dw1305 had the same experience using miracle grow which contains ammoniacal N. plants are able to use urea/nh4 very effectively which is why you are seeing good green colour.


eminor said:


> is that there kind of new growth between the leaves


usually that means that the growth  of the apical bud has stunted or slowed for some reason. this means the shoot stops producing auxins (IAA) which will 'wake up' the dormant apical buds. I have noticed this when there is a change in fertiliser, a large water change or when the plant reaches the top of the tank and can't grow any more.











						Difference Between Apical Bud and Axillary Bud - Pediaa.Com
					

The main difference between apical bud and axillary bud is that apical bud is the dominant embryonic shoot located in the apex whereas axillary bud is an embryonic shoot located in the axil of the leaf, which is dormant.




					pediaa.com
				




hope this helps, cheers.


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Nilocg Plantex CSM+B


Michael,  just try to avoid this if you can.



MichaelJ said:


> Week 5 ....
> 
> NO3 5 ppm
> PO4 3 ppm
> K 7 ppm


not a bad plan.


----------



## erwin123

eminor said:


> Hello, i dose ammonia and urea nitrogen since few weeks, there is two big difference the first one, the plant are way greener, the second which i don't know if it's good, is that there kind of new growth between the leaves (sorry i'm french i don't know the exact name) picture will tell for me, almost all my plant have that, is that a good sign ? thx
> 
> View attachment 184572


Hi Eminor you mentioned elsewhere that this is one of the Rotalas that is supposed to turn red, in which case, the one on the left which is yellowish-orange is considered more 'desirable' than the very green one of the right. Hope to see your latest photos in your journal - you haven't posted for a long time!


----------



## Happi

@MichaelJ
let me know what you think about this Article. Marcel Shared this with me few years ago and I am still not fully convinced about the Ca:Mg:K ratio of  2-3:1:0.5 however I do agree with their Fe:Mn ratio of 2:1 and many other things which also match with whatever we have talked about in the beginning of this thread. the google doesn't do such a great job translating German to English.  if we find any information in these articles that can be used to improve the lean dosing we should apply it.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


plantnoobdude said:


> I believe @dw1305 had the same experience using miracle grow which contains ammoniacal N. plants are able to use urea/nh4 very effectively which is why you are seeing good green colour.


For me it <"produced a fairly instant greening">, but my plants <"would always be nitrogen deficient">, so it would be more obvious for me than for some-one who used greater levels of dosing.

These are @castle's <"floaters">. I don't know what fertiliser regime they are using, but it is obviously working.  I would guess that in this case you wouldn't see the <"same change of colour">, just because the plants are pretty pumped already.






cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Happi said:


> I am still not fully convinced about the Ca:Mg:K ratio of 2-3:1:0.5 however I do agree with their Fe:Mn ratio of 2:1 and many other things which also match with whatever we have talked about in the beginning of this thread


I think it depends a little bit on whether you are after *optimal growth* or <"_*acceptable growth*_">.

I'm just after <"*some growth*">, so personally I'm always going to use <"plant leaf colour and general health"> as an indication of nutrient level. 

In terms of nutrient addition I'm just going to <"use a fertiliser"> that supplies all <"fourteen essential plant nutrients"> but I'm not going to worry too much about <"amounts or ratios">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## castle

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> For me it <"produced a fairly instant greening">, but my plants <"would always be nitrogen deficient">, so it would be more obvious for me than for some-one who used greater levels of dosing.
> 
> These are @castle's <"floaters">. I don't know what fertiliser regime they are using, but it is obviously working.  I would guess that in this case you wouldn't see the <"same change of colour">, just because the plants are pretty pumped already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cheers Darrel



Well, there are a few parts to their success: 

The substrate obviously is leeching, I’m using 50/50 uncapped tropics soil and dooa tropical river soil. 

I’m now living in the mid west of Scotland, the water is so soft I no longer get water marks around the tank rims. 

I dose a few squirts of tropics specialised and ADA iron every now and then. 

I pulled out a handful today and they ripped half of the soil up with them 😧


----------



## swyftfeet

Niloc CSM+B


Happi said:


> Michael,  just try to avoid this if you can.
> 
> 
> not a bad plan.



@Happi why avoid  CSM+B from NilocG?


----------



## Gorillastomp

John q said:


> Probable cause, poor Co2 and reduced lighting?


My experience with this plant, color is more related to lighting intensity than anything else.  In my tank i could make it grow green when i was lowering the intensity under a certain %. When i ramp up the intensity again it became red to almost purpleish at some extend. Fertilizer was the same in both case.


----------



## erwin123

Gorillastomp said:


> My experience with this plant, color is more related to lighting intensity than anything else.  In my tank i could make it grow green when i was lowering the intensity under a certain %. When i ramp up the intensity again it became red to almost purpleish at some extend. Fertilizer was the same in both case.


Agree that Ludwigia Super Red's colour is unlikely to be affected by water column dosing.  I had them in my tank when I was dosing 12 ppm NO3 and still have some now with 5.8ppm NO3

I have a couple of leftover stems in the rear corner of my tank, but I removed them because they had a tendency to become a tangled mess if I didn't trim regularly (unlike Rotala Blood Red which generally grows vertically and doesn't get tangled when overgrown).


----------



## John q

Gorillastomp said:


> My experience with this plant, color is more related to lighting intensity than anything else.





erwin123 said:


> Agree that Ludwigia Super Red's colour is unlikely to be affected by water column dosing.



Hey I'm in total agreement that the nutrient levels aren't affecting the colouration of this plant. Infact you can clearly see in the pictures the redness returns once moved to a brighter position.
It's the lack of growth that I'm questioning could be related. 

Thankfully this is an easy experiment, I dose a bit more as outlined above and see what happens. As always I'll report back with honest pictures, good or bad.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> Michael,  just try to avoid this [ Nilocg Plantex CSM+B ]  if you can.


Hi @Happi what do you recommend instead? - preferably a premixed solution (can be dry or liquid).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi what do you recommend instead? - preferably a premixed solution (can be dry or liquid).
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



Hi @Happi here is a novel idea...  How about if I just supplement my higher doses of macros with Tropica Specialized?  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi here is a novel idea... How about if I just supplement my higher doses of macros with Tropica Specialized?


you mean premium? the micro only one. anyway, I had very good results using tropica fertiliser. can definitely recommend.


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> you mean premium? the micro only one. anyway, I had very good results using tropica fertiliser. can definitely recommend.


Hi @plantnoobdude,  No I was actually thinking about Specialized and pick up the extra N (from Urea/NH4 ?), P and K and just lower the Macros (NPK) a bit that I mix in with the WC water.   As far as I know the micros/traces content is the same between the two (Specialized vs. Premium).   A bad thing about Tropica is that it is  harder to come by here in the US and quite expensive, but for the experiment and to get me started I am OK with using Tropica for a while - at least until I amass the necessary motivation to buy all the ingredients to roll my own clone from @Happi's recipe.

I've used Specialized and Premium on and off in the past btw.  It was very expensive to use with my two 150 L tanks at much higher than recommended dosing targets (mostly due to my misconceptions at the time, I figure).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

@MichaelJ

I would definitely recommend using good traces over csm+b, unless you get the one I talked about from GLA in one of my post recently. But even then it cannot beat the good trace from Tropica. 0Macros are easy to clone and yes I would certainly recommend trying nh4no3 and urea combination, this would be similar to what Seachem Aqua vitro Nitrogen uses. 

Tropica specialised is highly recommended if you can invest into it and you can take a note of why ratio can matter and why the lower K can be a good thing etc. 

I apologize about the late response, I got busy with my son and later on ER.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> Tropica specialised is highly recommended if you can invest into it and you can take a note of why ratio can matter and why the lower K can be a good thing etc.



Thanks @Happi  I just ordered a 750 ml Bottle of Specialized from Bensons fishroom out of NY - was $32 including tax and shipping.  Not a terrible price - I've paid almost $50 in the past from other outlets.  750 ml should last for a bit and remove one other excuse for not getting the experiment going   ... When you have time I will probably need some advice on dosing. It seems to me that the recommended dosing (~18 ml weekly for a 150 L tank) might be _too_ lean especially for a very densely planted tank... If I double down (36 ml weekly - perhaps split in 3 weekly doses) I get something like this (courtesy of Rotalabutterfly):

Your addition of *36 ml (equivalent to 2 tbsp + 1 tsp + 1/4 tsp + 1/32 tsp + 1/64 tsp )Tropica Plant Growth Specialized* to your 150L aquarium adds:

Elementppm/degreeN3.216P0.24Mg0.936K2.472S2.184Fe0.166Mn0.094B0.01Cu0.014Mo0.005Zn0.005Cl1.2




Happi said:


> I apologize about the late response, I got busy with my son and later on ER.


No worries. All the best! Family matters are more important than anything else!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Thanks @Happi  I just ordered a 750 ml Bottle of Specialized from Bensons fishroom out of NY - was $32 including tax and shipping.  Not a terrible price - I've paid almost $50 in the past from other outlets.  750 ml should last for a bit and remove one other excuse for not getting the experiment going   ... When you have time I will probably need some advice on dosing. It seems to me that the recommended dosing (~18 ml weekly for a 150 L tank) might be a _too_ lean especially for a very densely planted tank... If I double down (36 ml weekly - perhaps split in 3 weekly doses) I get something like this (courtesy of Rotalabutterfly):
> 
> Your addition of *36 ml (equivalent to 2 tbsp + 1 tsp + 1/4 tsp + 1/32 tsp + 1/64 tsp )Tropica Plant Growth Specialized* to your 150L aquarium adds:
> 
> Elementppm/degreeN3.216P0.24Mg0.936K2.472S2.184Fe0.166Mn0.094B0.01Cu0.014Mo0.005Zn0.005Cl1.2
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. All the best! more important than anything else!
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


3ppm N weekly for low tech is excessive especially with low light, unless you have crazy emergent growth. I'd recommend maybe start with 1-2ppm N weekly max. keep in mind No3 conversion will make the No3 levels 4 times higher.


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> 3ppm N weekly for low tech is excessive especially with low light, unless you have crazy emergent growth. I'd recommend maybe start with 1-2ppm N weekly max. keep in mind No3 conversion will make the No3 levels 4 times higher.


HI @plantnoobdude  Your right!  was just thinking about that actually.. with this I can totally skip the Mg(NO3)2 ,  KH2PO4 and CaCl2  (for the Cl) outlined above.

Perhaps I just go with ~1.5 x recommended dosing and get:
Your addition of *26 ml (equivalent to 1 tbsp + 2 tsp + 1/4 tsp + 1/64 tsp ) Tropica Plant Growth Specialized* to your 150L aquarium adds:

Elementppm/degreeN2.323P0.173Mg0.676K1.785S1.577Fe0.12Mn0.068B0.007Cu0.01Mo0.003Zn0.003Cl0.867

Not entirely sure about the Fe levels. I could supplement with a weekly dose of Fe Gluconate?

Anyway, I like how this is going.

The 18 ppm of Ca and 6 ppm of Mg level that I will target, I will get from my current Ca Gluconate, CaSO4 and Mg Gluconate and MgSO4 (I can use a bit less of MgSO4).

So hopefully, not only will I be able to grow plants under higher light intensity and low CO2, but it will also simplify my remineralization and fertilizer routine 😎

What say you @Happi - how do you like this plan?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Not entirely sure about the Fe levels. I could supplement with a weekly dose of Fe Gluconate?


I wouldn't worry about adding additional iron or anything else. Only GH booster and tropica specialised


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> Not entirely sure about the Fe levels. I could supplement with a weekly dose of Fe Gluconate?


as happi said, 0.12 dtpa is more than enough for even high tech tanks if you have softwater. with low gh. only reason you need to go higher is if you have higher Ca, Mg, Co3.
as for the Ca and Mg number that is what I run my tank at, 18ppm Ca and 6ppm Mg. my tank runs from 0.05 dtpa Fe to 0.15 weekly. tropica is probably already supplimented with different forms such as heedta, gluconate anyways.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> I wouldn't worry about adding additional iron or anything else. Only GH booster and tropica specialised





plantnoobdude said:


> as happi said, 0.12 dtpa is more than enough for even high tech tanks if you have softwater. with low gh.


Ok, I'll just go with the 0.12 ppm and see how that plays out.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

Just saw this in a different thread: Happi's plants   Unbelievable!


----------



## Happi

@MichaelJ


MichaelJ said:


> Just saw this in a different thread: Happi's plants   Unbelievable!


Lol I don't remember making this profile at all? Anyway those pictures are from some of the projects


----------



## Happi

dw1305 said:


> Yes, I think that is where we are. I don't know enough about the chemistry of inorganic carbon (at higher than ambient CO2 levels) to give a definitive answer.



You are right. High pH water about 8 and higher have almost no free CO2. Here is a paper that says:

"Above pH 8, the proportion of free CO2 drops below 2-5% and species occuring in these waters would require flow replenishment or use of alternative sources of inorganic carbon(Sheath and Hambrook, 1990)"









						Freshwater Algae of North America
					

Freshwater algae are among the most diverse and ubiquitous organisms on earth. They occupy an enormous range of ecological conditions from lakes and rivers to acidic peat swamps, inland saline lakes, snow and ice, damp soils, wetlands, desert soils, wastewater treatment plants, and are symbionts...



					books.google.ie


----------



## ceg4048

Happi said:


> You are right. High pH water about 8 and higher have almost no free CO2. Here is a paper that says:
> 
> "Above pH 8, the proportion of free CO2 drops below 2-5% and species occuring in these waters would require flow replenishment or use of alternative sources of inorganic carbon(Sheath and Hambrook, 1990)"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freshwater Algae of North America
> 
> 
> Freshwater algae are among the most diverse and ubiquitous organisms on earth. They occupy an enormous range of ecological conditions from lakes and rivers to acidic peat swamps, inland saline lakes, snow and ice, damp soils, wetlands, desert soils, wastewater treatment plants, and are symbionts...
> 
> 
> 
> books.google.ie


No, sorry, high pH water has nothing to do with the free CO2 in water. This false doctrine persists despite all the obvious evidence and information to the contrary. 
Gases typically follow Henrys Law, which states that at a given temperature the solubility of a gas in a solvent is a function of the partial pressure of that gas at which the solvent is exposed to. A corollary is that the solubility of the gas depends strictly on pressure, temperature and salinity.

I clicked on your link but could not find the page containing this quoted statement. In any case, Robert Sheath could not possibly have meant that pH affects free CO2. If so, he was in serious error or his editor misinterpreted his statement.

You would have been better off to have linked to the very obvious, such as in page 3 of W. Konche's
Biophysics and Physiology of Carbon Dioxide
Which clearly states in the Chapter 1 Introduction:
"The Gas CO2 is quite soluble in water which more than 99% exists as dissolved gas and less than 1% as Carbonic acid H2CO3, which partially disassociates to give (H+), (HCO3-) and (CO3--)."
This is unequivocal and there is no caveat regarding pH at 8.0 or above .

Lets look at an easier to understand source:
Understanding Henry's Law

The first major paragraph states:
Carbon Dioxide determines the pH of water​First things first: technically speaking, the concentration of Hydrogen (H+) ions determines the pH. But in practice, there's something easier to conceptualize: the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in solution also determines the pH of the water. The most common source of acidity in water is dissolved CO2, so the more CO2 in the water, the lower the pH. This is because when CO2 comes aqueous in water, *a small portion of it becomes carbonic acid (H2CO3)*.

The "small portion" being referred to is that "...less than 1%..." W. Konche referred to.
Scrolling a little further down we see the ubiquitous chart that causes all the confusion. But this site gives a better interpretation and calls the red line Carbonic acid instead of calling it CO2 as so many other charts label it. Again, this is a proxy for the "...less than 1%..." of the CO2 that enters the Carbonic acid equation. 






The misinterpretation of this chart and of the Carbonic acid equilibrium equation has given rise to all the misinformation that litters the internet regarding how supposedly more difficult it is to dissolve CO2 in hard, high pH water versus soft, low pH water. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Cheers,


----------



## MichaelJ

ceg4048 said:


> No, sorry, high pH water has nothing to do with the free CO2 in water.


Hi Clive,  very interesting. The notion that_ free carbon dioxide_ does not (or can not) exist _naturally_ in water with pH above the ~8.3 equilibrium is everywhere - even the article with the quoted chart above imply so  
I am not a chemist, so I can't argue this either way, but I sure would like to understand this better. How does KH play into this?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123

also not a chemist, but if you have high pH water, and you add CO2... wouldn't there be some sort of acid-base  reaction that creates some sort of carbonate... so some of the CO2 (whether first converted to carbonic acid or not)  gets used up creating this carbonate.... but eventually, in a closed system like an aquarium, the pH will start to drop? glad to hear from the experts on this.


----------



## erwin123

Rotala Kill Tank
					

I am wondering whether there is still a way to isolate this factor, e.g. take a sample of the Dutch aquasoil in two cups and try to grow the stunting plant in these cups in tanks A and B. If it affects the growth, one could try to leach out the cup of Dutch aquasoil in a large RO bucket, and...




					barrreport.com
				




I should pay a visit to Roger Goh's store sometime to see if he has any interesting plants. I guess when you are selling plants, maximum growth from EI is an advantage.


----------



## Happi

erwin123 said:


> Rotala Kill Tank
> 
> 
> I am wondering whether there is still a way to isolate this factor, e.g. take a sample of the Dutch aquasoil in two cups and try to grow the stunting plant in these cups in tanks A and B. If it affects the growth, one could try to leach out the cup of Dutch aquasoil in a large RO bucket, and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barrreport.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should pay a visit to Roger Goh's store sometime to see if he has any interesting plants. I guess when you are selling plants, maximum growth from EI is an advantage.






can you guess which tank used EI dosing here?


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> View attachment 184738



Hi @Happi,  Is there are a link to an article describing the setup and dosing in each of these tanks? 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi,  Is there are a link to an article describing the setup and dosing in each of these tanks?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Aquarium
Aquarium

this is a great example of one of the Experiment

the above experiment shows that you can grow plant very fast compared to EI if you were to use Marchner based Formula, my personal take on this is that due to presence of NH4 in the formula, you are getting the maximim and fast growth, but at the same time Marchner ratio shows that the uptake of other nutrients are no where near as being suggested.

my experiment with these plants are that they will continue to grow well even under higher dosing long as there is NH4 present for them, the stunting and deformation was still present here and there but nothing major. but, under Marchner ratio they hardly ever got stunted and these experiments were replicated and tested again over again.

even if you were to use Tropica and add almost 30 ppm equivalent NO3, most Nutrients are no where near that are being suggested or dosed by people. Tropica been around for decade now and used by many professionals.


N6.8P0.51Mg1.98K5.22S4.62Fe0.35Mn0.2B0.02Cu0.03Mo0.01Zn0.01Cl2.54


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Happi said:


> You are right. High pH water about 8 and higher have almost no free CO2. Here is a paper that says:


That is at atmospheric CO2 levels, like Clive @ceg4048 says, but that pH levels depends on the <"level of CO2 in the atmosphere">. 

I think if you add CO2, and you have one unit pH drop from your starting pH  (however high the initial pH was), you have ~30ppm of dissolved CO2.

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> the above experiment shows that you can grow plant very fast compared to EI if you were to use Marchner based Formula,



Hi @Happi super interesting - will have to study this more.  Personally, I am not particularly picky on fast growth - only plant health.  Going through the photo evidence, I would say the EI tank (#2) is doing pretty well - as we all would probably expect - the two lean tanks appears to do better though. With everything else being equal, it might come down to the NH4... 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi super interesting - will have to study this more








						Weekly nutrient consumption in planted aquarium
					

I would like to share with you the results of my three-months experiment with real  consumption of nutrients in planted aquarium.  I weighed the plant biomass (live weight) which were produced in my aquarium regularly (after each trimming). Every time I did some trimming in my tank, I thoroughly...



					www.ukaps.org


----------



## GreggZ

Happi said:


> View attachment 184738
> 
> can you guess which tank used EI dosing here?


Happi if I'm not mistaken isn't this Marcel's experiment that was also testing hardness of water??? If this is a different experiment then disregard the rest of this post.

If it is then the results as you described them are a bit misleading. Wallichii has been known to be difficult to keep in both hard water and EI level ferts. It's a plant that does not like excess ferts in the water column and prefers softer water. Not a surprise they are not doing well in the far left tank. They seem to be doing well in both the soft water + half EI and the very soft water + PPS Pro tanks, which is a confirmation that most plants prefer soft water regardless of dosing. 

The other issue is extrapolating what happens to Wallichii to every other plant out there. Plants have different optimal conditions that they prefer. This experiment would likely not have the same results with different plants. It also might not have the same results with a different amount of light, a different amount of CO2, a different substrate, with a fish load in the tank, etc. etc. etc. 

Just pointing out that what it really proves is what happened to those Wallichii in those particular conditions.


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Happi super interesting - will have to study this more.  Personally, I am not particularly picky on fast growth - only plant health.  Going through the photo evidence, I would say the EI tank (#2) is doing pretty well - as we all would probably expect - the two lean tanks appears to do better though. With everything else being equal, it might come down to the NH4...
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Michael, the fast growth or slow growth was not the main agenda behind those experiments. its much more than that, I posted two links and please do take a look at the experiments where Wallchii does worse under certain conditions and when it does better.
#3 and #5 in those pictures are Based on Marchner formula and we cannot ignore than even at maximum growth the uptake of several nutrients are no where close to what people or several system been adding. that's why I gave you tropica example, even at 30 ppm NO3, the uptake cannot be more than 5 ppm K, Tropica seems to understand this very well.


----------



## Happi

the description in this picture is all wrong. far as how well the Marchner ratio works, it already has been demonstrated somewhere in the beginning of the thread while using some of the most stubborn plant species.

MichaelJ, the description in the picture is all wrong. This is how it should be labeled
1. Genetic
2. EI
3. Marschner (dense)
4. 08-4 (continuation)
5. Marschner (thin)
Here are more detail about this project:


----------



## GreggZ

Happi said:


> View attachment 184754
> 
> the description in this picture is all wrong.


Is this a different experiment? This screen shot is from Vin's Rotala Kill Tank presentation at the AGA.


----------



## Happi

John q said:


> Weekly nutrient consumption in planted aquarium
> 
> 
> I would like to share with you the results of my three-months experiment with real  consumption of nutrients in planted aquarium.  I weighed the plant biomass (live weight) which were produced in my aquarium regularly (after each trimming). Every time I did some trimming in my tank, I thoroughly...
> 
> 
> 
> www.ukaps.org


this is quite old thread, it does provide some useful information but you truly need to see his website for more to updated information.


----------



## Hanuman

Happi said:


> the description in this picture is all wrong. [...]
> MichaelJ, the description in the picture is all wrong.
> This is how it should be labeled
> 1. Genetic
> 2. EI
> 3. Marschner (dense)
> 4. 08-4 (continuation)
> 5. Marschner (thin)


They are not wrong, they are simply abriviated descriptions. Although they are not the exact words used by the author to describe each of the tests, they do match the actual environment in which those plants are:

As per your link:
dKH:




Total mineralization:




Hence matching this description:


----------



## Happi

Please take a look at the chemicals and the ratio being used. Let's assume you want to believe that it's EI or pps or whatever you want to call it. The ratio are far off from what those systems adds. Under similar N and P, he demonstrated that need for other nutrients are very little compare to what people add. Something we been discussing in this thread for sometime now.

Email regarding this directly from Marcel himself: 

I was also surprised by Vin labeling my wallichi experiment as "Half-EI" instead of "Marschner's formula".

There was the following concentration of nutrients in this "Half-EI" tank:
20 ppm CO2, 15 ppm NO3, 4.4 ppm NH4, 2.8 ppm PO4, 4.6 ppm K, 2.3 ppm Ca, 0.9 ppm Mg, 0.14 ppm Na, 12.8 ppm HCO3, 3.6 ppm SO4, 0.05 ppm Cl
(dGH = 0.54, dKH = 0.59, conductivity = 60 µS/cm)

1) The total nitrogen concentration there corresponds to 30 ppm NO3 (15 ppm NO3 + 4.4 ppm NH4 = 6.78 ppm N), which is "Full-EI" equivalent.
2) Phosphates concentration (2.8 ppm) is also rather "Full-EI" equivalent.
3) All other elements are order of magnitude lower then EI (like 5 ppm K, 2 ppm Ca, 1 ppm Mg, 4 ppm SO4, 0 ppm Cl ... the total hardness being only 0.5 dGH!).

So you are perfectly right that this is definitely not a "Half-EI" formula. It's entirely different beast - it's "Marschner's formula


----------



## erwin123

My experience with Wallichii and 3-4kH tap water is that it was ok with quite a wide range of dosing, When you have soft water I don't think there is any need to test rich or lean dosing with Wallichii since its ok with both .
It was fine with 2.5ml/day of APT EI    (NO3 16ppm, PO4 5.25ppm, K 19ppm)
And also fine with 0.9ml/day of APT EI (NO3 5.8ppm, PO4 1.9ppm, K 7.9ppm)
I reduced slowly from 2.5ml to 0.9ml over the course of 8 weeks (i.e 2.5 - 2.3 -2.1 -1.9.... until I hit  0.9).
I take photos of my tank every week and don't notice any big difference with Wallichii when I went to a leaner dose. Faster growth if any, was probably due to more light. Biggest difference as mentioned, was the A.Pedicatella golden which started to unstunt.☀️


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> Michael, the fast growth or slow growth was not the main agenda behind those experiments. its much more than that, I posted two links and please do take a look at the experiments where Wallchii does worse under certain conditions and when it does better.
> #3 and #5 in those pictures are Based on Marchner formula and we cannot ignore than even at maximum growth the uptake of several nutrients are no where close to what people or several system been adding. that's why I gave you tropica example, even at 30 ppm NO3, the uptake cannot be more than 5 ppm K, Tropica seems to understand this very well.







__





						Aquarium
					






					www.golias.net
				




The "Set #2 Sharp" is very convincing in favor of regime #3 and #5 at least as far as Rotala Wallichii and Bacoba Monnieri goes.  I think its a bit hard to differentiate these experiments when you have other water parameters all over the place (except for CO2 and temperature apparently). However, at least to my eyes, it unequivocally hammers home that lean dosing (with NH4 as a vital part I guess) and soft water works very well in combination.  Now,  and not to be the devils advocate, as far as the ratios goes, I really can't tell if we can draw much of a hard conclusion from this experiment except that  whatever ratios was dosed in #3/#5 obviously worked - but would it have been working equally well with lean but different ratios or less regards to ratios? I guess one would have to set up an experiment addressing that specific question.   But all very convincing nevertheless.  As far as Tropica goes, yes they are in the business of growing and selling aquatic plants and being very successful at it, so I agree with you that they probably know a thing or two about optimal fertilizers, just too bad its so darn expensive 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hufsa

Wait, what happened to the latest posts here?


----------



## swyftfeet

Hufsa said:


> Wait, what happened to the latest posts here?


_In layman's terms I believe:_

Clive posits that dissolved carbon gas can exist just fine in higher pH water, and gives us the science.      Which we all know is the fuel for plants.

A very small amount of dissolved CO2 will convert to Carbonic Acid.  But due to people not understanding what they are looking at the curve for carbonic acid vs pH has been incorrectly bandied about as Dissolved CO2 concentration vs pH, and many people have pushed this ignorantly across social media and even some "reference" websites.

Carbonic Acid will be quickly neutralized in higher pH,  but will still drop the pH some  during the "gas on" stage.  The Dissolved CO2 will still be there based on atmospheric pressure and whatnot despite water hardness.

In a high tech tank, Hardness of water may negatively affect plant growth even with CO2.  But the root cause is likely not the deficiency of dissolved CO2, its likely something else in the water chemistry.
_
That's my take on what occurred._


----------



## Hanuman

Hufsa said:


> Wait, what happened to the latest posts here?


Mods removed the post and banned the member. The guys was already banned long ago from the forum but was able to sneak back in.  This said, his post was rather humble.


----------



## swyftfeet

Hanuman said:


> Mods removed the post and banned the member. The guys was already banned long ago from the forum but was able to sneak back in.  This said, his post was rather humble.


ahh I missed what @Hufsa was referencing.   But I wouldnt mind someone a lot smarter than me fact checking what I wrote to see if I'm understanding whats going on.


----------



## Hufsa

Sorry @swyftfeet I meant there were a couple of posts in this thread that have disappeared, they were from Marcel G and @ElleDee


Hanuman said:


> Mods removed the post and banned the member. The guys was already banned long ago from the forum but was able to sneak back in.  This said, his post was rather humble.


Ah I wondered if that had happened. Sometimes I wish there was a little bit more transparency about these things, like a small note maybe from the mods to explain what happened to the posts.
Was the posts removed on principle because they circumvented the previous ban? It was a shame because the post was constructive and polite and sparked an interesting discussion with @ElleDee about natural vs optimal that I was going to reply to as well before it suddenly was gone.
If us normal members have any say in these matters, I would wish that maybe the banned member could get a second chance, seeing as they seem to have realized previous behavior was not great, and appear to have turned a new leaf.
I think UKAPS is and will continue to be a great place of information and discussion, and personally I would like to have as much variety as possible, as long as we all do our best to follow the rules.
While I am not very familiar with the previous behavior of the banned member, maybe an argument of a second chance could be made? The forum will be a richer place for it if it works, I think.


----------



## Parablennius

Hufsa said:


> Sorry @swyftfeet I meant there were a couple of posts in this thread that have disappeared, they were from Marcel G and @ElleDee
> 
> Ah I wondered if that had happened. Sometimes I wish there was a little bit more transparency about these things, like a small note maybe from the mods to explain what happened to the posts.
> Was the posts removed on principle because they circumvented the previous ban? It was a shame because the post was constructive and polite and sparked an interesting discussion with @ElleDee about natural vs optimal that I was going to reply to as well before it suddenly was gone.
> If us normal members have any say in these matters, I would wish that maybe the banned member could get a second chance, seeing as they seem to have realized previous behavior was not great, and appear to have turned a new leaf.
> I think UKAPS is and will continue to be a great place of information and discussion, and personally I would like to have as much variety as possible, as long as we all do our best to follow the rules.
> While I am not very familiar with the previous behavior of the banned member, maybe an argument of a second chance could be made? The forum will be a richer place for it if it works, I think.


Agreed


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> Mods removed the post and banned the member. The guys was already banned long ago from the forum but was able to sneak back in.  This said, his post was rather humble.


Agreed.

I haven't heard from Marcel in a very long time. Was interested to hear his current thoughts. 

But I get it. Back in the day things got really, really out of control for a while.


----------



## Hufsa

GreggZ said:


> But I get it. Back in the day things got really, really out of control for a while.


Yes I would like to add that my post is from my point of view and I wasnt around back when things originally went down. So my take on things can be inaccurate. 
I like to be able to have a discussion about it though, it feels good to discuss as a group. A forum is just a loose collection of people after all. 
I think forum culture is something we can all influence both for good and bad, if we are able to learn from past mistakes instead of repeating them then we will be unstoppable and get this plant growing thing figured out in no time


----------



## MichaelJ

Hufsa said:


> Was the posts removed on principle because they circumvented the previous ban?


That is probably what it was. I think the mod should have made a comment on this.



Hufsa said:


> If us normal members have any say in these matters, I would wish that maybe the banned member could get a second chance, seeing as they seem to have realized previous behavior was not great, and appear to have turned a new leaf.


Ideally I would like that too - especially if years have past since the ban.   You will have to be pretty far out of line to get banned here on UKAPS though - they only ever banned 3-4 members., so I think it would be manageable to let people back in after a couple of years. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## ElleDee

I assume my post was deleted because the other member was banned and not because of anything I did per se. I didn't get any notification about the post and didn't notice it was gone until I got mentioned again. (I wondered why no one responded to my post, but you never know what people are going to be interested in. You can't take it personally if no one cares. 😂) If I was being rebuked, the message was unclear.


----------



## Hanuman

ElleDee said:


> I assume my post was deleted because the other member was banned and not because of anything I did per se. I didn't get any notification about the post and didn't notice it was gone until I got mentioned again. (I wondered why no one responded to my post, but you never know what people are going to be interested in. You can't take it personally if no one cares. ) If I was being rebuked, the message was unclear.



I suppose your post was deleted simply because you were quoting/referencing the deleted post and it then didn’t’make much sense keeping your post. That’s how I see it. I administer a forum myself and that’s what I would have done also. It’s only to keep the thread coherent. Nothing more.


----------



## LondonDragon

Hi guys, it was me that removed the content and yes, since one post was a quote for a banned member post it was also removed. Said person had opportunities back in the day over and over again, but just decided to be rude and abusive towards members and mods. Sorry but we do not tolerate such behaviour, we have given second chances to people in the past and after a while it just goes back to the same thing, and we have to then clean up the mess once again. At the end of the day, we have banned 3-4 people from the forum since 2008! So when we do, there is a very good reason for doing so, and we do give members the opportunity to reflect on what has been said.


----------



## eminor

so far i have way better result using lean dosing, but maybe because i have a rich substrate to backup ?!! i have fluval stratum and 6 osmocote tabs in there 

the fluval stratum is 3 months old, maybe it'll get tricky in few months


----------



## MichaelJ

eminor said:


> so far i have way better result using lean dosing, but maybe because i have a rich substrate to backup ?!! i have fluval stratum and 6 osmocote tabs in there
> 
> the fluval stratum is 3 months old, maybe it'll get tricky in few months


I would think that _maturity _of the substrate by then will make up for that, but you may have to keep up adding the osmocote or other root pellets..  What say you @Happi ?


----------



## eminor

MichaelJ said:


> I would think that _maturity _of the substrate by then will make up for that, but you make have to keep up adding the osmocote or other root pellets..  What say you @Happi ?


i'll pray =)

think that i like about lean dosing is that i can bypass water change for 2-3 weeks which was hard with EI


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> I would think that _maturity _of the substrate by then will make up for that, but you may have to keep up adding the osmocote or other root pellets..  What say you @Happi ?


oh man don't even remind me of the Osmocote, it never went well for me. if you are adding Urea/NH4 in liquid form, I wouldn't even worry about the Osmocote. however, one pellet here or there is ok

when you add Nh4/Urea into the water, the substrate is also grabbing + charges


----------



## GreggZ

eminor said:


> so far i have way better result using lean dosing, but maybe because i have a rich substrate to backup ?!! i have fluval stratum and 6 osmocote tabs in there
> 
> the fluval stratum is 3 months old, maybe it'll get tricky in few months


Curious how are the results way better? And what exactly is the lean dosing? Any pictures of the tank??


----------



## Hufsa

As the old saying goes, "pics or it didnt happen!"  

But jokes aside, curious minds want to see your results @eminor !


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> I would think that _maturity _of the substrate by then will make up for that, but you may have to keep up adding the osmocote or other root pellets..  What say you @Happi ?


You might be on to something. Xiaozhaung Wong is running a tank right now with a processed blend of osmocote at 5 times more than usual and 1/2 APT EI and the tank is a picture of health and stunning. I was talking to him about this and think I might explore and go down this road a bit myself.


----------



## eminor

Hufsa said:


> As the old saying goes, "pics or it didnt happen!"
> 
> But jokes aside, curious minds want to see your results @eminor !



sure, i'll post it tomorrow


----------



## MichaelJ

Hufsa said:


> As the old saying goes, "pics or it didnt happen!"


...And that saying have caused me a lot of embarrassments... outside the hobby!


----------



## Hanuman

GreggZ said:


> You might be on to something. Xiaozhaung Wong is running a tank right now with a processed blend of osmocote at 5 times more than usual and 1/2 APT Complete and the tank is a picture of health and stunning. I was talking to him about this and think I might explore and go down this road a bit myself.


How long has  that tank be running for?

Personally I think the major drawback of osmocote is the unsightly plastic yellow beads one have have to deal with. I used to put osmocote in a small tank I have and it worked well but then when you uproot stuff or if you have Malaysian trumpet snails those beads always end up on the top of the substrate. A pain to remove one by one.


----------



## JacksonL

GreggZ said:


> You might be on to something. Xiaozhaung Wong is running a tank right now with a processed blend of osmocote at 5 times more than usual and 1/2 APT Complete and the tank is a picture of health and stunning. I was talking to him about this and think I might explore and go down this road a bit myself.


All his tanks are stunning and healthy though! Is there a way to tell if it is the substrate/ferts or just his skills at optimising every other factor?


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> How long has  that tank be running for?
> 
> Personally I think the major drawback of osmocote is the unsightly plastic yellow beads one have have to deal with. I used to put osmocote in a small tank I have and it worked well but then when you uproot stuff or if you have Malaysian trumpet snails those beads always end up on the top of the substrate. A pain to remove one by one.


Two months.  I am sure he will be posting pictures of it soon. He's using a new root tab that he will be selling soon. He said he will send me some once he gets them in stock. 

And I have never really used much osmocote either. Will take some change in horticulture habits as well. More trimming, less uprooting. Idea is richer substrate less water column nutrients. Somewhat like Vin's Rotala kill tank. But at 1/2 APT EI still not what I would call lean. 

I'm always open to something new so plan to give it a shot. Worst case is going back to what I know works.


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> You might be on to something. Xiaozhaung Wong is running a tank right now with a processed blend of osmocote at 5 times more than usual and 1/2 APT Complete and the tank is a picture of health and stunning. I was talking to him about this and think I might explore and go down this road a bit myself.





Happi said:


> oh man don't even remind me of the Osmocote, it never went well for me. if you are adding Urea/NH4 in liquid form, I wouldn't even worry about the Osmocote. however, one pellet here or there is ok
> when you add Nh4/Urea into the water, the substrate is also grabbing + charges



@Happi and @GreggZ,    I think I might consider it. Not going overboard, but just that little bit here and there....

Meantime at my ranch: Arrived today - I am ready to go_ lean and mean_ on my plants!   - unfortunately I am going on a business trip for a few days, so I cant really kick off my _lean-experiment_ until next week.






Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123

eminor said:


> sure, i'll post it tomorrow


looking forward to the photos... regular photos are good! No need to wait for everything to be perfect before posting. My tank photos show how much algae I'm farming as well! 😅


----------



## Hanuman

JacksonL said:


> All his tanks are stunning and healthy though! Is there a way to tell if it is the substrate/ferts or just his skills at optimising every other factor?


There is a lot of maintenance in his tanks. He also uses rich substrates. He doses his own fert APT 3 or APT E so not exactly lean lean but also not the EI full. He doesn't use CO2 reactors to my knowledge, only inline CO2 diffusers.

All in all he just optimizes things and balances them. That's how he get those nice plants and pictures. Horticulture skills make the big difference, not the ferts.


----------



## GreggZ

JacksonL said:


> All his tanks are stunning and healthy though! Is there a way to tell if it is the substrate/ferts or just his skills at optimising every other factor?


Good question. I am sure he will post his findings at the 2 hr Aquarist site once he comes to any conclusions.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Personally I think the major drawback of osmocote is the unsightly plastic yellow beads one have have to deal with.


Hi @Hanuman These are in capsules... Wont they eventually just dissolve when you pop them down in the substrate? I must say I've used Tropica caps in the past and if not dug in deep they would make their way out of substrate and float around  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman

GreggZ said:


> He's using a new root tab that he will be selling soon. He said he will send me some once he gets them in stock.


Nice. I never get to receive anything from him other than when I pay. 😂

Jokes aside, the problem with osmocote and root tabs is that they have not been developed specifically for planted aquariums so the use of those products aimed at terrestrial plants can reck havoc in tanks if used inappropriately. Has that root tab been developed by him?


----------



## Happi

Hufsa said:


> As the old saying goes, "pics or it didnt happen!


What if one is taking pics of neighbour's tank?


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> Horticulture skills make the big difference, not the ferts.


This is true. It's the most underdiscussed/overlooked aspect of planted tanks. When you get to know the really successful people in the hobby it's a common theme.


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Hanuman These are in capsules... Wont they eventually just dissolve when you pop them down in the substrate? I must say I've used Tropica caps in the past and if not dug in deep they would make their way out of substrate and float around
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


The transparent capsule will dissolves yes. They are made of gelatine. However the yellow beads will not. The dried ferts within them is released progressively and then you end up with an empty yellow shell. They are supposed to be biodegradable but it does take months, in fact years for them to completely biodegrade. That's the experience I have with osmocote in my tanks and in my potted plants.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> The transparent capsule will dissolves yes. They are made of gelatine. However the yellow beads will not. The dried ferts within them is released progressively and then you end up with an empty yellow shell. They are supposed to be biodegradable but it does take months, in fact years for them to completely biodegrade. That's the experience I have with osmocote in my tanks and in my potted plants.


All right, thanks for the heads up @Hanuman .... I'll guess I'll just try and bury them deep and see how it works if/when I use them.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> Nice. I never to get to receive anything from him other than when I pay. 😂
> 
> Jokes aside, the problem with osmocote and root tabs is that they have not been developed specifically for planted aquariums so the use of those products aimed at terrestrial plants can reck havoc in tanks if used inappropriately. Has that root tab been developed himself?


It's good to have friends in high places!!😄 I can't comment yet on the composition but I would expect more information to be available very soon.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> What if one is taking pics of neighbour's tank?


That, I assure you, can get you into a lot of trouble as well.... outside the hobby!


----------



## Hanuman

GreggZ said:


> It's good to have friends in high places!!😄 I can't comment yet on the composition but I would expect more information to be available very soon.


I am rough on the edges and tend to point out the descripencies to others. Maybe that's why I don't have that many friends to send me stuff 🤣.


----------



## JacksonL

Hanuman said:


> All in all he just optimizes things and balances them. That's how he get those nice plants and pictures. Horticulture skills make the big difference, not the ferts.


This is my thinking too.
But I also think he must have an eye for miniscule changes in plant growth and health, so if he is finding positives in a different form of fertilisation I am definitely keen to hear about them.


----------



## Happi

Ever since people figured out how to make their own liquid fertilizer or diy root tabs, there has been huge increase in numbers of people selling their snake oils and special root tabs for profit. 

Those who truly care about the hobbyists, they offered free help and shared all their knowledge,  when they too could have been selling these snake oils. 

Most people are selling different kinds of root tabs filled in gel cap, even Tropica is doing so, they all contain some of of fertilizer in them, weather it's only NPK or NPK plus traces, it's all available on the internet and can be easily DIY. I have never seen a special root tab fertilizer that will do any better than regular osmocote. Sellers use all kinds of tactics to sell their product. Just like when you go buy a car, they will always try to sell you something more expensive, but you need to decide you want a car that save you gas and take you around or you want to buy a car that cost you double just so you can impress others.


----------



## Hanuman

JacksonL said:


> This is my thinking too.
> But I also think he must have an eye for miniscule changes in plant growth and health, so if he is finding positives in a different form of fertilisation I am definitely keen to hear about them.


That's experience and plant knowlege. Years and years of watching plant grow in different setups and conditions.

But my opinion is that there is a lot of marketing involved too. I have been told at times that I have a fert "tunnel vision" even before me going in depth of my problem. I do think there is also a "plant form tunnel vision" by some old timers where a plant form is achieved through excessive or complicated tweaking of parameters and then it is thrown to the public as if that form is the one to aim form else you are doing everything wrong. I also see some form of arrogance being thrown around by some which is usually something that I profoundly dislike.

If you noticed there is a trend for the past few years where you see plants beyond their natural form. Tanks filled with colors and crazy shapes, but reality is that many plants don't exhibit such extreme shapes or colors naturally. So when you are being told that a plant should be such color or such form else your are doing something wrong, take a step back and reflect.


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> That, I assure you, can get you into a lot of trouble as well.... outside the hobby!


And I was told FTS was some kind of scientific irrefutable evidence of being "successful"


----------



## erwin123

GreggZ said:


> You might be on to something. Xiaozhaung Wong is running a tank right now with a processed blend of osmocote at 5 times more than usual and 1/2 APT EI and the tank is a picture of health and stunning. I was talking to him about this and think I might explore and go down this road a bit myself.



Coincidentally I've been running my tank at 36% APT EI (0.9ml a day instead of the recommended 2.5ml a day) and adding Starxcote/Plantacote (Osmocote clones) every week since 20 Nov 2021 (i.e. rather than refreshing them every 3 months...)

I have photos before I started adding osmocote (I take a photo every week) so there are 'before' and 'after' photos. Maybe the Ludwigia Senegelansis looks a little better. The unstunting of A. Pedicatella is probably not due to osmocote but more due to reducing water column dosing.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> And I was told FTS was some kind of scientific irrefutable evidence.


haha.... nah! well, at the rate artificial intelligence in imaging is progressing, its just a matter of time before we see deep fakes of Full Tank Shots! 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Horticulture skills make the big difference, not the ferts.


Hi @Hanuman  I am always wary about blanket statements like that, but I do think you have a very, very good point. Our skills (or mostly the lack thereof) as aquatic gardeners should not be underestimated. The ability to prune and trim correctly for the benefit of healthy grow is rarely discussed on forums like this. We should definitely be talking more about this.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## ElleDee

Happi said:


> Ever since people figured out how to make their own liquid fertilizer or diy root tabs, there has been huge increase in numbers of people selling their snake oils and special root tabs for profit.
> 
> Those who truly care about the hobbyists, they offered free help and shared all their knowledge,  when they too could have been selling these snake oils.


I mean, baking a cake isn't that hard, and yet people still buy them from the store for a premium. That doesn't make professional bakers snake oil salespeople. As long as the ferts work as intended, people are exchanging their money for professional skill and convenience - no one is being sneaky and no one is getting tricked. And I don't think you can fairly imply Xiaozhaung Wong doesn't share his knowledge for free. Maybe not _all_ of it, I suppose.


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Hanuman  I am always wary about blanket statements like that, but I do think you have a very, very good point. Our skills (or mostly the lack thereof) as aquatic gardeners should not be underestimated. The ability to prune and trim correctly for the benefit of healthy grow is rarely discussed on forums like this. We should definitely be talking more about this.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


It's a fact not a blanket statement. Every plants sp groups need to be handled in specific ways. Do they like trimming or not? Do they like uprooting or not. How should they be cut and replanted? How often can they be cut and uprooted? etc etc All this makes a major major difference in how your plants behave, look like and prosper. Overall how your tank looks like. You can have 2 exact same tanks with the exact same parameters, exact same plants, exact same dosing. One is handled by an experience person, the other by a beginner. Trust me, the difference you will see it within a few weeks. And a major one.


----------



## ElleDee

Hanuman said:


> It's a fact not a blanket statement. Every plants sp groups need to be handled in specific ways. Do they like trimming or not? Do they like uprooting or not. How should they be cut and replanted? How often can they be cut and uprooted? etc etc All this makes a major major difference in how your plants behave, look like and prosper. Overall how your tank looks like. You can have 2 exact same tanks with the exact same parameters, exact same plants, exact same dosing. One is handled by an experience person, the other by a beginner. Trust me, the difference you will see it within a few weeks. And a major one.


I think one of the biggest signs that this is a young hobby is that plant retailers don't put enough effort in communicating a lot of this information in even the most basic way. I'm not even sure if they even know this information about their own plants - even big online retailers don't always have good photos of the submerged forms of their offerings. And I'm in the US where you can't expect your local fish store to know anything, _anything at all_, about how to grow plants - even if they have some for sale! 

Now, there's no substitute for experience, but consumer education is a huge part of the retail horticulture world and it would improve the hobby to move in this direction.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Every plants sp groups need to be handled in specific ways. Do they like trimming or not? Do they like uprooting or not. How should they be cut and replanted? How often can they be cut and uprooted?


Yep! Thats really all the good info we get (or seek out) when we buy plants or flowers for our yard.  Good point!


----------



## erwin123

once the plants start growing like weeds, you become less concerned about the proper way to trim them, and focus on how to save time ... which usually is to pull them all out, hack them to size, then replant (I usually do this before a water change because of the mess it makes... but its fast!) 😅 
Today is water change day so I'm pulling out my overgrown E. 'Vietnam' and E. 'Japan' to split them and maybe replant 1/3 of the plant and toss the remaining 2/3s..... occasionally I dislodge some osmocote but it hasn't cause any problem (as opposed to a JBL Kugeln ball...), I just pick up the exposed osmocote with tweezers and toss them.


----------



## GreggZ

Happi said:


> Ever since people figured out how to make their own liquid fertilizer or diy root tabs, there has been huge increase in numbers of people selling their snake oils and special root tabs for profit.


That’s pretty harsh Happi. I assume you mean people like Marian Sterian and Xiaozhaung Wong. Two people who do so much to help the average aquarist and promote and sustain the hobby. They both share their knowledge freely, and have reliable and more importantly repeatable methodologies that are in wide use around the world.

The reality is that there are a huge number of people out there who keep planted tanks who have no interest in making their own root tabs or any fertilizers for the matter. I would say it’s the vast majority of hobbyist. Tens of thousands strong. For them convenience is well worth any extra cost. Kind of like Tropica selling a $20 bottle with $1.00 of fertilizer in it.


Happi said:


> And I was told FTS was some kind of scientific irrefutable evidence of being "successful"


I have a completely different view. I can’t understand why people take advice from people who can’t show them something they would aspire to. It boggles my mind when folks give credence to someone who can’t demonstrate any success. I don’t mean a pic of a single plant. I mean a full tank shot with a wide variety of species in good health and presented in a way that creates a dynamic visual that’s captures your attention. It may not be “proof” but it’s the best thing we have. Separates the talkers from the doers.

There is so much misinformation out there that is repeated every day. And many times it’s the loudest people who are the least successful. Most times if you can convince them to provide a full tank shot well let’s just say it can be underwhelming. But that's a rare event because most of them never post any pics of anything ever. People take advice at their own risk. If someone can’t demonstrate success, who knows they might be taking weightlifting advice from the weakest guy in the gym. I see it happen every day.


----------



## eminor

here it is, i trimmed days before the pictures, since using urea i noticed few difference :

sorry i might been drunk while taking photo =)



green are greener
the pogostemon erectus is now growing fast as hell, amazing color
the ludwigia is so red, never seen it that way
the myriophyllum red stem is growing so well now
the pinnatifada is getting red
the most impressive is the limnophila hippuroide, since i use lean dosing it grow like weed, the color is getting better with urea/ammonia
rotala macandra is great, new leaves looks good, still not sure about the sp ?
rotala orange juice is really orange now
bacopa moonirie is so green that i can see my soul in it

light duration : 5 hours
light : 2* t5ho 24w ( 360 par according to rotala butterfly)


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> I have a completely different view. I can’t understand why people take advice from people who can’t show them something they would aspire to. It boggles my mind when folks give credence to someone who can’t demonstrate any success.


Hi @GreggZ  I think I know what you mean... However, the problem with blanket statements like these (which always makes me wary, because they rarely apply to reality), is that a lot of extremely knowledgeable hobbyists  provide really good advice on the _best practices_ in the hobby without necessarily or currently applying the same principles as their advice reflects. I have taken a lot of advice that worked really well from people that didn't necessarily had the ability to back their advice with _hard picture evidence_. Most of what we are dealing with in this hobby is rarely black or white, but more like shades of gray.    

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

eminor said:


> sorry i might been drunk while taking photo =)


With all that fabulous French wine who can blame you!  

Nice plants!  I cant wait to up my game on more difficult plants!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## eminor

MichaelJ said:


> With all that fabulous French wine who can blame you!
> 
> Nice plants!  I cant wait to up my game on more difficult plants!
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



French vine is the best yes 

i always did hard plant, there si so much fun to fail actually, i still can't grow tuberculatum fine, cabomba furcata is okay thought, my first plant was hemianthus cuba without co2, it went good for few weeks, then died

there is few plant i like that are easy like the beautifull hygrophila siamensis b, ludwigia sp red like on the pictures, actually there is a lot, but ludwigia sp red is not easy actually, because it's a challenge to keep it red all along the stems.

i can't thanks you enough guys, without you i'll be listening to seller telling me that maybe my phosphate level are bad, etc. i had a doubt about co2 being the root cause of bba, i now think it's true, i have not a single bba algae since i fixed the co2


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @GreggZ  I think I know what you mean... However, the problem with blanket statements like these (which always makes me wary, because they rarely apply to reality), is that a lot of extremely knowledgeable hobbyists  provide really good advice on the _best practices_ in the hobby without necessarily or currently applying the same principles as their advice reflects. I have taken a lot of advice that worked really well from people that didn't necessarily had the ability to back their advice with _hard picture evidence_. Most of what we are dealing with in this hobby is rarely black or white, but more like shades of gray.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Agreed there are folks who give good advice but don't show pics. But in my experience that's very, very rare. I was speaking more to the loads of people who disperse really poor advice and also can't grow plants. You see it more on the FB groups than on a forum like this. Someone asks how to make their plants redder and 3 out of the 5 first responses will be "more iron".  Show a pinhole in a plant and a chorus of more Potassium starts up. It's predictable. Yet people listen. 

The best people to follow and get advice from lead by example. They consistently present something that folks would aspire to. I know a large number of people who fit that mold and they are always generous with their time and thoughts. 

Sometimes people make this too complicated and overthink things. Seek out tanks that consistently demonstrate success in a style similar to what you have in mind. Then study their methods. When you do you begin to realize they all have a lot in common (many times it is NOT dosing). It's easily the quickest way to success.


----------



## Hanuman

eminor said:


> here it is, i trimmed days before the pictures, since using urea i noticed few difference :
> 
> sorry i might been drunk while taking photo =)
> 
> 
> 
> green are greener
> the pogostemon erectus is now growing fast as hell, amazing color
> the ludwigia is so red, never seen it that way
> the myriophyllum red stem is growing so well now
> the pinnatifada is getting red
> the most impressive is the limnophila hippuroide, since i use lean dosing it grow like weed, the color is getting better with urea/ammonia
> rotala macandra is great, new leaves looks good, still not sure about the sp ?
> rotala orange juice is really orange now
> bacopa moonirie is so green that i can see my soul in it
> 
> light duration : 5 hours
> light : 2* t5ho 24w ( 360 par according to rotala butterfly)


And what is the dosing regime?


----------



## Hanuman

GreggZ said:


> Agreed there are folks who give good advice but don't show pics. But in my experience that's very, very rare. I was speaking more to the loads of people who disperse really poor advice and also can't grow plants. You see it more on the FB groups than on a forum like this. Someone asks how to make their plants redder and 3 out of the 5 first responses will be "more iron".  Show a pinhole in a plant and a chorus of more Potassium starts up. It's predictable. Yet people listen.
> 
> The best people to follow and get advice from lead by example. They consistently present something that folks would aspire to. I know a large number of people who fit that mold and they are always generous with their time and thoughts.
> 
> Sometimes people make this too complicated and overthink things. Seek out tanks that consistently demonstrate success in a style similar to what you have in mind. Then study their methods. When you do you begin to realize they all have a lot in common (many times it is NOT dosing). It's easily the quickest way to success.


That' why I mostly stopped several months ago posting in facebook groups. Facebook is really not a good platform for exchanging information in an adult and constructive manner.


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> That' why I mostly stopped several months ago posting in facebook groups. Facebook is really not a good platform for exchanging information in an adult and constructive manner.


Much depends on the group. Many of the best in the hobby hang out at two groups. Most of the others are complete free-for-alls and enter at your own risk. You know where I am a moderator. Anyone gets out of line with you let me know!!!😁


----------



## eminor

Hanuman said:


> And what is the dosing regime?


N : 2.25 ppm (urea/ammonia)
P : 0.25 ppm
K : 1 ppm

Iron : DTPA, EDTA

i think CO2 is the most important thing in the aquarium,  if your co2 is perfect, you can play with ferts, plant do not care a lot, there need to be long time without addind any ferts to get some deficiency but if your co2 is bad damn, it's impossible to make it work, i tried, i failed, consistant co2 is much much much easier.


----------



## Hanuman

GreggZ said:


> Much depends on the group. Many of the best in the hobby hang out at two groups. Most of the others are complete free-for-alls and enter at your own risk. You know where I am a moderator. Anyone gets out of line with you let me know!!!😁


Honestly I think they are all pretty much the same in the sense that human behavior on facebook for some reason gets hijacked. I got warned then banned from THE high tech tank group about a year ago because some mod didn't like that I got argumentative, and honestly it was pretty pretty mild.


----------



## Hanuman

eminor said:


> N : 2.25 ppm (urea/ammonia)
> P : 0.25 ppm
> K : 1 ppm


Are you referring to nitrogen (N) or NO3? Is that phosphorous (P) or PO4? Are those weekly targets or daily targets?
Is that a DIY fert or some commercial product?



eminor said:


> i think CO2 is the most important thing in the aquarium, if your co2 is perfect, you can play with ferts, plant do not care a lot, there need to be long time without addind any ferts to get some deficiency but if your co2 is bad damn, it's impossible to make it work, i tried, i failed, consistant co2 is much much much easier.


Everything has its due place. Ferts included but yes the tendency to mainly focus on ferts sometimes overshadows the rest.


----------



## eminor

Hanuman said:


> Are you referring to nitrogen (N) or NO3? Is that phosphorous (P) or PO4? Are those weekly targets or daily targets?
> Is that a DIY fert or some commercial product?


i'm referring to N, i use P2O5 phosphorous, it's weekly target because otherwise you can't call that much lean dosing. i actually use commercial product for boxwood and conifer, the composition is good for planted aquarium, way lower than 99% of garden ferts

N = 1.25 not 2.25 sorry 


Hanuman said:


> Everything has its due place. Ferts included but yes the tendency to mainly focus on ferts sometimes overshadows the rest.


i agree


----------



## Hanuman

eminor said:


> i'm referring to N, i use P2O5 phosphorous


So if my math is good that's roughly 10 : 0.8 : 1 NO3 : PO4 : K. Reason as I asked you is because most people in the hobby don't think in terms of N or P but rather in terms of NO3 and PO4.  So just wanted to clarify to be sure were on the same page.

Now, if I am not mistaken you are using Fluval stratum which looking at your journal is ~ 2-3 months old. So currently your plants are tapping what they need from the substrate. But that substrate is not exactly a rich substrate. It does contain much nutrients though. If I read the manufacturer's marketing material it says the soil contains Potassium, Fe and Phosphorous among others. It is safe to assume it probably doesn't contain much of the rest. So, in other words you are dosing lean with those nutrients that are available in the substrate. NO3 on the other hand you are dosing ~ 10ppm so that's not exactly EI but not what I would call lean either.  Depending how densely your tank is planted you might need to start dosing or root feed in a few months time as the soil will start depleting.I guess you will see when the time comes.  Also if you are using tap water the buffering capacity of the soil will decrease much faster than you might wish. It could be a few months if your water has a high KH. So keep an eye on certain plants that prefer lower KH.

So to me there isn't much leanness in all that. You are simply surfing the rich substrate trial period. The length of that period will depend on how much growth/plants you have in the tank.

Cheers.


----------



## Hanuman

I see you corrected that N value. So should be something like 5.5ppm NO3.


----------



## erwin123

eminor said:


> here it is, i trimmed days before the pictures, since using urea i noticed few difference :
> 
> sorry i might been drunk while taking photo =)


A bit too much camera shake to appreciate some of the plants, but definitely looking better! Hope you can update your journal with sharper photos
I also can't figure out what is the sp. of the Rotala Macrandra, I  thought it was 'Green' but looks like its something else.
The Rotala H'ra is looking more like Rotala H'ra, because its starting to bend! I found the H'ra bending habit to be rather annoying as it would shade other plants.


----------



## eminor

Hanuman said:


> So if my math is good that's roughly 10 : 0.8 : 1 NO3 : PO4 : K. Reason as I asked you is because most people in the hobby don't think in terms of N or P but rather in terms of NO3 and PO4.  So just wanted to clarify to be sure were on the same page.
> 
> Now, if I am not mistaken you are using Fluval stratum which looking at your journal is ~ 2-3 months old. So currently your plants are tapping what they need from the substrate. But that substrate is not exactly a rich substrate. It does contain much nutrients though. If I read the manufacturer's marketing material it says the soil contains Potassium, Fe and Phosphorous among others. It is safe to assume it probably doesn't contain much of the rest. So, in other words you are dosing lean with those nutrients that are available in the substrate. NO3 on the other hand you are dosing ~ 10ppm so that's not exactly EI but not what I would call lean either.  Depending how densely your tank is planted you might need to start dosing or root feed in a few months time as the soil will start depleting.I guess you will see when the time comes.  Also if you are using tap water the buffering capacity of the soil will decrease much faster than you might wish. It could be a few months if your water has a high KH. So keep an eye on certain plants that prefer lower KH.
> 
> So to me there isn't much leanness in all that. You are simply surfing the rich substrate trial period. The length of that period will depend on how much growth/plants you have in the tank.
> 
> Cheers.


well, i already use osmocote in backup, with only 5 hours of light it's growing so fast, rotala is insane. i only use rain water which should be 0KH- 0GH, i then put calcium and magnesium to reach a ratio of Ca : Mg 3 : 1, i target GH of 5. I think the fluval is not working that hard

i also do use the rain water with the same parameters for all my tank, my roof is not that clean, water is kind of yellow but my filter clear it in few hours. walichii seems to hate hard water, tuberculatum too, but maybe that's just my experience with it.

I actually try kind of walstad tank with mist of charcoal / peat / French clay in it, i'm kind of mad


----------



## Hanuman

eminor said:


> i only use rain water which should be 0KH- 0GH


👍 I misread your journal then. I thought you were using tap water.


----------



## eminor

erwin123 said:


> A bit too much camera shake to appreciate some of the plants, but definitely looking better! Hope you can update your journal with sharper photos
> I also can't figure out what is the sp. of the Rotala Macrandra, I  thought it was 'Green' but looks like its something else.
> The Rotala H'ra is looking more like Rotala H'ra, because its starting to bend! I found the H'ra bending habit to be rather annoying as it would shade other plants.


i always suspected it to be h'ra but never been certain, you fixed the mystery, i trim a lot to avoid shade, i reached a point where i don't want the rotala to grow that fast x)


----------



## eminor

Hanuman said:


> 👍 I misread your journal then. I thought you were using tap water.


i was when i used sand, but i switched to fluval, i don't want to throw money out window, my tap is GH 17, KH 11, would be interesting to see if now that i fixed the co2 faulty needle valve, maybe tuberculatum would grow in hard, but since it's my nightmare plant, so hard, i really can't grow it


----------



## Hanuman

eminor said:


> i was when i used sand, but i switched to fluval, i don't want to throw money out window, my tap is GH 17, KH 11, would be interesting to see if now that i fixed the co2 faulty needle valve, maybe tuberculatum would grow in hard, but since it's my nightmare plant, so hard, i really can't grow it


Myriophyllum tuberculatum is actually a weed. I have to trim it every week. In your current setup it would grow just fine I think. It just needs plenty of light, good amounts of co2, traces and Fe. I uproot mine every week and replant. You can also trim it and it will start growing slower as it will branch out.


----------



## eminor

Hanuman said:


> Myriophyllum tuberculatum is actually a weed. I have to trim it every week. In your current setup it would grow just fine I think. It just needs plenty of light, good amounts of co2, traces and Fe. I uproot mine every week and replant. You can also trim it and it will start growing slower as it will branch out.


funny thing is that it grow slow but nicely in my walstad tank, i might try it in my main tank with 48w of t5ho over a 15gallons tank, should be enough light now


----------



## GreggZ

eminor said:


> funny thing is that it grow slow but nicely in my walstad tank, i might try it in my main tank with 48w of t5ho over a 15gallons tank, should be enough light now


If you have CO2 then T5HO over a 15G should have it growing out of the tank in days!


----------



## eminor

GreggZ said:


> If you have CO2 then T5HO over a 15G should have it growing out of the tank in days!


yes, i know it supposed to be a really fast growing plant, but i don't know why, i can't make it, i'm gonna post pictures about it, i moved it in the tank =)


----------



## Hufsa

Hi @Happi and everyone 
I am preparing to change my macros the coming weekend, from EI to "lean" or to be precise I want to try Happi's suggested dosing with parts Urea.
Only I am a little bit confused which PPM's will be best for my water and setup.
I only have inert sand as substrate, which I am concerned will make things a bit harder, since there is no soil to smooth out any issues in nutrient availability.
I use tap water, values from waterworks below:

NH4-N + NH3-N <0.040 mg/l
NO3-N 0.319 mg/l
NO2-N <0.010 mg/l

Cl- 12.5 mg/l
SO4 2- 14.7 mg/l
Na 5.33 mg/l

Fe 0.0123 mg/l
Cu <0.001 mg/l
Mn <0.001 mg/l
Ni 0.000794 mg/l
B <0.01 mg/l

There are no reported values for P, Mg, and Mo.

The area the water travels through before it ends up in the lake is composed of bog and forest. No agricultural run-off as far as I am aware.
I know the water contains almost no Calcium (~4 mg/L) when they get it, but then they filter it over marble to raise it to "21g Ca/L", which they say adds up to "approx 3 GH".
They also add NaOH to raise the PH.

Tap water at my end comes out with approx 3 KH, 3 GH, 7.1-7.3 PH. TDS around 60 at the moment.
I raise the GH to around 6-7 for the shrimp before adding to tank.
[Edit] So 3-4 GH consisting of 80% Calcium sulphate and 20% Magnesium sulphate

To sum things up its pretty clean of nutrients but has artificially high PH because of NaOH.
There is no available data for phosphate but I assume it wont be huge amounts based on the other data?
Or is it likely they are adding this anyway for the precipitating properties? @dw1305 my beloved expert?

Based on the above Happi, what dosing would you suggest?


----------



## Happi

@Hufsa 
before we start, can you remind me about what was your previous dosing and what chemicals where you using for Micro and Macros?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Hufsa said:


> Tap water at my end comes out with approx 3 KH, 3 GH, 7.1-7.3 PH. TDS around 60 at the moment.


Pretty much perfect, and it would be nearly DI water out of the tap, if you didn't have the additions of NaOH and the dGH/dKH from the marble chips (CaCO3).   


Hufsa said:


> To sum things up its pretty clean of nutrients but has artificially high PH because of NaOH.
> There is no available data for phosphate but I assume it wont be huge amounts based on the other data?
> Or is it likely they are adding this anyway for the precipitating properties?


I'm guessing that they do add some phosphate, but probably less than 1 ppm PO4---.  Orthophosphate is <"relatively easy to test"> for if you want to get a ball-park figure. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Hufsa

Happi said:


> before we start, can you remind me about what was your previous dosing and what chemicals where you using for Micro and Macros?



Ive been using the "standard" chemicals for macros, KNO3, KH2PO4 and K2SO4.

Since 04.03.22 the tank got:
30 NO3
3 Po4
30 K
0.5 Fe CSM+B (APFUK) & a little DTPA
Plants somehow chlorotic with this dosing

But as of 21.03.22 (one week ago) tank gets
20 NO3
2 PO4
20 K
DIY Tropica ratio micros:
Fe 0.1 ppm (Fe 11% DTPA)
Mn 0.056 ppm (Mn 13% EDTA)
Zn 0.003 ppm (Zn 14% EDTA)
B 0.006 ppm (H3BO3)
Cu 0.0087 ppm (Cu 14% EDTA)
Mo 0.0029 ppm ((NH4)6Mo7O24.4(H2O))
Ni 0.0002 ppm (NiSO4.6(H2O))

Plants still chlorotic (doing me a hecking confusion), so put micros at 0.2 this past weekend.
I dosed CSM+B for micros with a bit of Fe DTPA before when I was running low tech, and did not have this persistent issue with pale new growth on plants. 
Demand with injected CO2 must have highlighted some weakness in my dosing I suppose


----------



## Wookii

Hufsa said:


> Ive been using the "standard" chemicals for macros, KNO3, KH2PO4 and K2SO4.
> 
> Since 04.03.22 the tank got:
> 30 NO3
> 3 Po4
> 30 K
> 0.5 Fe CSM+B (APFUK) & a little DTPA
> Plants somehow chlorotic with this dosing
> 
> But as of 21.03.22 (one week ago) tank gets
> 20 NO3
> 2 PO4
> 20 K
> DIY Tropica ratio micros:
> Fe 0.1 ppm (Fe 11% DTPA)
> Mn 0.056 ppm (Mn 13% EDTA)
> Zn 0.003 ppm (Zn 14% EDTA)
> B 0.006 ppm (H3BO3)
> Cu 0.0087 ppm (Cu 14% EDTA)
> Mo 0.0029 ppm ((NH4)6Mo7O24.4(H2O))
> Ni 0.0002 ppm (NiSO4.6(H2O))
> 
> Plants still chlorotic (doing me a hecking confusion), so put micros at 0.2 this past weekend.
> I dosed CSM+B for micros with a bit of Fe DTPA before when I was running low tech, and did not have this persistent issue with pale new growth on plants.
> Demand with injected CO2 must have highlighted some weakness in my dosing I suppose



Your list is notably absent Mg @Hufsa which can also cause chlorosis 

Can be easily added using MgSO4 (aka Epsom salts).


----------



## Hufsa

Wookii said:


> Your list is notably absent Mg @Hufsa which can also cause chlorosis


Ah, yes I forgot, 20% of the remineralizer is Magnesium sulfate, so 20% of 3-4 GH's worth. Whatever that is 😵

(Edit) Magnesium deficiency shouldnt present in the newest growth though?


----------



## Wookii

Hufsa said:


> Ah, yes I forgot, 20% of the remineralizer is Magnesium sulfate, so 20% of 3-4 GH's worth. Whatever that is 😵
> 
> (Edit) Magnesium deficiency shouldnt present in the newest growth though?



Ah, sorry, missed the bit where you were remineralising.


----------



## Hufsa

I just yeeted a spoon of extra Magnesium sulphate into the tank, so I guess if that is the problem then the results should be evident by tomorrow. Might as well rule it out.
Sorry for taking over the thread in such a way!


----------



## Happi

@Hufsa

Start with multiple water changes, I usually recommend doing 2-3 80-90% water changes for the first few days to make sure the tank is almost free from anything excess that was previously buildup. You might witness some minor stunting in some plants due to sudden huge water changes, but it will resolve eventually.

your micro should be fine as the way they are.

add 8 ppm Mg to changed water, unless this option isn't available?

if you ever feel like the K is too little, feel free to add a little bit at the water changes, but first try the below:

far as the Macro goes, try something similar to Tropica Macro using the same ratio. you can combine KNO3 and Urea to get the desired N and K or try something like this below:

weekly target 2-3 N depending on the plant mass, start with 0.25 N daily

Make a solution for Macro using these ppm below:

Urea

N0.82000

KNO3

NO30.80000N0.18071K0.50442

KH2PO4

PO40.4P0.13K0.165


----------



## Hufsa

My brain just got a real good work-out trying to wrap itself around working with different N sources 



Happi said:


> Start with multiple water changes, I usually recommend doing 2-3 80-90% water changes for the first few days to make sure the tank is almost free from anything excess that was previously buildup.


Im thinking of doing two 80-90% changes right after each other in one day. That should clear out most of the old ferts.
I think my shrimp will prefer me doing it all in one day if I have to, if I change large amounts of water over several days some of them usually die.
If I do it all in one day I think they will only stress molt once and survive, instead of inducing stress molting over multiple days with the resulting deaths.



Happi said:


> You might witness some minor stunting in some plants due to sudden huge water changes, but it will resolve eventually.


My fussiest plants are already stunted and I have some fun algae so there is not much to lose 
It might be my terrible impatience talking but I dont mind not spending ages trying to wean the plants off the old ferts when they havent even been working that well in the first place.



Happi said:


> your micro should be fine as the way they are.


Can I continue at 0.2 you mean?



Happi said:


> add 8 ppm Mg to changed water, unless this option isn't available?


Not sure what you mean here? I need a certain amount of Calcium in my water because of the shrimp, otherwise they struggle to molt.
Are you saying you wish I would only add 8ppm Mg and no Calcium? If so I am afraid I cant do that.
If I need, lets say 7 GH for my shrimp, do you want more of this to be comprised of Mg?
I can tweak the ratios as I have separate Calcium sulphate and Magnesium sulphate.
I suppose the Ca:Mg ratio I have been doing so far has not taken into account that the 3 GH my tap water has is only comprised of Calcium.



Happi said:


> or try something like this below


Is there a main difference between Tropica and the numbers below? I assume the below is your recipe?



Happi said:


> Make a solution for Macro using these ppm below:
> 
> Urea
> 
> N0.82000
> 
> KNO3
> 
> NO30.80000N0.18071K0.50442
> 
> KH2PO4
> 
> PO40.4P0.13K0.165


Ok so these give a total of 1.00071 N, I assume this was for a weekly recipe, which you then just double or triple dose eventually as plant mass increases?
You want me to start with 0.25 N daily, which is 1.75 N weekly. I usually make my ferts to be dosed at 30ml daily. So I could just do 30ml x 1.75 = ~52 ml daily for start-up, yes?
Then I can gradually ramp up to 60-90ml (2-3 N) as weeks go by?

My math hidden below for anyone who is particularly interested:


Spoiler



I wanted to get things into IFC calculator as I prefer using that, so I needed to work out how much NO3 to enter in the Target Calculator.
Google to the rescue: "To convert Nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) to Nitrate (NO3) multiply by 4.43"

1.00071 N x 4.43 = ~4.433 NO3
PO4 is fine as it is, then we just add up the K, 0.50442 + 0.165 = 0.66942. I wasnt allowed to enter less than 1 ppm K as a target, so I just left it blank.
The calculator catches up on the K added by KNO3 and KH2PO4 anyway and Happi's recipe doesnt use K2SO4.
To get the right ratio of the N sources in IFC I took the numbers from KNO3 (N 0.18071) and Urea (N 0.82000) and entered ratio 18:82 (Potassium Nitrate : Urea).
I double checked the gram amounts given by IFC and they match rotalabutterfly calculator 



Sort of on topic, does anyone know how long Urea is stable in water? I was concerned that it might start to break down if one wants to make up ferts for a long time, but then no one would be able to sell Urea based liquid ferts, would they?


----------



## John q

@Hufsa  don't forget to keep an eye on your co2 levels once you start the different dosing regime, mine went from lime green to yellow about 6 days in after switching to lean. 
I'm assuming the reduced fert levels call for a reduction in co2 consumption by the plants.


----------



## Hufsa

John q said:


> I'm assuming the reduced fert levels call for a reduction in co2 consumption by the plants.


Good catch thanks! Possibly also decreased CO2 demand because of mainly Urea dosing?


----------



## JoshP12

Hufsa said:


> Good catch thanks! Possibly also decreased CO2 demand because of mainly Urea dosing?


2 fold --> Urea provides CO2 in the plant to help meet the demand. Urea provides ammonia base so we need not potentially convert any nitrate to ammonia to be used - energy (CO2 demand) saved.

Also just less N in the column means less N is being forced through leaf pathway vs selective root pathway ... so overall demand "forced" will be less. Therefore, more free CO2 in column. The "drop" from green down to yellow is a "pseduo-metric" of how much CO2 was being forced "via" N/P in column.


----------



## plantnoobdude

also about co2. on sunday I put some new drop checker fluid in the drop checker as most of the old stuff was gone or mixed with tank water.... 
yesterday it barely changed colour throughout the whole photoperiod , dark blue in morning, and maybe a super light blue/green colour in the afternoon. anyway, I'm guessing the needle valve drifted a bit? bps was maybe 1/2 a bubble per second , under EI i was doing 3-4 bps. today I increased co2 to maybe 1-2bps so it should get the drop checker changing colour a bit. pretty crazy ,so little co2, yet plants were still doing OK-ish. surprised it wasn;t catastrophic.


----------



## Happi

Hufsa said:


> Can I continue at 0.2 you mean?


this is fine


Hufsa said:


> Is there a main difference between Tropica and the numbers below? I assume the below is your recipe?


both have slight differences, they both will work well, but this one have more of the ratio that I personally use. if you have NH4NO3 on hand, I would love to add that in this recipe but i believe you don't have it. so we stick to Urea+KNO3 for now. 



Hufsa said:


> Ca:Mg ratio I have been doing so far has not taken into account that the 3 GH my tap water has is only comprised of Calcium


long as you have about 2.5:1 Ca:Mg ratio, we are good. if your tap water have 20 ppm Ca, I would add 8 ppm Mg. I believe your tap water have almost 0 Mg. 



Hufsa said:


> You want me to start with 0.25 N daily, which is 1.75 N weekly


that is correct. 

@plantnoobdude might be able to give you some advice or suggestions and you guys can work hand in hand from here. am not sure if he truly need to add lot of K yet but this is something we will work on down the road. 

change the water as the way you wish before starting this, long as you get rid of the old buildup much as you can.


----------



## Happi

BTW the co2 coming from Urea is very minimum, Urea and Co2 should be up taken directly by the plants, this is where enzymes are activated by Nickel. 
Nickel Urea


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> f he truly need to add lot of K yet but this is something we will work on down the road.


honestly, I'm not sure either. am currently dosing 3.3ppm K weekly for 2ppm N. I think this works well in particular because of extra N from soil and fish. anyways, My K is still quite low, 10x lower than EI anyway.


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> honestly, I'm not sure either. am currently dosing 3.3ppm K weekly for 2ppm N. I think this works well in particular because of extra N from soil and fish. anyways, My K is still quite low, 10x lower than EI anyway.


did you look for pin holes on the lower leaves ?


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> did you look for pin holes on the lower leaves ?


yeah, there were a few. now its not too bad. the old growth has some holes, but it's not gettnig worse so i think its good.


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> yeah, there were a few. now its not too bad. the old growth has some holes, but it's not gettnig worse so i think its good.


we just need to figure out if those holes are truly K related or something else. such as previously damaged or been eaten by something. plus your soil is new so I doubt there should be any K related issue.


----------



## Hufsa

Hufsa said:


> I just yeeted a spoon of extra Magnesium sulphate into the tank, so I guess if that is the problem then the results should be evident by tomorrow.



Thats a definite no to Magnesium deficiency for me


----------



## John q

John q said:


> Thankfully this is an easy experiment, I dose a bit more as outlined above and see what happens. As always I'll report back with honest pictures, good or bad.


Just thought I'd report back with a little old update to let you know how much of an improvement the extra 2ppm of N03 made...

Erm... actually it's made no difference.

There's been a little bit of growth in the last two weeks but I think we can put that down to being a bit closer to the light. Still puzzles me how this plant would previously require trimming every few weeks under the same lighting, similar ferts and in the last 4 weeks its only grown about 6 inches. 

The plants now been trimmed and re planted in a slightly more open space to see if improved flow makes any difference. Could well be that my overgrown jungle is a bit overgrown and I need to re tune the Co2 and flow? Who knows, maybe I'm clutching at straws. 

Here's the picture from post 764. 16th March.





This picture was taken on the 26th March, two new sets of leaves. 🙄





Cheers.


----------



## Aleman

Wow, Just Wow 

I have just finished reading the entire thread ... I am so glad I found this place ... information from facebook groups is pretty poor in a lot of cases, and this one thread has convinced me why they should be avoided for real information.

Thank you all, for contributing your ideas, and experiences. It has started to sink in, and will just sit and cogitate in there until it goes explodes, and I have a new plan ... Yes another one!

First things first, I guess is not to make any changes to what I'm doing, algae has mostly gone now, just need to keep cleaning up the dying BG. I have finally managed to persuade my Jebao autodoser to actually dose nutrients every day (Full Ei  ). For the moment I'll carry on with 50% water changes, but I'm going to cut the remineralisation of my RODI water down to almost nothing ... I was trying for 5KH and 6 or 7 GH, and have got pretty close to that (6.5 and 6), but want to drop it lower, and go for lean dosing, again, eventually. I now understand a little bit more about it, so will probably be more successful this time ... possibly  

I won't clutter this thread up with any more junk, but will tomorrow, start putting my journal together. I will have lots of questions though.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Aleman said:


> but I'm going to cut the remineralisation of my RODI water down to almost nothing


Gh (Ca, Mg) is actually quite useful and is part of EI, High levels of Ca and Mg inhibit the uptake of toxic trace metals. I used to dose something like 35ppm Ca and 15 ppm Mg, any lower and I would see "deficiency" this was when i was dosing EI. I believe that lowering the gh was inducing toxicity of heavy metals. low gh and high traces does not work well. as for Kh there isn't much need. maybe 2-3 degrees if you want to keep livebearers but those aren't my specialty. There's a reason EI is prescribed as a whole package


----------



## Wookii

John q said:


> This picture was taken on the 26th March, two new sets of leaves. 🙄



Surely that’s the ultimate success  @John q very slow clean growth. Trimming stem plants on a weekly basis soon becomes a chore!


----------



## JacksonL

Bit of an update on my lean dosing adventure. 
First the tank currently:



So first, the negatives:
I had a decent outbreak of GSA, mostly on the glass and old buce leaves. I have upped the PO4 dosage and it appears to have stopped claiming more leaves and there has been almost none showing up on the glass. 
The positives: most, but not all, of the rotala stunting I was getting has ceased. There are still a few stems that are suffering, especially the rotundifolia. 
The aromatica has basically become a new plant. The smaller green leaves with skinny stalk has become a pink and purple beast with a stalk like a mini tree trunk. It has taken to the urea amazingly. 
The ludwigia super red has gone, well, super red funnily enough.
Plant health is definitely trending sharply upward. At this stage, with the increase in PO4 I am pretty much dosing exactly at APT Complete recommended levels, except for potassium where I am slightly lower. with my gradual lowering of KH (I use potassium carbonate to remin) I think I will have to add some potassium sulphate into my fert mix.

Overall a very positive experiment so far, I definitely feel like the urea is probably responsible for most of the change, as I doubt lowering total nitrate will have made a lot of difference in 4 month old soil.


----------



## GreggZ

JacksonL said:


> Bit of an update on my lean dosing adventure.
> First the tank currently:
> View attachment 185736
> Overall a very positive experiment so far, I definitely feel like the urea is probably responsible for most of the change, as I doubt lowering total nitrate will have made a lot of difference in 4 month old soil.


Might be a false assumption. The only way to know for sure is to test it. Once the tank is super stable stop dosing urea and dose NO3. 

I've tried this before and so have numerous people I know in the hobby. It's pretty much always turned out it wasn't the urea. It was always something else.


----------



## JacksonL

GreggZ said:


> Might be a false assumption. The only way to know for sure is to test it. Once the tank is super stable stop dosing urea and dose NO3.
> 
> I've tried this before and so have numerous people I know in the hobby. It's pretty much always turned out it wasn't the urea. It was always something else.


I am always keen for an experiment. I will continue with the urea dosing for now and in a few months see what happens when I withdraw it.


----------



## Happi

@JacksonL 
You might be interested in reading this:





						Dosing with Ammonia and Urea
					

Decided to open a new thread on this very interesting subject rather than carry it on in the Good Algae Article thread - http://ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=905  Here's what been said so far:   As George alluded to, some vendors use ammonia salts as their source of N, which I find completely...



					www.ukaps.org


----------



## plantnoobdude

GreggZ said:


> I've tried this before and so have numerous people I know in the hobby. It's pretty much always turned out it wasn't the urea. It was always something else.


what did it turn out to be usually? I am interested.
 anyways did you get the EI ammannia pedicellata pics from Barr? I am quite curious to see those.


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> what did it turn out to be usually? I am interested.
> anyways did you get the EI ammannia pedicellata pics from Barr? I am quite curious to see those.


It's always hard to say. Could be better maintenance, could be fert levels have remained very stable, could be CO2 concentration is better, could be fert mix changed a bit, could be better horticulture, could be substrate has been cleaned, etc, etc.

We all have different frames of reference. I've discussed urea dosing with dozens of the best plant growers in the world. If I listed their names you would know them. We've all tried experiments with urea many times over many years and we all come to pretty much the same conclusion. If there is any difference at all it's negligible. And there are loads of things that make more difference.

It's the same with K limiting. It's been discussed and tried many times by many people. 95% agree more K is better. And their tanks speak for themselves. 

In fact someone very, very well known in the hobby was asked by a so called group of "researchers" to validate the lean dosing and Marchener ratio theories in his Dutch tank. It failed terribly. For his trouble he was banned from their group. They do not welcome any theory other than their own.

The reality is that if you focus on the right things you can get by well on a pretty wide range of dosing. With the folks I speak to on a regular basis it's just not that big of a focus. Dose enough but not too much. We talk about all of the other things that make a tank succesful.

And I will reach out to T. Barr to see if has some pics.


----------



## Happi

@plantnoobdude​Several people don’t realize that when they have huge fishes in their aquarium, plant are highly up taking the NH4, while most of the NO3 is being ignored. Even if you were to add KNO3, most of the NO3 will be ignored until NH4 becomes a limiting factor, only then plant will be forced to uptake the NO3, this is where several plant species start to struggle. When someone have a huge fishes in their aquarium and are adding KH2PO4 and KNO3, plant are truly only benefiting from the K, because there Is abundance of N and P in the aquarium to begin with, but you just added more and then attempt to remove it with water changes few days later.

So where is most of the NO3 going? Depending on how the system is setup, most of it can be removed by bacteria and converted into Nitrogen gas, this is likely the case for those who add 30 ppm NO3 and it just vanish after few days. Some of these people hardly even have any plant in their aquariums.

Far as the effectiveness of Urea/NH4 goes, like I said it has been well documented and is used by many well known brands. Some of these companies don’t even add any NO3 at all, some of those companies include ADA and Tropica. Both has been around for ages, if Urea/NH4 was that bad and wasn’t effective, they would have switched over to KNO3 for their N fertilizer long ago. Tropica grow majority of aquatic plant and I have yet to see any major changes to their fertilizer.

even if one was to add lot of K, the effectiveness of Urea/NH4 isn't reduced, actually you will be trimming stems more often, good for those who want to make extra bucks selling plants.  

So far all the articles and the books that I have read, seems to support that NH4 is main preferred source of Nitrogen for aquatic plant

*ADA Brighty Nitrogen:*





*Seachem Nitrogen:*





*Seachem Aqua Vitro Nitrogen:*


----------



## John q

I think 


Happi said:


> Several people don’t realize that when they have huge fishes in their aquarium, plant are highly up taking the NH4



I think Mr barr was a big advocate of having lots of fish and feeding them plenty 😉 

Seriously question Happi, If one has a large fish load like myself how do we dose our tanks to fit in with the idealistic approach of lean dosing, is it simply a case of limiting the things we can control like k, fe, and other micro nutrients?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


John q said:


> Seriously question Happi, If one has a large fish load like myself how do we dose our tanks to fit in with the idealistic approach of lean dosing, is it simply a case of limiting the things we can control like k, fe, and other micro nutrients?


I'm not @Happi, but this is a serious answer.

I would suggest that you feed your plants in the same way that you feed your fish, <"*when they need it**">*.

If your fish are pretty obese and mainly disinterested when you are feeding them? and even the addition of live black worms can't raise them to more than a brief, desultory chase?   You feed them less, or you feed them an alternative food source, and it is <"exactly the same with the plants">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Happi

John q said:


> I think
> 
> 
> I think Mr barr was a big advocate of having lots of fish and feeding them plenty 😉
> 
> Seriously question Happi, If one has a large fish load like myself how do we dose our tanks to fit in with the idealistic approach of lean dosing, is it simply a case of limiting the things we can control like k, fe, and other micro nutrients?


it will depend on how much N and P they are providing and if it meets the Criteria, in such case you should truly be only adding K, Fe and traces. you cannot control the N and P coming from the fish but it will surely be removed by the plants, if you are seeing high N and P in your aquarium, why would you want to add more N and P? at this point the limiting factor would be K, Fe and traces. 

in case of low N and P being detected even with huge fishes in your aquarium, it would make sense to add small amount of N and P at this point. this case might apply if your plants are growing very fast and if the plant mass is very high to begin with.


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> up taking the NH4, while most of the NO3 is being ignored





dw1305 said:


> If your fish are pretty obese and mainly disinterested when you are feeding them?


Thats the one I am curious about when following the _lean-regime. _Other than monitoring the plants (which should always be the main indicator). When using Urea/NH4 only, can we use our NH4 test kits to reliably gauge the NH4 uptake?

Also, with the preference for NH4 over NO3, assuming your only dosing one or the other (not both),  does this also mean that 1 ppm of N from Urea/NH4 gets consumed faster by the plants than 1 ppm of N from NO3 ?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

Happi said:


> ​Several people don’t realize that when they have huge fishes in their aquarium, plant are highly up taking the NH4, while most of the NO3 is being ignored. Even if you were to add KNO3, most of the NO3 will be ignored until NH4 becomes a limiting factor, only then plant will be forced to uptake the NO3, this is where several plant species start to struggle. When someone have a huge fishes in their aquarium and are adding KH2PO4 and KNO3, plant are truly only benefiting from the K, because there Is abundance of N and P in the aquarium to begin with, but you just added more and then attempt to remove it with water changes few days later.


I have to disagree. I have a tank with what most would consider a large fish load for a planted tank and that has not been my experience at all. With 20+ large Rainbows you would suggest my tank only needs some K and that is not the case. I can tell you in my tank that I just pretty much ignore the fish load and dose based on the response from the plants. I still dose 12 ppm NO3 and 4 ppm PO4 weekly. If I get any lower the plants suffer. I've tested this numerous times over the years. And this is also the case with a large number of people who I am in contact with who have set up tanks very similar to my own.

Now this is in the context of a high light tank packed full of stems. And in my experience I have not seen a heavily planted high light tank that does well with fish waste alone and no additional NO3/PO4. 


Happi said:


> Both has been around for ages, if Urea/NH4 was that bad and wasn’t effective, they would have switched over to KNO3 for their N fertilizer long ago.


I don't think anybody said Urea/NH4 was bad or not effective. What I said is that in my experience knowing a great number of people who have tried them is that there is little to no difference between that and NO3 dosing. I could start posting pics of all of the stunning tanks that don't dose Urea/NH4 but I doubt that would do much. 

In the end folks need to experiment themselves and draw their own conclusions. Learn to listen to the plants and they will tell you what they need.


----------



## John q

dw1305 said:


> I would suggest that you feed your plants in the same way that you feed your fish


That's the thing @dw1305  I'm overly confident I have healthy fish and know how to feed  them, feeding the  plants on the other hand is somewhat of a dark art, hence why I value the opinions of you guys.


----------



## GreggZ

dw1305 said:


> I would suggest that you feed your plants in the same way that you feed your fish, <"*when they need it**">*.
> 
> If your fish are pretty obese and mainly disinterested when you are feeding them? and even the addition of live black worms can't raise them to more than a brief, desultory chase?   You feed them less, or you feed them an alternative food source, and it is <"exactly the same with the plants">.
> 
> cheers Darrel


I'm not sure this is the case with plants in a high tech heavily planted tank. Over many years I have found that my plants prefer to have more than their daily uptake available in the water column. If a tank like mine uptakes 2 ppm NO3 per day my plants would wither away and die if there were only 2 ppm NO3 measurable in the water column daily. In fact for me if it gets below about 15 ppm some plants start complaining. But again that is based on my personal experience and conversations with many successful people in the hobby.


----------



## John q

And here lies the question. 

Do we give the plants what they need.  Or what they want.  😉 lean dosing pros and cons...


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> In fact for me if it gets below about 15 ppm some plants start complaining.


I assume that 15 ppm would be your dosing target per week?   If you dose 15 ppm of NO3 (say from KNO3) your getting 3.39 ppm of N which is in fact very close, but less than(!), the 3.88 ppm you would get from say Tropica Specialized when following Tropica's lean'ish recommendation of 6 ml/wk per 50 L.   The difference is that you get the N from Urea/NH4 which is supposedly preferred by the plants over NO3 (probably because thats what Mother Nature intended... although we can get great results either way in our planted aquariums... how we deliver the Nitrogen is just one  among many, many other factors).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> Do we give the plants what they need. Or what they want.😉 lean dosing pros and cons...


Good question. Maybe we should call it conscientious dosing; we give the plants what they need in appropriate amounts, served up in the way they want it.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

MichaelJ said:


> Maybe we should call it conscientious dosing; we give the plants what they need in appropriate amounts,


 The plants don't really need that much, I've always  believed that. Marcel, Happi and even Barr agree to some extent 


MichaelJ said:


> served up in the way they want it.


That's where I get confused. Do plants benefit from more availability.  I suspect the answer is yes, otherwise they wouldn't be programed for luxury uptake. Unless they feast in lean conditions 😏


----------



## Happi

MichaelJ said:


> Thats the one I am curious about when following the _lean-regime. _Other than monitoring the plants (which should always be the main indicator). When using Urea/NH4 only, can we use our NH4 test kits to reliably gauge the NH4 uptake?
> 
> Also, with the preference for NH4 over NO3, assuming your only dosing one or the other (not both),  does this also mean that 1 ppm of N from Urea/NH4 gets consumed faster by the plants than 1 ppm of N from NO3 ?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


The NH4 uptake is quite rapidly, NH4 uptake can be gauged by the test kit far as NH4 from NH4NO3, NH4Cl, NH4SO4 goes. but it will be hard to gauge it from Urea, because not all of the urea is converted into NH4 immediately. Using NH4 over Urea will give you better picture if you want to gauge the uptake. but, even with that, it’s not going to be an easy task. Because, the more NH4 you add, faster the plant growth, some stems growing few inches in just one day, if you were to add 0.25, 0.5 or 1 ppm daily in different tanks, you might learn that its not going to give you the exact uptake number but it will give you some ideas about how much might be sufficient for daily uptake without overdosing or under dosing it. At 1 ppm, the results would be very fast plant growth and some NH4 showing up on the test kit by end of the day if you were to gauge it, where it will eventually turn into NO3. Now would you say the daily uptake is 0.6 N if you were to gauge 0.4 N by the end of the day? Not exactly but it will give you some ideas that the uptake is not more than 0.6 N daily even at very fast growth, if you cut this into 0.3 N daily, you will learn that the plant are still growing well but not as fast they did at 0.6 N but there is no N deficiency even at 0.3 N

0.2 N vs 0.4 N, both will fill the needed N for the day, the only difference you will see is that there is slight increase in plant yield with 0.4 N, but plant are not going to become N deficient even at 0.2 N, if they did then you can increase the dose to 0.3 N, but no need to 0.4 N.

We also need to consider the uptake of NH4 by the bacteria.

Regarding Urea vs NH4 vs NO3 at 1 ppm N, plant will always grow fastest in NH4 and Urea, you will observe that plant grown under 1 ppm N-NH4 will be 2-3x taller vs plant grown under same 1 ppm N-NO3.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


GreggZ said:


> Over many years I have found that my plants prefer to have more than their daily uptake available in the water column. If a tank like mine uptakes 2 ppm NO3 per day my plants would wither away and die if there were only 2 ppm NO3 measurable in the water column daily.


Point taken. 

I only grow easy plants, and even then I don't grow them very well. My tanks are all low tech, all my plants are slow growing, all my tanks are jungles and I don't do aesthetics. I'll never have the all singing and all dancing tanks that many members create. I've reached my peak, but it is a <"pretty low altitude one">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

dw1305 said:


> all my tanks are jungles and I don't do aesthetics.


My tanks are jungles as well and I think carries a lot of _natural _aesthetic  ... the most beautiful tanks to my eyes are the ones that looks like that_ little slice of messy nature_.

(I recently gave one of my tanks a _haircut_ to make room for more challenging stem plants for my lean experiment - arriving today! Yay!)

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

@MichaelJ  @John q​even if we were to dose 15 ppm equivalent NO3 with Tropica, the results  are still going to be far more superior with less overall Nutrients buildup and requiring less water changes. 

N    3.88406
P    0.28986
Mg    1.13043
K    2.98551
S    2.63768
Fe    0.20000
Mn    0.11304
B    0.01159
Cu    0.01739
Mo    0.00580
Zn    0.00580
Cl    1.44928


----------



## John q

dw1305 said:


> all my tanks are jungles





MichaelJ said:


> My tanks are jungles


My tank is also a jungle..

In  nature these are threatening environments for soft finicky touchy plants, and  guessing they  probably won't survive. Perhaps @dw1305 &  @MichaelJ  we have created a haven of sorts, but only for the purists. 🥸


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> I assume that 15 ppm would be your dosing target per week?   If you dose 15 ppm of NO3 (say from KNO3) your getting 3.39 ppm of N which is in fact very close, but less than(!), the 3.88 ppm you would get from say Tropica Specialized when following Tropica's lean'ish recommendation of 6 ml/wk per 50 L.   The difference is that you get the N from Urea/NH4 which is supposedly preferred by the plants over NO3 (probably because thats what Mother Nature intended... although we can get great results either way in our planted aquariums... how we deliver the Nitrogen is just one  among many, many other factors).
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I actually prefer to keep about 20 to 25 ppm NO3 in the water column. Has been the sweet spot for me for a long time but that is in relation to the types of plants that I grow.

I have no experience with Tropica but then again I don't know any successful people using it with a high tech tank full of stems. And sure they might be out there but I just don't know them.



Happi said:


> @MichaelJ  @John q​even if we were to dose 15 ppm equivalent NO3 with Tropica, the results  are still going to be far more superior with less overall Nutrients buildup and requiring less water changes.



I'm curious how do you make such a broad claim?  Do you have any evidence of this on a broad scale?

And I'm not trying to be argumentative but I've seen claims like this for years but I don't know anyone using this method with success. Do you know people who are having far superior results? I'd like to see their tanks and talk to them.


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> I have no experience with Tropica but then again I don't know any successful people using it with a high tech tank full of stems.



Tropica - you know, the plant guys out of Denmark I believe - are pretty prolific growers of aquatic plants  ... I would think they would know a thing or two about how to make a fertilizer that actually works very well.  Call me naive for thinking so 


GreggZ said:


> And sure they might be out there but I just don't know them.


Fair enough.



GreggZ said:


> Do you have any evidence of this on a broad scale?


Tropica ?

Anyways, @GreggZ,  I am convinced @Happi and his cohorts are on to something, and have provided enough convincing evidence over time to make it intriguing enough for me to try out and replicate the methodology... and keep in mind I used to be quite skeptical and even arguing quite a bit with @Happi over time and raising a lot of the same questions as you are..., but I also tried to remain curious and open minded. I can't speak for @Happi obviously, but I think he is trying to move the hobby forward and explore new ways to achieve great results, something we should cherish.

If @Happi's approach doesn't work for me I assume its because I just didn't have the conditions quite right, and perhaps there is more too it that is less than well understood  - if it works, I am going to apply the same strategy for my other tank - if that works as well... well, then I am going to get really annoying on this forum    ... Joking aside; at the end of the day I only care about the results. I am not entrenched in any particular approach. EI worked for me for a long time (zero algae, slow (non-CO2) but healthy growth and all that jazz)... if something new can work just as well or better, and simplify things and open up for more challenging stem plants under higher light that I have failed with in the past, I will be one very, very happy camper.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

MichaelJ said:


> Tropica - you know, the plant guys out of Denmark I believe - are pretty prolific growers of aquatic plants  ... I would think they would know a thing or two about how to make a fertilizer that actually works very well.  Call me naive for thinking so
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> Tropica ?
> 
> Anyways, @GreggZ,  I am convinced @Happi and his cohorts are on to something, and have provided enough convincing evidence over time to make it intriguing enough for me to try out and replicate the methodology... and keep in mind I used to be quite skeptical (and even arguing quite a bit with @Happi over time and raising a lot of the same questions as you are...), but I also tried to remain curious and open minded. I can't speak for @Happi obviously, but I think he is trying to move the hobby forward and explore new ways to achieve great results, something we should cherish.
> 
> If @Happi's approach doesn't work for me I assume its because I just didn't have the conditions quite right, and perhaps there is more too it that is less than well understood  - if it works, I am going to apply the same strategy for my other tank - if that works as well... well, then I am going to get really annoying on this forum    ...  at the end of the day I only care about the results. I am not entrenched in any particular approach. EI worked for me for a long time (zero algae, slow (non-CO2) but healthy growth and all that jazz)... if something new can work just as well or better, and simplify things and open up for more challenging stem plants under higher light that I have failed with in the past, I will be a very, very happy camper.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Michael I am with you. I also am open to new methods. My own methods have changed many times over the years. 

I've known Happi and his cohorts for a very long time as well and there is a long history there. I'm not necessarily arguing against these methods, I just don't know anyone using them successfully over the long term. On the other hand I know dozens and dozens of people who constantly demonstrate success using other methods that are very repeatable. 

Good luck with the experiment and I am really looking forward to seeing your results.


----------



## plantnoobdude

very well said michael!
on top of the inspiration page of tropica they have a youtube channel!


			https://www.youtube.com/c/TropicaAquariumPlants/videos
		



MichaelJ said:


> Tropica - you know, the plant guys out of Denmark I believe - are pretty prolific growers of aquatic plants  ... I would think they would know a thing or two about how to make a fertilizer that actually works very well. Call me naive for thinking so


definitely.


MichaelJ said:


> well, then I am going to get really annoying on this forum


join the club hehe.


MichaelJ said:


> EI worked for me for a long time (zero algae, slow (non-CO2) but healthy growth and all that jazz)


that really is the thing, if you're happy with easy plants, low metabolism tanks then EI will run your tank with very little flaws. once you put your foot on the gas issues arrise, that's how happi came up with his method. if you check out his old posts on tpt or even here I think, you will see he used  EI. but the issues he got lead him to alternative methods.


MichaelJ said:


> but I think he is trying to move the hobby forward and explore new ways to achieve great results, something we should cherish.


again, very well said. couldn't agree more!


----------



## Wookii

MichaelJ said:


> Tropica ?



Interestingly though, not all those tanks used Tropica ferts, and of those that did - particularly those growing stem plants - were using far in excess of the standard Tropica dose.


----------



## GreggZ

Wookii said:


> Interestingly though, not all those tanks used Tropica ferts, and of those that did - particularly those growing stem plants - were using far in excess of the standard Tropica dose.


Yep the first tank that caught my eye was a Dutch scape full of very nice stems. I looked it up in more detail and he was dosing 3 x the recommended dose of Tropica Specialized. The N dosing was 4.47 which is about the same as dosing 20 ppm NO3 and the PO4 dosing was about 3 ppm. Is that "lean" dosing at that point? If so it's more NO3 than I dose......maybe I am lean too and don't even know it!!


----------



## MichaelJ

Wookii said:


> Interestingly though, not all those tanks used Tropica ferts, and of those that did


Thats true, but a lot did, and thats also the point: lots of different approaches will work.



Wookii said:


> - particularly those growing stem plants - were using far in excess of the standard Tropica dose.


Yes - this one in particular stood out for me - almost 5 times the recommened amount of Specialized and a lot of traces (Premium) weekly, but also very high CO2 levels and plant mass - which of course should be taken into consideration when dosing lean'ish.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> Is that "lean" dosing at that point? If so it's more NO3 than I dose......maybe I am lean too and don't even know it!!


Well, maybe you are...  with the exception of N and possibly P its still _somewhat lean_, but I get your point. We might need to tweak the terminology a little bit!


----------



## Happi

Dosing high doses of tropica is still no where near EI levels in term of ratio and the type of N being used. Comparing NO3 with NH4 is not the same and the results are not same either. If you were to add 3 N vs 6 N from tropica, the results will still be good due to the way it works. The doses should be based on plant mass while maintaining lean approach, if the plant mass is high, adding 6 N from tropica will still be considered Lean if the uptake of those plants were close to 1 ppm N daily. Tropica is not dosing 6 ppm N in single doses, if 1 ppm N is used daily and fully uptaken by plants, you are starting your next day from 0 again. 

I think people are looking at the total over all doses which ofcource wouldn't look lean but no one is considering that these are dosed frequently rather than once. The water still remain low in nutrients with tropica approach.


----------



## erwin123

GreggZ said:


> On the other hand I know dozens and dozens of people who constantly demonstrate success using other methods that are very repeatable.


As a hobbyist, simplicity, convenience and repeatable methods are really important to me.  

 I am very interested in these experiments where someone with no prior vested interest experiments with different methods and is willing to post regular photos updates so that we can see how the plants respond to the new dosing method.

My feeling, having moved from a richer dosing regime to a leaner regime (simply by adjusting the amount of magic water I add to my tank every day), is that many plants won't care and can adapt to either (as long as you gradually adjust and not simply double or halve your dosing overnight), but there will always be some plants that seem to prefer one over the other.


----------



## GreggZ

erwin123 said:


> As a hobbyist, simplicity, convenience and repeatable methods are really important to me.
> 
> I am very interested in these experiments where someone with no prior vested interest experiments with different methods and is willing to post regular photos updates so that we can see how the plants respond to the new dosing method.
> 
> My feeling, having moved from a richer dosing regime to a leaner regime (simply by adjusting the amount of magic water I add to my tank every day), is that many plants won't care and can adapt to either (as long as you gradually adjust and not simply double or halve your dosing overnight), but there will always be some plants that seem to prefer one over the other.


Agreed. There is a wide range that works and stability is more important than most realize. In general plants are pretty adaptable.  

And also agree that some plants prefer one over the other. I haven't seen one method that makes them all happy yet. 

Curious what was your richer vs your lower scheme??


----------



## erwin123

GreggZ said:


> Agreed. There is a wide range that works and stability is more important than most realize. In general plants are pretty adaptable.
> 
> And also agree that some plants prefer one over the other. I haven't seen one method that makes them all happy yet.
> 
> Curious what was your richer vs your lower scheme??


60cm tank, about 100 litres of water.

2.5ml/day APT EI  reduced to currently 0.9ml/day  (every week, reduced by 0.2ml.... so this was over 8 weeks). so its slightly below APT Complete levels.

So essentially, I've moved to what is basically the 2hr Aquarist method:
(i) (slightly lower than) APT Complete dosing level
(ii) enriched substrate (Osmocote clones - both types, NPK only, and NPK+trace)
(iii) Gh6, Kh3-4 water.

unfortunately, I run my tank quite a bit warmer at close to 26C due to the weather, and my tank gets morning sun maybe 1hr a day, so I do get GDA algae on the glass which I have to scrape off the glass weekly.

TDS meter /Nitrate tests [for whats it worth] suggest that the ammonia/nitrogen is not leaking out into the water column.


----------



## GreggZ

erwin123 said:


> 60cm tank, about 100 litres of water.
> 
> 2.5ml/day APT EI  reduced to currently 0.9ml/day  (every week, reduced by 0.2ml.... so this was over 8 weeks). so its slightly below APT Complete levels.
> 
> So essentially, I've moved to what is basically the 2hr Aquarist method:
> (i) (slightly lower than) APT Complete dosing level
> (ii) enriched substrate (Osmocote clones - both types, NPK only, and NPK+trace)
> (iii) Gh6, Kh3-4 water.
> 
> unfortunately, I run my tank quite a bit warmer at close to 26C due to the weather, so I do get GDA algae on the glass which I have to scrape off the glass weekly.
> 
> TDS meter /Nitrate tests [for whats it worth] suggest that the ammonia/nitrogen is not leaking out into the water column.


Thanks and that's interesting. Not surprising something close to APT Complete levels working well. It's a good mix for a wide variety of tanks, especially if you are enriching substrate as well. 

And APT EI is not really super rich either. At 14 ppm NO3 weekly it's kind of between rich and lean. More appropriate for densely planted tanks full of stems. Both provide about 15 ppm K which is key.

Curious have you noticed any big differences with the changes??


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Tropica - you know, the plant guys out of Denmark I believe - are pretty prolific growers of aquatic plants  ... I would think they would know a thing or two about how to make a fertilizer that actually works very well. Call me naive for thinking so


Sorry I have argue that. If you go down that road then it would probably be fair to think that most companies that produce fertlizer obviously know something or two about plants, yet they all have very different concoctions.


MichaelJ said:


> Anyways, @GreggZ, I am convinced @Happi and his cohorts are on to something, and have provided enough convincing evidence over time to make it intriguing enough


Well I'll be blunt. I don't see much evidence other than talking and talking and recipes all over the place. If you call that convincing evidence then fine. To me, convincing evidence would be pictures after picture of full tanks taken month after month. That's the only evidence I am willing to accept. Short of that it's just talking, which is fine as long as magnificent claims aren't made. Also keep in mind this lean thing is nowhere being new. It's been trailing the hobby for years and years and years. So either everyone is brainwashed with rich dosing either something else is wrong.


MichaelJ said:


> I can't speak for @Happi obviously, but I think he is trying to move the hobby forward and explore new ways to achieve great results, something we should cherish.


Well that's all good and dandy but let's see actual long term, beautiful results. I think each time a new fert formula or claim or ratio is made and is splashed out in forums it should be accompanied with a picture of a tank for several months see how that goes. That should be a requirement. No matter the regime.


MichaelJ said:


> Yes - this one in particular stood out for me - almost 5 times the recommened amount of Specialized and a lot of traces (Premium) weekly, but also very high CO2 levels and plant mass - which of course should be taken into consideration when dosing lean'ish.


Indeed nowhere near "lean". I used to dose my tank with a Tropica DIY formula since we don't have Tropica here. It is slightly different but not far off. Mostly more K.






MichaelJ said:


> Thats true, but a lot did, and thats also the point: lots of different approaches will work.


That's not what is being argued. The problem is replicability at larger scale and time and this seems to be avoided over and over again in discussions of lean dosing.
No one, including Tom Barr, Vin, Raj, Dennis and several others I talk to or who often post in forums or any actual botanist in the hobby claims plants need a ton of nutrients. The idea of rich dosing is not because plant need it, it's simply to fill up the possible fert gaps that exist between plant sp. That's it. Nothing more nothing less and is certainly is not because plant need humongous amount of ppm of K, NO3 or PO4. Lean dosing in high tech tanks is all good as long as you have good experience and a good understanding of most plants nutrient uptake. But even then, lean dosing is unpractical specially when you are keeping multiple plant species in a tank that can have a wide range of requirements. That's really the whole issue here. Not really if lean dosing is good or bad per say.



erwin123 said:


> 2.5ml/day APT EI reduced to currently 0.9ml/day (every week, reduced by 0.2ml.... so this was over 8 weeks). so its slightly below APT Complete levels.
> 
> So essentially, I've moved to what is basically the 2hr Aquarist method:
> (i) (slightly lower than) APT Complete dosing level
> (ii) enriched substrate (Osmocote clones - both types, NPK only, and NPK+trace)
> (iii) Gh6, Kh3-4 water.


Yes I did that last year unintentionally until I started noting deficiencies in my Myriophyllum tuberculatum. The tops turned white and some bucep started showing veining marks. Probably an Fe and trace deficiencies combination. I could be wrong but even actual botanists I asked couldn't tell me with precision the type of deficiency.
This was very progressive and it took a good 8 months to start showing up.


 



As much as the lean approach has it benefits/advantages environmentally speaking, it also has it drawbacks. The problem with lean is that it implies that one is growing plant species that have similar requirements. That's far from what happens in the hobby, specially in high tech tanks and I think that is where all this antagonism lean vs rich stems from. You can't expect to have/replicate "natural" conditions in a tank where nothing in that tank is natural by definition starting with 25+ sp plants that have no business being together in the same environment. Going lean in tanks like that is like walking on a cable connecting two mountains. Can  it be done? Sure but the probability of falling is high.

I don't mind being proven wrong but perhaps if many people with high tech tanks dosing lean (or dosing ferts with complicated ratios and whatnot at cut throat levels) care to post full tank pictures over a certain period of time, it would alleviate this overwhelming trend towards rich dosing. But that's the thing. I don't see many tanks like that. All I see is isolated pictures of plants and tests setups done in specific closed environments down the garage in obscure settings. That's not what aquascaping or growing plants is about. You want to have a nice tank that you can enjoy with the plants that you like growing well not some test tube where you can affirm that a theory works. So if lean dosing works for some that's fantastic but it would be beneficial to the hobby if those individuals posted actual pictures of their high tech tanks with all their fert regime and then perhaps we can all start having some constructive talks. Until then it's all a lot of talking to me and as the say goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> Sorry I have argue that. If you go down that road then it would probably be fair to think that most companies that produce fertlizer obviously know something or two about plants, yet they all have very different concoctions.
> 
> Well I'll be blunt. I don't see much evidence other than talking and talking and recipes all over the place. If you call that convincing evidence then fine. To me, convincing evidence would be pictures after picture of full tanks taken month after month. That's the only evidence I am willing to accept. Short of that it's just talking, which is fine as long as magnificent claims aren't made. Also keep in mind this lean thing is nowhere being new. It's been trailing the hobby for years and years and years. So either everyone is brainwashed with rich dosing either something else is wrong.
> 
> Well that's all good and dandy but let's see actual long term, beautiful results. I think each time a new fert formula or claim or ratio is made and is splashed out in forums it should be accompanied with a picture of a tank for several months see how that goes. That should be a requirement. No matter the regime.
> 
> Indeed nowhere near "lean". I used to dose my tank with a Tropica DIY formula since we don't have Tropica here. It is slightly different but not far off. Mostly more K.
> View attachment 185890
> 
> That's not what is being argued. The problem is replicability at larger scale and time and this seems to be avoided over and over again in discussions of lean dosing.
> No one, including Tom Barr, Vin, Raj, Dennis and several others I talk to or who often post in forums or any actual botanist in the hobby claims plants need a ton of nutrients. The idea of rich dosing is not because plant need it, it's simply to fill up the possible fert gaps that exist between plant sp. That's it. Nothing more nothing less and is certainly is not because plant need humongous amount of ppm of K, NO3 or PO4. Lean dosing in high tech tanks is all good as long as you have good experience and a good understanding of most plants nutrient uptake. But even then, lean dosing is unpractical specially when you are keeping multiple plant species in a tank that can have a wide range of requirements. That's really the whole issue here. Not really if lean dosing is good or bad per say.
> 
> 
> Yes I did that last year unintentionally until I started noting deficiencies in my Myriophyllum tuberculatum. The tops turned white and some bucep started showing veining marks. Probably an Fe and trace deficiencies combination. I could be wrong but even actual botanists I asked couldn't tell me with precision the type of deficiency.
> This was very progressive and it took a good 8 months to start showing up.
> View attachment 185891 View attachment 185892
> 
> As much as the lean approach has it benefits/advantages environmentally speaking, it also has it drawbacks. The problem with lean is that it implies that one is growing plant species that have similar requirements. That's far from what happens in the hobby, specially in high tech tanks and I think that is where all this antagonism lean vs rich stems from. You can't expect to have/replicate "natural" conditions in a tank where nothing in that tank is natural by definition starting with 25+ sp plants that have no business being together in the same environment. Going lean in tanks like that is like walking on a cable connecting two mountains. Can  it be done? Sure but the probability of falling is high.
> 
> I don't mind being proven wrong but perhaps if many people with high tech tanks dosing lean (or dosing ferts with complicated ratios and whatnot at cut throat levels) care to post full tank pictures over a certain period of time, it would alleviate this overwhelming trend towards rich dosing. But that's the thing. I don't see many tanks like that. All I see is isolated pictures of plants and tests setups done in specific closed environments down the garage in obscure settings. That's not what aquascaping or growing plants is about. You want to have a nice tank that you can enjoy with the plants that you like growing well not some test tube where you can affirm that a theory works. So if lean dosing works for some that's fantastic but it would be beneficial to the hobby if those individuals posted actual pictures of their high tech tanks with all their fert regime and then perhaps we can all start having some constructive talks. Until then it's all a lot of talking to me and as the say goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.


I would have been a bit more gentle but I agree with every  single thing you said. I've been through more than a decade of these arguments and yet to see any convincing evidence. Still waiting. That is the one constant. Seeing an example of where it works consistently over time would really help the argument. 

PO4 is the devil. K is the devil. Micros are the devil. NO3 is the devil.

Funny most of the best plant growers in the world didn't get the memo!


----------



## Happi

Hanuman said:


> "I don't see much evidence other than talking and talking and recipes all over the place. If you call that convincing evidence then fine. To me, convincing evidence would be pictures after picture of full tanks taken month after month. That's the only evidence I am willing to accept."
> 
> "Well that's all good and dandy but let's see actual long term, beautiful results. "
> 
> "The problem is replicability at larger scale and time and this seems to be avoided over and over again in discussions of lean dosing."
> 
> "But even then, lean dosing is unpractical specially when you are keeping multiple plant species in a tank that can have a wide range of requirements. That's really the whole issue here."
> 
> "But that's the thing. I don't see many tanks like that. All I see is isolated pictures of plants and tests setups done in specific closed environments down the garage in obscure settings."
> 
> "So if lean dosing works for some that's fantastic but it would be beneficial to the hobby if those individuals posted actual pictures of their high tech tanks with all their fert regime and then perhaps we can all start having some constructive talks. Until then it's all a lot of talking to me and as the say goes, a picture is worth a thousand words."



Well, here you have it:



			amano nature aquarium world - Google Search


----------



## GreggZ

Happi said:


> Dosing high doses of tropica is still no where near EI levels in term of ratio and the type of N being used.


So are you saying that dosing Tropica at 3x or 6x is still lean dosing? And nowhere near EI levels?  It sounds more like EI than lean to me. Funny it's the way most of the best tanks in the link above dose their tanks.

Alright I give up. You just can't argue with that logic.


----------



## Hanuman

Happi said:


> Well, here you have it:
> 
> 
> 
> amano nature aquarium world - Google Search


Again with the condescendence. Not the first time. A google search of nature aquarium world book with basically easy growing and restricted number of spp? A book from 1994. What type of answer is that and how that negates in any way what I said above. Tank concepts have changed pretty dramatically since the 90' and Amano's advent. You omitted the following in the quotes you selectively decided to use:


Hanuman said:


> The idea of rich dosing is not because plant need it, it's simply to fill up the possible fert gaps that exist between plant sp.





Hanuman said:


> But even then, lean dosing is unpractical specially when you are keeping multiple plant species in a tank that can have a wide range of requirements. That's really the whole issue here. Not really if lean dosing is good or bad per say.





Hanuman said:


> The problem with lean is that it implies that one is growing plant species that have similar requirements. That's far from what happens in the hobby, specially in high tech tanks and I think that is where all this antagonism lean vs rich stems from. You can't expect to have/replicate "natural" conditions in a tank where nothing in that tank is natural by definition starting with 25+ sp plants that have no business being together in the same environment.



What about your tanks? Please make a journal so we can all benefit from your formulas in a concrete way. That would probably be the best way to prove your formulas and ratios since you seem to understand the interactions between each nutrient. In fact I am even thinking of adding your formulas in the IFC calculator at some point so that it can be widespread and people can actually test your theories.


----------



## erwin123

GreggZ said:


> Thanks and that's interesting. Not surprising something close to APT Complete levels working well. It's a good mix for a wide variety of tanks, especially if you are enriching substrate as well.
> 
> And APT EI is not really super rich either. At 14 ppm NO3 weekly it's kind of between rich and lean. More appropriate for densely planted tanks full of stems. Both provide about 15 ppm K which is key.
> 
> Curious have you noticed any big differences with the changes??





> _Each 5ml per 100L dose adds 5ppm Potassium (K), 4.6ppm Nitrogen (NO3), 1.5ppm Phosphorus (PO4), 0.16ppm Iron (Fe), 0.4ppm Magnesium and additional amounts of Boron (B), Copper (Cu), Manganese (Mn), Molybdenum (Mo) and Zinc (Zn).   [APT EI contents - from  APT website]_


I'm dosing 0.9ml a day which is 6.3ml a week. So basically, I'm dosing 6.3ppm Potassium,  5.8ppm NO3,  1.9ppm PO4 weekly. As I'm not doing DIY, I don't have the flexibility of changing the ratio, but it makes things simpler - I just adjust the quantity until I find a level that seems to work and I'll just stop there. Whereas fiddling with the ratios - you have infinite possibilities so one could be forever adjusting ratios.... 

I'm also going to admit that I reduced the dosing solely for the benefit of one plant: A. Pedicatella. It appears to be looking better even though 6.3ppm K is higher than "Tropica levels."  Though of course those who are dosing Tropica levels may say that their Pedicatella looks better than mine!  Anyway, I take a photo every week for my reference and also upload it to my journal


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


erwin123 said:


> As a hobbyist, simplicity, convenience and repeatable methods are really important to me.


My guess is that that is where most people are. We have a number of members who have started high tech, but over time have begun to be disenchanted with the amount of work (and extra cost) it involves and have gone to low tech., we also have a number who's journey has been in the opposite direction. 

Personally I want to combine,

A small environmental footprint with 
relatively low maintenance and 
low expense, 
but without compromising on fish health. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Happi said:


> Regarding Urea vs NH4 vs NO3 at 1 ppm N, plant will always grow fastest in NH4 and Urea, you will observe that plant grown under 1 ppm N-NH4 will be 2-3x taller vs plant grown under same 1 ppm N-NO3.


In terms of "fixed nitrogen" (urea (CO(NH2)2), ammonia/ammonium (NH3/NH4+) and nitrate (NO3-)) I think we are in the <"buffet analogy">


> ........... I think this is right, this time the <"one legged Irishman"> is in the <"all you can eat buffet">, he has run out of ribs, but he is still tucking into the vol-au-vents and he has just alerted his friends that there is free food available........





John q said:


> That's the thing @dw1305 I'm overly confident I have healthy fish and know how to feed them, feeding the plants on the other hand is somewhat of a dark art, hence why I value the opinions of you guys.


Yes I understand that. Having talked to <"proper fish-keepers"> I realise just how good you are at fish husbandry. Personally I'm reasonably good with plants (but only "_difficult to kill_" ones), but I'm still not very good with fish and I don't see problems arising in a way a better fish-keeper would.

The idea behind the <"Duckweed Index"> was a simple one, plants are good for water quality, so cut through all the technical detail and just give a mechanism to keep plants in active growth.

cheers Darrel


----------



## plantnoobdude

GreggZ said:


> So are you saying that dosing Tropica at 3x or 6x is still lean dosing? And nowhere near EI levels?  It sounds more like EI than lean to me. Funny it's the way most of the best tanks in the link above dose their tanks.
> 
> Alright I give up. You just can't argue with that logic.


I will not try to put words in Happi's mouth but I think Happi is most concerned about the ratio. if you are dosing say 5ppmN weekly (20ppm No3) you get something like 1ppm po4 and 4ppm K.  this is completely different in terms of ratio to EI where you would have 4+ppm po4, 20-30ppm K.. at this point I think we need a better description for Happis dosing, the 'lean' title has brought up conflict a few times even in this thread.


----------



## Garuf

Could dosing more than the recommended dose of tropica be to account for hardwater limiting uptake? 

Or is this a ca/mg ratio thing?


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> I will not try to put words in Happi's mouth but I think Happi is most concerned about the ratio. if you are dosing say 5ppmN weekly (20ppm No3) you get something like 1ppm po4 and 4ppm K.  this is completely different in terms of ratio to EI where you would have 4+ppm po4, 20-30ppm K.. at this point I think we need a better description for Happis dosing, the 'lean' title has brought up conflict a few times even in this thread.


So are you saying that as long as you have the ratio "right" you can dose as much as you want and it's still lean? In the couple of examples above the best tanks I saw were dosing at 3x to 6x the recommended dose. I am just trying to wrap my head around what "lean" means?? Are we really talking about ratios and not lean dosing?


----------



## JacksonL

erwin123 said:


> 60cm tank, about 100 litres of water.
> 
> 2.5ml/day APT EI  reduced to currently 0.9ml/day  (every week, reduced by 0.2ml.... so this was over 8 weeks). so its slightly below APT Complete levels.
> 
> So essentially, I've moved to what is basically the 2hr Aquarist method:
> (i) (slightly lower than) APT Complete dosing level
> (ii) enriched substrate (Osmocote clones - both types, NPK only, and NPK+trace)
> (iii) Gh6, Kh3-4 water.
> 
> unfortunately, I run my tank quite a bit warmer at close to 26C due to the weather, and my tank gets morning sun maybe 1hr a day, so I do get GDA algae on the glass which I have to scrape off the glass weekly.
> 
> TDS meter /Nitrate tests [for whats it worth] suggest that the ammonia/nitrogen is not leaking out into the water column.


Interesting that we both, without meaning to have arrived at pretty much APT complete dosing levels


----------



## plantnoobdude

GreggZ said:


> So are you saying that as long as you have the ratio "right" you can dose as much as you want and it's still lean? In the couple of examples above the best tanks I saw were dosing at 3x to 6x the recommended dose. I am just trying to wrap my head around "lean" means?? Are we really talking about ratios and not lean dosing?


I think I described a couple different types of dosing that are less than EI. not sure if it was in this thread or another. I guess we could be talking more about ratios. would you consider your dosing rich lean or moderate? I would consider it moderate.


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> I think I described a couple different types of dosing that are less than EI. not sure if it was in this thread or another. I guess we could be talking more about ratios. would you consider your dosing rich lean or moderate? I would consider it moderate.


I would consider mine moderate but still based on the EI theory. People throw around the term EI like it's something that is written in stone. It's more of a concept than a directive on dosing amounts. Take APT EI. It's at 15ppm Potassium (K), 13.8ppm Nitrogen (NO3), 4.5ppm Phosphorus (PO4). Not at what most would consider to be true "EI" levels. Yet it is still based on the EI principles.


----------



## Zeus.

GreggZ said:


> People throw around the term EI like it's something that is written in stone


The 'E' is for 'Estimated' after all, 'Lean EI dosing' can still be ferts in abundance, so its still EI, just a lower dose to suit the tank


----------



## GreggZ

Zeus. said:


> The 'E' is for 'Estimated' after all, 'Lean EI dosing' can still be ferts in abundance, so its still EI, just a lower dose to suit the tank


Yes agreed. And very few if any tanks need what most consider true EI. More lightly planted tanks with lower light and easier plants can do well on a fraction of it.


----------



## John q

GreggZ said:


> People throw around the term EI like it's something that is written in stone


The same can be said for "lean" dosing. 

Problem is people fixate on numbers and labels. I dose my tank with 9ppm No3, 7 ppm K, 3ppm P04 and 0.3 ppm Fe. Is that lean, ei or something in-between? 

If my plants aren't wanting anything then it's technically ei, like zeus suggests above, I'm ESTIMATING what my plants require. To me I dose leaner than Ada tanks when we think of potassium, does this mean I'm ultra lean lol.

As a collective we need to move past the numbers and accept different strokes work for different folks.


----------



## GreggZ

John q said:


> The same can be said for "lean" dosing.
> 
> Problem is people fixate on numbers and labels. I dose my tank with 9ppm No3, 7 ppm K, 3ppm P04 and 0.3 ppm Fe. Is that lean, ei or something in-between?
> 
> If my plants aren't wanting anything then it's technically ei, like zeus suggests above, I'm ESTIMATING what my plants require. To me I dose leaner than Ada tanks when we think of potassium, does this mean I'm ultra lean lol.
> 
> As a collective we need to move past the numbers and accept different strokes work for different folks.


Nice post and agreed. And to further complicate things you need to look at these numbers in relation to the tank getting discussed. My dosing might almost seem lean in relation to my plant mass and all the weeds I keep. 

Yours looks like something in between to me. But then again if the tank were lightly planted with few stems it could be rich in relation to that tank.

And yes I have not seen a one size fits all dosing method yet.  IMO opinion it's better to have less focus on dosing and more on looking at the tank holistically.  Many times when people ask for dosing advice their problem is something else entirely. Beware of people who only focus on dosing. A planted tank is a lot more than that.


----------



## Zeus.

GreggZ said:


> IMO opinion it's better to have less focus on dosing and more on looking at the tank holistically.


IDD, plants will tell you what they need if you do your homework or just dose a little more, it doesn't need to be rocket science. Leaner dosing which is still in abundance as great as it saves the environment with a smaller carbon footprint and saves us cash, the former is for our grandchildren and the later for me


----------



## John q

GreggZ said:


> Yours looks like something in between to me. But then again if the tank were lightly planted with few stems it could be rich in relation to that tank


Mines a bit of an oddity, mass of plants with low lightning, and gravel.. ie no piggy bank, low K dosing.


Zeus. said:


> Leaner dosing which is still in abundance as great as it saves the environment.



And for me being a Lancashire lad (tighter than the Scots for our American friends) it saves me money 😀


----------



## Happi

Layout 105 - Pedro Rosa - Tropica Aquarium Plants
					

Inspiration and ideas for your planted aquarium.




					tropica.com
				




100 ml Tropica Plant Growth Specialized to your 300L aquarium adds:
Element    ppm/degree
N    4.46667
P    0.33333
Mg    1.30000
K    3.43333
S    3.03333
Fe    0.23000
Mn    0.13000
B    0.01333
Cu    0.02000
Mo    0.00667
Zn    0.00667
Cl    1.66667

most of the inspiration tanks are dosed by users themselves rather than what doses are recommended by Tropica themselves. again lets compare how this tank was dosed above, they targeted 4.46 N for weekly Dose, now lets take a look at Marchner Ratio adding the same amount of N, the K would be around 3 ppm, in case of Tropica it is 3.43 ppm K. same for Fe and Mn ratio which is close to 2:1 

now all you have to do is compare the ppm being dosed by Higher dosing such as EI and then compare it with these numbers and you will find a huge gap in most of these elements. some being overly excessive and some under dosed. furthermore, EI uses KNO3 while Tropica is using Urea/NH4. EI tank dosed at almost 20 ppm NO3 (4.46 N) vs 4.46 N as Urea/Nh4 where tank dosed with Urea/Nh4 will grow plant many times faster, the end result is very little buildup with Tropica because Po4 will be fully exhausted, K will be almost fully used due to the higher N ratio, Fe and Mn and other traces are either fully used or some get oxidized or get precipitated. Tropica is smart enough to use higher N and smart enough to provide it in a way that the plant utilize it at much faster rate, faster the N uptake, the faster the other nutrients will be up taken, they kept the P low to make sure it render 0 quickly due to fast uptake of N. overall, the end result is very little to no nutrients left in the water column.

also, Tropica themselves have said that overdosing their fertilizer will cause algae, the tanks we are seeing in those pictures and free of algae.

what people missed from the Marchner ratio experiment is that even at higher dosing plant didn't get stunt, instead they grew very fast, the major difference was it used different ratio and different source of N vs EI, where EI used KNO3 and different ratio. where EI adds many times more nutrients while the other two system are no where close those numbers. K being one of the good example here.

the 3 ppm N weekly recommendation is based on my personal experience, this was designed to ensure you are growing plants without adding too much or too little, while at the same time keeping it lean, reducing water changes. I have no problem even if someone was adding 4 or 6 ppm N weekly, long as they were dosing similar to Tropica. if you were using Tropica and using 6 ppm N weekly, you will see less problems and less stunting due to the way its designed to work in term of ratio and type of N it uses, if you were to dose 6 ppm N from NO3, you will start to see problems in some plants immediately. this is where reducing the overall NO3 is helpful, same is true for K, you can dose 5,10,20 it doesn't matter to me, but some plant will start to show problems at some point. like I said this problem is also reduced if high K was combined with Urea/NH4. for EI users they might highly benefit if they were to dose the EI in half and dosed at smaller doses daily. I can understand that some users are still going to use KNO3 instead of Urea/NH4, long as they keep the overall NO3 low, they should see less problems. 

far as starting my own journal, honestly I have no time for such experiment as life is too busy with family now. the tank still have that osmosote issue that I posted in another thread and I just left the tank alone to let it do its own thing. at some point maybe I will consider setting up the experiment again but during this time, there is no free time to do so. honestly, I don't think I need to repeat these experiment again because they have already been done before. many people here on this forum are already going to try this similar approach, some are already posting their results and sharing the outcomes, at this point we can observe their tanks. 

once again, I have grown plants in multiple different methods, dosing, fertilizers and ratios. I can grow them in 3 or even 8 ppm N, but I decided to settle at 3 ppm N as I found it to be more beneficial and my main source of N is Urea/NH4, not NO3. I also try to maintain the ratio similar to Tropica or Marchner as mentioned before. 

goal of this thread is to let the people explore different approaches and then they can decide for themselves weather they want to continue with the older approach or the new one. we have some members who actually went far as making their own fertilizer while some actually picked up a bottle of Tropica to test this approach, they will eventually report the results here on the forum. take a look at #142 for example

am still trying to understand why EI wants to take credit for lean dosing when someone might be using Tropica? maybe I should call EI dosing the Hoagland solution when reduced into 10x dose so credit goes to the people who came up with The Hoagland solution. *At the end of day I wonder which fertilizing method is not EI.*


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Well I'll be blunt. I don't see much evidence other than talking and talking and recipes all over the place. If you call that convincing evidence then fine.



Hi @Hanuman,   Well, come on now,  I never implied I was convinced by _the_ _talking_ and _the_ _recipes_... Just to give you an example of what I find compelling:





From Sudipta's intro post



Hanuman said:


> To me, convincing evidence would be pictures after picture of full tanks taken month after month. That's the only evidence I am willing to accept.



Yup same here! And that is why I have taken the open-minded approach and made the plunge to try it out myself to see if I can replicate the results to a satisfying extent in one of my tanks.  For me personally, that's the final arbiter - and not what the _nay-sayers_ and opponents, who demands all the hard evidence (without an inclination to try it out for themselves), is writing on an Internet forum.

If I can grow more challenging stem-plants in my tanks by making a few tweaks here and there and sort out the _wheat from the chaff_ in terms of what actually makes a difference then I have made progress and that is the only thing that matters to me.  I couldn't really care less what label we put on the approach, whether its new or old or whomever came up with the idea or how far behind its trailing... all that is just argumentative vanity in my opinion.



Hanuman said:


> That's not what is being argued. The problem is replicability at larger scale and time and this seems to be avoided over and over again in discussions of lean dosing.



Well, what _are_ we arguing then?  That is what I sometimes wonder...  In one breath we are asking for large scale evidence over time to prove the viability of_ lean dosing_ and in the second breath we are saying that lean dosing is not really that _lean_ and not much different from a somewhat watered-down EI regime with some tweaks to ratios etc... which in fact may actually be the case, by and large,  in many practical instances.

Anyway, I thought I had something more to say, but I think I will just let it rest here.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

MichaelJ said:


> If I can grow more challenging stem-plants in my tanks by making a few tweaks here and there


I think, big question mark here ? The difference between our tanks and sudipta's is plant mass plant selection and tank style.. sudipta's beautiful tank works because its shallow, has  decent trickle filter flow, low temperatures and a fantastic selection of plants. The dosing regime on this tank is secondary. 

The magic above comes from sudipta's knowledge.  I feel even with the "perfect" dosing strategy our "eclectic" tanks would fail. 

Don't forget I'm holding your hand in this rabbit hole mate. Currently seeing @Happi  as the mad hatter and @GreggZ  as the Cheshire cat. The king of hearts aka Clive awaits in the shadows 😄


----------



## MichaelJ

John q said:


> I think, big question mark here ? The difference between our tanks and sudipta's is plant mass plant selection and tank style.. sudipta's beautiful tank works because its shallow, has  decent trickle filter flow, low temperatures and a fantastic selection of plants. The dosing regime on this tank is secondary.



Hi John,  sure thing... I am sort of in tune with Sudipta's overall tank parameters. As of last night when I checked:  23 C/73.5F,  ~3.5 GH, almost absent KH,  6.2 pH. This 40 US Gallon (150 L) tank is pretty shallow'ish as well. L 36" x  H 16" x D 18".  Mature substrate and terrific flow throughout the tank. (NO-CO2). My TDS is still pretty high as I haven't fully "detoxed" the tank from my previous fertilizer regime  ... I am doing another large WC today.  I received a bunch of (mostly root-less  ) stem plants yesterday and they are currently floating around to assimilate.



John q said:


> Don't forget I'm holding your hand in this rabbit hole mate. Currently seeing @Happi  as the mad hatter and @GreggZ  as the Cheshire cat. The king of hearts aka Clive awaits in the shadows 😄


  ... Yes!  Well, I still have one totally traditional EI dosed (with a few tweaks) tank,  which is still running great btw.; zero-algae, excellent plant health etc.  very low light, excellent flow throughout,  rigorous maintenance and very, very stable water parameters! ...  So heck yeah, that works too!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

John q said:


> Don't forget I'm holding your hand in this rabbit hole mate. Currently seeing @Happi  as the mad hatter and @GreggZ  as the Cheshire cat. The king of hearts aka Clive awaits in the shadows 😄


LOL I love it!

Keep in mind these type of arguments have been going on for decades. There are always groups claiming you must do this, you must do that, you must not do this, you must not do that. I've heard and seen them all. 

For some reason there is a group of people that think there must be a "secret" that only a few know and therein lies the key to a successful tank. The funny thing is there are fantastic examples of tanks from all over the world that are very easy to find and they freely share how they manage their tanks. The best advice for anyone is to seek out folks who demonstrate success then study their methods. When you do you find that dosing is only a small part of what makes them successful. If you ask ten of the best plant growers in the world what they think of the Marschner ratio they would go "huh? What's that?".

But hey I've been waiting for someone to create a really great example of a tank following this method for many, many years. So I am rooting for those that are trying and am looking forward to seeing the results.


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> So I am rooting for those that are trying and am looking forward to seeing the results.


Thanks @GreggZ ! That's the spirit we should all try to promote!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

GreggZ said:


> For some reason there is a group of people that think there must be a "secret" that only a few know



Sshhh... Step forth the sand people 😀


----------



## Happi

we have talked about Marschner ratio but some people might not be aware that this ratio is based on plant tissue analysis, Tropica Specialized have an identical ratio to Marschner ratio and some people are claiming that Marschner ratio as an fertilizer and that it's a failure, while Tropica Specialized is a great aquatic plant fertilizer when both Marschner and Tropica have the identical ratio and Tropica Specialized is widely used by many plant grower around the world including some of the greatest Aquascapers such as George Farmer.


----------



## GreggZ

Happi said:


> we have talked about Marschner ratio but some people might not be aware that this ratio is based on plant tissue analysis, Tropica Specialized have an identical ratio to Marschner ratio and some people are claiming that Marschner ratio as an fertilizer and that it's a failure, while Tropica Specialized is a great aquatic plant fertilizer when both Marschner and Tropica have the identical ratio and Tropica Specialized is widely used by many plant grower around the world including some of the greatest Aquascapers such as George Farmer.


And there are also a large number of very knowledgeable people who say tissue analysis has little or nothing to do with the best dosing ratios. 

I like George Farmer. He's a very nice,  well accomplished guy. I admire what he has done in the hobby. But it would be no surprise that most of his tanks could get by with little to no nutrients. In general he's doesn't create many Dutch inspired plant centric stem intensive tanks. His tanks are usually good examples of where lean dosing would work, as in general they have few if any demanding plants. Like others who create similar displays, it seems to be more focused on the art than plant growing. And nothing wrong with that they are beautiful.


----------



## Zeus.

Happi said:


> Tropica themselves have said that overdosing their fertilizer will cause algae


Algae from ferts in abundance . @ceg4048 was dosing his tank 3 to 4 times EI dose and the only thing he notice was the plants looked even healthier/better.



Happi said:


> far as starting my own journal, honestly I have no time for such experiment



Doesn't take long and it is always good to see others scapes/plants


----------



## Zeus.

Happi said:


> Tropica Specialized is widely used by many plant grower around the world including some of the greatest Aquascapers such as George Farmer.


Who also get sponsored for using it and probably get it free to boot . 'ferts are ferts' and plants aren't fussy about brands.
 One advantage of Tropica fert range is we have the full breakdown of it so pretty easy to clone if happy to do DIY traces - just dont use KNO3 as only source of N (24% of N is the limit when cloning TSN for KNO3) otherwise the K levels will exceed a TSN dose


----------



## Happi

Zeus. said:


> Algae from ferts in abundance . @ceg4048 was dosing his tank 3 to 4 times EI dose and the only thing he notice was the plants looked even healthier/better.


have Clive post those pics for me and I will point out the algae and stunted growth on several plants, just like I and others have pointed it somewhere in this thread. Clive still haven't answered the question that some of us asked him last time regarding some of the plants and the algae on his plants. 



Zeus. said:


> Doesn't take long and it is always good to see others scapes/plants


its hard to do so when you have kids and new born to take care. few years ago, it was a completely different story. But I will try to find some time to setup this experiment again. hopefully by then members of this forum would already have enough evidence so I no longer have to repeat those experiments again. plus if you are dosing Tropica, then you are already doing my experiment.


----------



## MichaelJ

On the contents of NH4 and NO3 in Tropica Specialized:





Happi asked me to conduct this experiment independently.  This is just about a drop of Tropica Specialized in ~500 ml of RO+DI water. (I did a null test to make sure there was no reaction from just the pure RO water).

There might be variations on the amount of NO3 and NH4 among batches of Tropica Specialized . Some previous tests suggest batches without NO3.   As we all know, API's NO3 test kit is not the most reliable and often shows values  higher than is actually present (and who to say if this is ~8 ppm or ~18 ppm ?), so take the NO3 measurement with a grain of salt.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi

@MichaelJ​thanks for testing this, we were mainly testing to see if Tropica used NH4NO3 or Urea in your batch, it appear as they must have used NH4NO3 in your case. some member who tested this, they showed 0 NO3 and high amount of NH4, Tropica either used all NH4 from other source or all Urea in their cases. I hope other members test their Tropica and post the results here so we could rule this out further. API test kit is fine for this purpose, we are just trying to get some kind of reading here. *I think ADA also did something similar*

3 ppm N from Tropica Specialized would add the following if it was all NH4NO3:
6.127 ppm NO3
1.8 ppm NH4

6 ppm N from Tropica Specialized would add the following if it was all NH4NO3:
12.25 ppm NO3
3.6 ppm NH4


----------



## plantnoobdude

Zeus. said:


> Algae from ferts in abundance . @ceg4048 was dosing his tank 3 to 4 times EI dose and the only thing he notice was the plants looked even healthier/better.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't take long and it is always good to see others scapes/plants


even clive says using organic source of N or nh4no3 can cause algae, so I'm not sure what you mean here. tropica contain urea or nh4no3 (or both) so overdosing can definitely cause algae and I don't think even clive would disagree. 


Zeus. said:


> and plants aren't fussy about brands.


well, this one depends. some brands may use different sources of N, different ratio, different chelators so it does have some importance. 


Zeus. said:


> Doesn't take long and it is always good to see others scapes/plants


Agree with this one!


----------



## ElleDee

Could @Happi  or someone provide the full reference for these Marschner ratios? I have gathered these are taken from plant tissue analysis in the third edition of Marschner's Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, but can I get the chapter and page? I would like to understand the context they are presented in and don't want to go on a wild goose chase.


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @Hanuman, Well, come on now, I never implied I was convinced by _the_ _talking_ and _the_ _recipes_... Just to give you an example of what I find compelling:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Sudipta's intro post


Beautiful plants I agree, yet far from what we are talking here. Here, I am attaching the description of those pictures. That's a low tech tank. Why would anyone dose EI or similar levels of ferts in a low tech with no CO2 injection? Aren't we implying high tech when we are referring to "lean dosing" ? Just saying.


Sudipta said:


> I am also attaching pictures of all 4 of my current non-CO2 supplemented tanks with similar parameters (largest and the oldest one is 20 gal tank, running since June 16, 2019 and that's the one I primarily presented at TPT). Couple of the plants in the last tank shown here are still under trial and I am not sure if they will survive long term in this environment. I did eventually post the pictures of other tanks in the comment section but unfortunately can't access them anymore. I also provided more details about algae in the comments which is also lost (yes I do get algae in my tanks but I have found that it is relatively easy to tackle them in my non-CO2 systems compared to an imbalanced pressurized CO2 injected tank, so yes I do have a high-tech tank). Although I briefly mentioned about importance of lower temperature (low 70F, 70-74F in my non-CO2 injected tanks but it is certainly possible to get good results at elevated temperatures of 80F or even slightly higher.





MichaelJ said:


> Yup same here! And that is why I have taken the open-minded approach and made the plunge to try it out myself to see if I can replicate the results to a satisfying extent in one of my tanks. For me personally, that's the final arbiter - and not what the _nay-sayers_ and opponents, who demands all the hard evidence (without an inclination to try it out for themselves), is writing on an Internet forum.
> 
> If I can grow more challenging stem-plants in my tanks by making a few tweaks here and there and sort out the _wheat from the chaff_ in terms of what actually makes a difference then I have made progress and that is the only thing that matters to me. I couldn't really care less what label we put on the approach, whether its new or old or whomever came up with the idea or how far behind its trailing... all that is just argumentative vanity in my opinion.


That's great and I wish success in your testing. My comment were not aimed as an attack to you but to the wider audience.



MichaelJ said:


> Well, what _are_ we arguing then? That is what I sometimes wonder... In one breath we are asking for large scale evidence over time to prove the viability


That's it. That's all, specially with all those recipes being thrown around by a someone whose background is pretty much unknown to the public. He also commented (and then deleted it) in his last post that he didn't have time to make a journal.... I find that pretty insulting to anyone following his recipes. You shouldn't be giving people advise if you can't show what you are advising long term. There are literally thousands and thousands of tanks using the opposite regime, so why not with lean dosing on high tech with a diversity of plants in today's standards? Just asking questions.

*EDIT*: I realized I talked too fast. That part was not deleted. Yet it is always good to accompany ones word with action, else no much point. He claims he has carried out experiments but reality is I would like to see actual tank pictures through time. Not just some random zoomed picture of a plant. At the end of the day we are talking aquascaping here, not underground experimentation.


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> even clive says using organic source of N or nh4no3 can cause algae


True. Here is one of Clives / @ceg4048 exchanges (with @Happi actually)  on the topic of Ammoniacal sources of N vs. Algae.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Beautiful plants I agree, yet far from what we are talking here. Here, I am attaching the description of those pictures. That's a low tech tank. Why would anyone dose EI or similar levels of ferts in a low tech with no CO2 injection? Aren't we implying high tech when we are referring to "lean dosing" ? Just saying.


I never did CO2 / high tech so I never expressed that I thought of this in the context of high tech from my personal perspective... I just want to grow nice and more challenging stem plants   ... but isn't it remarkable what is actually possible without CO2?  Probably hard to achieve, but I am taking a shot at it.



Hanuman said:


> That's great and I wish success in your testing.


Thanks @Hanuman. I will definitely keep everyone posted on this whichever way it goes.  As soon as I get the plants in I will probably start a journal  - they are currently floating around on the surface... they are pretty scrawny and mostly came without roots  


Hanuman said:


> My comment were not aimed as an attack to you but to the wider audience.


Sure and I never took it personally, just offering my perspective.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> never did CO2 / high tech so I never expressed that I thought of this in the context of high tech from my personal perspective... I just want to grow nice and more challenging stem plants  ... but isn't it remarkable what is actually possible without CO2? Probably hard to achieve, but I am taking a shot at it.


Well if we are doing low-tech, it is pretty much obvious you need to go lean. Anyone with low tech does that.
A lot, in fact a majority of plants can be grown in low tech set ups, no problem. The form and coloration will simply be different, that's all. Some plants however can't. They require a minimum amount of CO2/light, but that's a minority I would say.


----------



## Happi

plantnoobdude said:


> even clive says using organic source of N or nh4no3 can cause algae, so I'm not sure what you mean here. tropica contain urea or nh4no3 (or both) so overdosing can definitely cause algae and I don't think even clive would disagree.



Might want to read this one as well:





						Worsening algae after starting EI dosing
					

I personally aim for 22 degree Celsius after my visit to Green Aqua, obviously if you have livestock that needs it higher or in middle of a heatwave then that's another story.   It ultimately depends on the goal. 22 is fine. 25 is fine. 30 is fine. 20 is fine.  But if the temp is set due to a...



					www.ukaps.org
				




Post #43 might be most interesting, I believe that is what Zeus was referring to earlier.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Anyone with low tech does that.


Not me  In one of my tanks I still dose quite a bit above what _sane_ people would consider necessary for a low-tech tank, and I must say its been working out  great for me. Currently 15 ppm of NO3, 4.6 ppm of PO4 and 20 ppm of K + targeting 1 ppm of Fe with EDTA and 0.25 ppm Fe with Fe Gluconate.  The tank is in great shape; excellent plant health (mostly easy non-stem plants though), and zero algae to speak of (which means I can't see any...).... Well, my other, now _lean tank_ that I have been slowly converting over the past few weeks is still without any sign of algae and the existing plants have coped with the conversion very well so far... now I am just waiting for those stem plants to get settled in and I will slowly start cranking up the light intensity... hopefully eventually reaching light levels normally associated with high-tech/CO2 tanks, like Sudipta have shown. Let's see how it goes for me!

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## erwin123

MichaelJ said:


> Not me  In one of my tanks I still dose quite a bit above what _sane_ people would consider necessary for a low-tech tank, and I must say its been working out  great for me. Currently 15 ppm of NO3, 4.6 ppm of PO4 and 20 ppm of K + targeting 1 ppm of Fe with EDTA and 0.25 ppm Fe with Fe Gluconate.  The tank is in great shape; excellent plant health (mostly easy non-stem plants though), and zero algae to speak of (which means I can't see any...).... Well, my other, now _lean tank_ that I have been slowly converting over the past few weeks is still without any sign of algae and the existing plants have coped with the conversion very well so far... now I am just waiting for those stem plants to get settled in and I will slowly start cranking up the light intensity... hopefully eventually reaching light levels normally associated with high-tech/CO2 tanks, like Sudipta have shown. Let's see how it goes for me!
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


I cant recall whether your low-tech tank has a lot of emersed growth, but the plants that are growing emersed in a "low tech tank" are likely the ones that are benefiting most from EI dosing. 

I'm growing emersed plants out of my HOB filter on my low tech, and I have to trim a lot more plant mass from the emersed growth compared to those that are submerged (and we are talking about only emersed plants that fit in the width of a HOB filter vs submerged plants in the entire tank).


----------



## Happi

ElleDee said:


> Could @Happi  or someone provide the full reference for these Marschner ratios? I have gathered these are taken from plant tissue analysis in the third edition of Marschner's Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, but can I get the chapter and page? I would like to understand the context they are presented in and don't want to go on a wild goose chase.


I will try to find the pdf version for you and send it to you. Remind me if you don't hear anything back from me in a day or two. Might as well send you some other pdf files as well.


----------



## MichaelJ

erwin123 said:


> I cant recall whether your low-tech tank has a lot of emersed growth, but the plants that are growing emersed in a "low tech tank" are likely the ones that are benefiting most from EI dosing.


I have a lot of floating plants yes... Frogbit, Pennyworth and duckweed) but mostly fully submerged plants - Various Anubias, lots of different Crypts, Buca, Swords and the like... I sort of lots track  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman

MichaelJ said:


> I have a lot of floating plants yes... Frogbit, Pennyworth and duckweed)


Those are sucking all the excess nutrient from the water column since they have unlimited CO2 access.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> Those are sucking all the excess nutrient from the water column since they have unlimited CO2 access.


Judging from the fistfuls of Frogbit I am weeding out every other week or so I would say you are right 

Here is a picture I took of one of my tanks a few months ago when skipping a week and some on maintenance due to travel - the whole surface was literally covered in Frogbit and duckweed:





Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

Happi said:


> Worsening algae after starting EI dosing
> 
> 
> I personally aim for 22 degree Celsius after my visit to Green Aqua, obviously if you have livestock that needs it higher or in middle of a heatwave then that's another story.   It ultimately depends on the goal. 22 is fine. 25 is fine. 30 is fine. 20 is fine.  But if the temp is set due to a...
> 
> 
> 
> www.ukaps.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #43 might be most interesting, I believe that is what Zeus was referring to earlier.


well then I must have been doing something wrong using 1ppm plus Fe weekly from EDTA and still having Iron deficiency using EI lol.


----------



## Zeus.

Happi said:


> have Clive post those pics for me and I will point out the algae and stunted growth on several plants,





MichaelJ said:


> True. Here is one of Clives / @ceg4048 exchanges (with @Happi actually)  on the topic of Ammoniacal sources of N vs. Algae.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael



Clive isn't always active , as his profession can have him AFK for periods at a time.
so I will repost his pics (hope that ok with you Clive (@ceg4048 ) 
Quote - Clives pics
100ppm NO3, 5ppm PO4, 120ppm K, 5ppm Fe dosed weekly for 4 years. Not one trace of algae. No damage whatsoever:














Unquote

Looks great to me


----------



## Hanuman

Zeus. said:


> Clive isn't always active , as his profession can have him AFK for periods at a time.
> so I will repost his pics (hope that ok with you Clive (@ceg4048 )
> Quote - Clives pics
> 100ppm NO3, 5ppm PO4, 120ppm K, 5ppm Fe dosed weekly for 4 years. Not one trace of algae. No damage whatsoever:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unquote
> 
> Looks great to me


I see some algae here:



and hole in leaf here, sign of deadly toxicity.



Unfortunately couldn't zoom any further.
@ceg4048 That's unacceptable.
[end of joke]


----------



## plantnoobdude

Zeus. said:


> Clive isn't always active , as his profession can have him AFK for periods at a time.
> so I will repost his pics (hope that ok with you Clive (@ceg4048 )
> Quote - Clives pics
> 100ppm NO3, 5ppm PO4, 120ppm K, 5ppm Fe dosed weekly for 4 years. Not one trace of algae. No damage whatsoever:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unquote
> 
> Looks great to me


these pictures do not deny the fact that over dosing tropica specialised can cause algae. he used no3 for these experiments.



stunted stem next to a clean stem, I have seen this quite a lot with EI.



wavy leaves and what looks like holes (could be livestock damage)



stunted glandulosa. 
you will notice plants growing well are easy to grow ones. limnophila hippuridoides and such. 
if these were more difficult plants, rotala. ammannia. they would be stunted even more, maybe even refusing to grow. this has been shown in other threads with clives pics himself. now say this is a co2 issue because of high temps like clive has claimed, why would you try to 'falsify' that high nutrients don't cause issues, with obvious issues in the photos? this makes no sense to me.
here are his rotala and ammannia


----------



## erwin123

Stunning tank using EI (albeit, APT EI). Check.

If you follow Dennis' instagram, he uses APT EI for his farm tank, and APT Complete for his aquascape tank.
Both tanks look great. Is it the fertilisation he uses? Or just his technique in optimising CO2/flow, and maintaining tank cleanliness?


----------



## Hanuman

erwin123 said:


> Is it the fertilisation he uses? Or just his technique in optimising CO2/flow, and maintaining tank cleanliness?


It's a combination of all those thing and time. If you know how he takes care of his plants you would understand. He is borderline OC with them when, cutting, trimming, planting them. He can roll small osmocote balls in the roots of each plant before planting them. Not sure everyone does that.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> I see some algae here:
> View attachment 185984
> and hole in leaf here, sign of deadly toxicity.
> View attachment 185985
> Unfortunately couldn't zoom any further.
> @ceg4048 That's unacceptable.
> [end of joke]



Looks like a classic CO2 flow/distribution issue to me


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


GreggZ said:


> Here is what Clive said right above the picture..._Here are the results an experiment where I deliberately restricted PO4. Then after a while, added PO4. Can you see the difference?_


Because PO4--- is highly mobile within the plant it can be shuffled to any tissue that is phosphorus (P) deficient, once it stops being Liebig's limiting nutrient. It can also be "stored" in the plant for a "rainy day". 

This is one reason why deficiencies of plant  mobile nutrients are difficult to diagnose. It is much easier with a non-mobile element (like iron (Fe)) because you always have the permanently damaged leaves as the "smoking gun" of earlier issues.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Simon Cole

Riverside Scaper said:


> Alright, some of those posts went way over my head but I’m still new so don’t expect understand some of the more in depth stuff.


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.

G. C. Gerlof-j and P. H. Krombhok were talking about exactly the same issues in their paper _Tissue analysis as a measure of nutrient availability for the growth of angiosperm aquatic plants_  in 1966.
Perhaps if a member want to run experiments and provide a simple paper then this forum would be a great place to post the results. This thread might not be very user-friendly because every possible scenario and aspect of science has been discussed, often simultaneously. Debates benefit from being structured, and if people don't agree at the end then perhaps give it some time and come back with new evidence.


----------



## MichaelJ

Simon Cole said:


> 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. 


Simon Cole said:


> G. C. Gerlof-j and P. H. Krombhok were talking about exactly the same issues in their paper _Tissue analysis as a measure of nutrient availability for the growth of angiosperm aquatic plants_  in 1966.
> Perhaps if a member want to run experiments and provide a simple paper then this forum would be a great place to post the results.


A couple of us are doing that actually.


Simon Cole said:


> This thread might not be very user-friendly because every possible scenario and aspect of science has been discussed, often simultaneously. Debates benefit from being structured, and if people don't agree at the end then perhaps give it some time and come back with new evidence.


You are terribly right about that - it's a complete hodgepodge of overlapping and orthogonal discussions.  I suggested early on that we set up a topic like "Alternative fertilizer methods"  where we could discuss this and people who were inclined to suspend disbelief a bit  could just nerd out on the topic instead of having the tedious X vs. Y discussion.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hufsa

JacksonL said:


> I am always keen for an experiment. I will continue with the urea dosing for now and in a few months see what happens when I withdraw it.


I am also willing to replace the Urea with KNO3 once things are stable, to see what happens.



Hanuman said:


> Sorry I have argue that. If you go down that road then it would probably be fair to think that most companies that produce fertlizer obviously know something or two about plants, yet they all have very different concoctions.


This isnt really fair. We cannot lump "some guy mixing up fert ratios in his garage business" into the same category as Tropica, who have physically produced a large percentage of the plants we have in our tanks. One of these has a bit more experience when it comes to propagating and growing plants, and therefore carries much more weight when it comes to their fertilizers and ratios.



Hanuman said:


> ...You shouldn't be giving people advise if you can't show what you are advising long term...
> 
> ..He claims he has carried out experiments but reality is I would like to see actual tank pictures through time. Not just some random zoomed picture of a plant.


I must point out the double standard here. 
Happi is not allowed to post individual pictures of plants but Clive is?
Happi is not allowed to post pictures from x years ago but Clive is?
Everyone should be held to the same standards, it cannot be different rules for different folks.



Zeus. said:


> Clive isn't always active , as his profession can have him AFK for periods at a time.


Happi is expected to keep a journal to back up his statements but Clive gets a pass again?
I believe Happi has stated that he has limited time to spend on the forum as he has young children. 
I dont think we have any right to demand people spend more time on the forum over their family. We can express our interest in such a journal, but nothing more.



Happi said:


> You forgot to post this one. I hope Clive doesn't mind me posting it. Something about this plant still isn't right, it appear to be covered with algae and the new growth is stunted.
> #43 Worsening algae after starting EI dosing


This was misleading, either intentionally or unintentionally. Pictures should not be taken out of context. Fair is fair and this wasnt.

Honestly what do you guys think will be accomplished by arguing about who cherrypicks their pictures the most? 
Do you think if you discuss it for 5 more pages that you will reach an agreement?

If more time was spent trying things and documenting it instead of bickering over the smallest stuff and taking jabs at each other this thread would be much more productive and I think also a few pages shorter.


----------



## Happi

It's ok @Hufsa let's move forward with our discussion about lean dosing and helping each others so we can focus on the main reasons why we are here. 

Dear members, I do apologize if somone has taken my words in a wrong way or interpreted it that way. That is not my attention.


----------



## macek.g

Hello
All right, guys. There will be a lot of photos from my history of Dutch tanks.
Over 30 years with a large number of plants, in recent years about 50-80 species in one 360l tank
I have dealt with rare plants for over 10 years, so they were often found in my tank.
When it comes to fertilization, I used various (Ada, Aqua Rabell, Easy Life, Seachem, Tropica, Vimi, Qualdrop, ATP, ELOS, EI, Masterline and even more)
And so I always went back to dry powders, why? Because for me the details in the plant, the details in the leaf are the most important

I believe that "Lean dosing" is perfectly sufficient with the most advanced Dutch tank, let alone with the "Nature" tank with a few rotales crosswise.
If someone has a problem with plants with NO3 less than 15ppm per week, they simply have a problem with plant ingestion at this point and cannot find the cause.
This could be an SO4-Mo-NO3 problem or other causes.
PO4 ..... 3ppm, 5ppm, 10ppm .... and so most of it precipitates and binds to "-, Al3 + Fe-, or Ca-phosphates."

... "Precipitation on the other hand is a process by which metal ions such as Al3 + and Fe3 + (these ions are dominant in acidic soils) and Ca2 + (dominant in calcareous soils) react with phosphate ions present in the soil solution to form minerals such as Al-, Fe-, or Ca-phosphates ... ".



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


----------



## Happi

Hufsa said:


> This was misleading, either intentionally or unintentionally. Pictures should not be taken out of context. Fair is fair and this wasnt


I honestly wasn't aware of this and do apologize if that was the case.


----------



## macek.g

more photos...


----------



## Happi

macek.g said:


> 5-12 ppm per week.


Can you please explain what happened if you went over these numbers? Say 12+ or higher.
Nice plants and coloration.


----------



## macek.g

My friend's tank
tank about 1000l, 15 months old
Fertilization began with the standard dose of Golden masterline
1 / 30ml per day x6 days
NO3-7.2 ppm per week
interestingly, it has been feeding only 50% of the fertilizer for 3-4 months


----------



## macek.g

Another friend's tank
 NO3-10 ppm 
P04- 0.2-0.5ppm 
K-12ppm


----------



## MichaelJ

macek.g said:


> Hello
> All right, guys. There will be a lot of photos from my history of Dutch tanks.
> Over 30 years with a large number of plants, in recent years about 50-80 species in one 360l tank
> I have dealt with rare plants for over 10 years, so they were often found in my tank.
> When it comes to fertilization, I used various (Ada, Aqua Rabell, Easy Life, Seachem, Tropica, Vimi, Qualdrop, ATP, ELOS, EI, Masterline and even more)
> And so I always went back to dry powders, why? Because for me the details in the plant, the details in the leaf are the most important
> 
> I believe that "Lean dosing" is perfectly sufficient with the most advanced Dutch tank, let alone with the "Nature" tank with a few rotales crosswise.
> If someone has a problem with plants with NO3 less than 15ppm per week, they simply have a problem with plant ingestion at this point and cannot find the cause.
> This could be an SO4-Mo-NO3 problem or other causes.
> PO4 ..... 3ppm, 5ppm, 10ppm .... and so most of it precipitates and binds to "-, Al3 + Fe-, or Ca-phosphates."
> 
> ... "Precipitation on the other hand is a process by which metal ions such as Al3 + and Fe3 + (these ions are dominant in acidic soils) and Ca2 + (dominant in calcareous soils) react with phosphate ions present in the soil solution to form minerals such as Al-, Fe-, or Ca-phosphates ... ".
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> I have been dosing different combinations, but the best results are NO3 in the range of 5-12 ppm per week.



Hello @macek.g,    Holy cr*p !!... thats a brutally awesome slew of plant pictures! 

What other tank parameters are we looking at here, in terms of GH/KH/pH/Temperature ?  I assume this is all high-tech?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## John q

If carlseberg did planted tank threads they'd probably look something like this..  👍 cudos to all that have contributed thus far 😀


----------



## macek.g

Happi said:


> Can you please explain what happened if you went over these numbers? Say 12+ or higher.
> Nice plants and coloration.


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

In his second "Nature" tank
my dosing started with ELOS 1-2ml per week, with old ADA bottles I switched to Special Light 2-3ppm NO3 per week


----------



## Happi

macek.g 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



Thank you for sharing this. Definitely enjoyed the pictures, they are stunning 😍


----------



## MichaelJ

macek.g 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
> 
> In his second "Nature" tank
> my dosing started with ELOS 1-2ml per week, with old ADA bottles I switched to Special Light 2-3ppm NO3 per week



Very interesting!  - and quite _lean_  I would say...  Just repeating my question in case it was overlooked: what about GH/KH/pH/Temperature/CO2 in these tanks?   (I am convinced all these things have to be factored in).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

macek.g said:


> When it comes to fertilization, I used various (Ada, Aqua Rabell, Easy Life, Seachem, Tropica, Vimi, Qualdrop, ATP, ELOS, EI, Masterline and even more)
> And so I always went back to dry powders, why? Because for me the details in the plant, the details in the leaf are the most important


Nice flex! What a wonderful grouping of pictures.

I see you have tried many fertilizers and dosing schemes. I am guessing that you were pretty successful with all/most of them??

And your friends tanks are stunning as well. One at NO3 10, PO4 at .5, and K at 12, so K higher than NO3. Then another using Masterline Golden with K slightly lower than NO3 but higher NO3: PO4 ratio.

I always find it interesting that there are so many beautiful tanks out there using so many different dosing schemes. To me shows if that get everything else right you can use many dosing schemes and be successful.

In the same spirit here are the tanks of some of my friends with richer dosing schemes. Not full EI, but with NO3 higher than 12 ppm and richer PO4. Again just goes to show there are many ways to skin a cat.


----------



## macek.g

MichaelJ said:


> Hello @macek.g,    Holy cr*p !!... thats a brutally awesome slew of plant pictures!
> 
> What other tank parameters are we looking at here, in terms of GH/KH/pH/Temperature ?  I assume this is all high-tech?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Mostly I used RO (I have quite a lot of NH4 in the tap)
so I used different mineralizers
Equalibrium, salty shrimp, vimi, qualdrop, according to your own needs
but of course I was mixing myself, taking into account the ballasts SO4, Cl, (CaMg (CO3) 2) or bicarbonates
temperature 23-24 ° C
GH -2-3 was sometimes 4-5
KH- 0-1
PAR 160 sometimes 150 or...


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> In the same spirit here the tanks of some of my friends with richer dosing schemes. Not full EI, but with NO3 higher than 12 ppm and richer PO4.


Beautiful tanks!


GreggZ said:


> Again just goes to show there are many ways to skin a cat.


For sure.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

macek.g said:


> Mostly I used RO (I have quite a lot of NH4 in the tap)
> so I used different mineralizers
> Equalibrium, salty shrimp, vimi, qualdrop, according to your own needs
> but of course I was mixing myself, taking into account the ballasts SO4, Cl, (CaMg (CO3) 2) or bicarbonates
> temperature 23-24 ° C
> GH -2-3 was sometimes 4-5
> KH- 0-1
> PAR 160 sometimes 150 or...


Perfect thanks a lot!  

What about pH and CO2 ?  

More anecdotal evidence in support of lean dosing goes hand in hand with soft to very soft water. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Gorillastomp

GreggZ said:


> I like George Farmer. He's a very nice, well accomplished guy. I admire what he has done in the hobby. But it would be no surprise that most of his tanks could get by with little to no nutrients.


I have listen to many videos by George Farmer and pretty sure he implied many times that he's using EI dosing style.


----------



## macek.g

GreggZ said:


> Nice flex! What a wonderful grouping of pictures.
> 
> I see you have tried many fertilizers and dosing schemes. I am guessing that you were pretty successful with all/most of them??
> 
> And your friends tanks are stunning as well. One at NO3 10, PO4 at .5, and K at 12, so K higher than NO3. Then another using Masterline Golden with K slightly lower than NO3 but higher NO3: PO4 ratio.
> 
> I always find it interesting that there are so many beautiful tanks out there using so many different dosing schemes. To me shows if that get everything else right you can use many dosing schemes and be successful.
> 
> In the same spirit here the tanks of some of my friends with richer dosing schemes. Not full EI, but with NO3 higher than 12 ppm and richer PO4. Again just goes to show there are many ways to skin a cat.


No, I always had some buts in ready-made fertilizers.
Of course I wanted (one bottle and peace of mind) but something always did not fit
But I guess mixing dry powders is what I like

I know these tanks the most, because I have visited many portals around the world
@ Handy8888 tank is beautiful
but @Pikes' rotala kill tank topic was very interesting to me.

Here is my old tank, then I experimentally went up to 8ppm Fe😂








						Colors of Nature
					

Hi, I would like to show you my FishTank :D  Volume: 360L Dimensions:120x60x50 OW Substrate: New Amazonia Light: 6x54w Filter: Eheim 2080,2076 Fertilizer: Macro KNO3,KH2PO4-Micro Aqua Rebell,mikro special CO2-bottle 5kg,Aquatic Nature Tornado,before Atomizer,AM1000 Plants:  Elatine Triandra...



					www.ukaps.org
				











						Wonderful Proserpinaca palusstris cuba
					

2watts per liter it is not thriving   Just seen that.... if this is a large tank this is an overkill, well depend on what kind of light you have. With HQI you can shoot with more, with T5 this is way too much. Not sure if this isn't a typo and the light is 2w/g only which isn't that much.



					www.ukaps.org


----------



## GreggZ

macek.g said:


> I know these tanks the most, because I have visited many portals around the world
> @ Handy8888 tank is beautiful
> but @Pikes' rotala kill tank topic was very interesting to me.


LOL it's a small world isn't it. Yes both friends of mine but Vin's tank is not one of the pics. He does have his Dutch back in pretty good shape right now. I've seen it but he hasn't posted it yet. A couple of the pics are of Burr740's (Joe H.) Dutch entries. Both dosed at somewhere around 18 NO3, 3-4 PO4, and 25 K at the time.

Hendy was dosing closer to EI but has been experimenting with a Masterline Clone for a bit and it is going well.

And I am pretty certain I recognize your friends tanks as well.

Do I know you? If not I think I should! I always like to pick the brains of those who demonstrate success......and from what I have seen I would put you squarely in that category.


----------



## macek.g

There were many beautiful tanks, e.g. Alan tank from Australia


I remember a tank, it was 13-15 years ago, from a Dutch forum, a person from Belgium.
Plants of excellent quality.


----------



## MichaelJ

HI @macek.g  additional questions:  How do you do your (weekly?) dosing of macros (N in particular) ? all upfront or throughout the week?  also, what traces do you use (and what Fe target) ?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

macek.g said:


> There were many beautiful tanks, e.g. Alan tank from Australia
> 
> 
> I remember a tank, it was 13-15 years ago, from a Dutch forum, a person from Belgium.
> Plants of excellent quality.



Nice.

LOL I could do this all day long. I love seeing beautiful tanks. These all have some things in common. They manage to do this without following Marschner ratio and none that I posted use Urea or NH4. Once again just saying there are many ways to manage very successful tanks.


----------



## Gorillastomp

macek.g said:


> There were many beautiful tanks, e.g. Alan tank from Australia
> 
> 
> I remember a tank, it was 13-15 years ago, from a Dutch forum, a person from Belgium.
> Plants of excellent quality.



how is this tank not spilling lol


----------



## aquanoobie

GreggZ said:


> They manage to do this without following Marschner ratio and none that I posted use Urea or NH4. Once again just saying there are many ways to manage very successful tanks.


Hi all
From your experience, is Tropica Specialized well designed fertilizer? i am asking because there are many successful tanks using it. You are aware Tropica Specialized fertilizer is based on the Marschner ratios right? And it also has NH4 as you know. 

In your experience, what would you recommend, what tank style should Tropica Specialized work well with?


----------



## Hanuman

@Hufsa. I am rather surprised by your comment. I will say this though, if there is something I really do not appreciate is my comments being distorted in such a way to achieve an objective.


Hanuman said:


> Sorry I have argue that. If you go down that road then it would probably be fair to think that most companies that produce fertlizer obviously know something or two about plants, yet they all have very different concoctions.





Hufsa said:


> This isnt really fair. We cannot lump "some guy mixing up fert ratios in his garage business" into the same category as Tropica, who have physically produced a large percentage of the plants we have in our tanks. One of these has a bit more experience when it comes to propagating and growing plants, and therefore carries much more weight when it comes to their fertilizers and ratios.


If for you other companies = people's garage then I guess I haven't much else to say. There are plenty of reputable companies producing fertilizers around the world all of which with different recipes and ratio. Tropica does absolutely not have the upper hand on anything and claiming such things is just preposterous. As for the second part of your comment, do note that Tropica mostly produces emmersed plants... and in case that is also not clear, Tropica is a business and the first objective is profit. Same like all others. No one is talking about home made ferts in garages.



Hanuman said:


> That's it. That's all, specially with all those recipes being thrown around by a someone whose background is pretty much unknown to the public. He also commented (and then deleted it) in his last post that he didn't have time to make a journal.... I find that pretty insulting to anyone following his recipes. You shouldn't be giving people advise if you can't show what you are advising long term. There are literally thousands and thousands of tanks using the opposite regime, so why not with lean dosing on high tech with a diversity of plants in today's standards? Just asking questions.
> 
> EDIT: I realized I talked too fast. That part was not deleted. Yet it is always good to accompany ones word with action, else no much point. He claims he has carried out experiments but reality is I would like to see actual tank pictures through time. Not just some random zoomed picture of a plant. At the end of the day we are talking aquascaping here, not underground experimentation.





Hufsa said:


> I must point out the double standard here.
> Happi is not allowed to post individual pictures of plants but Clive is?
> Happi is not allowed to post pictures from x years ago but Clive is?
> Everyone should be held to the same standards, it cannot be different rules for different folks.


Again, you are totally distorting my comment. Not sure why you would come to such conclusions. There is absolutely no double standard in what I said. No one is preventing anyone from posting individual pics or whatnot. If anything I am the one asking for evidence of all those ratio claims and what better than pictures and concrete evidence.
So let me put it this way: have you seen any journal or long term progressive pictures from the person providing fertilizers recipes and trace ratio's advises? I haven't other than a few random pics of specific plants with no context. If you look that person postings everything is mostly in the fert section.

Please read carefully what I said before turning my words to fit a narrative.


----------



## ElleDee

aquanoobie said:


> Hi all
> From your experience, is Tropica Specialized well designed fertilizer? i am asking because there are many successful tanks using it. You are aware Tropica Specialized fertilizer is based on the Marschner ratios right? And it also has NH4 as you know.
> 
> In your experience, what would you recommend, what tank style should Tropica Specialized work well with?


Do we know that Tropica was specifically using Marschner ratios? Is this something they have discussed in some capacity?


----------



## plantnoobdude

@macek.g nice to see you post on forum, hope you have a journal for the new tank


aquanoobie said:


> Hi all
> From your experience, is Tropica Specialized well designed fertilizer? i am asking because there are many successful tanks using it. You are aware Tropica Specialized fertilizer is based on the Marschner ratios right? And it also has NH4 as you know.
> 
> In your experience, what would you recommend, what tank style should Tropica Specialized work well with?


nice to see new people joining, as far as marschner goes, I don't think tropica is based off of marschner, the ratio is different. It is always nice to assign tanks to a username, could we see yours and what you're dosing. in "journals" if more relevant.


----------



## aquanoobie

Thank you ElleDee and plantnoobdude
i don't have much experience, simply trying to understand what and how things work. This is not one fit all i suppose and it can become little unclear. What i need to know is how good Tropica Specialized is because i can get it locally and maybe want to try it.

Here is the thing, to me Tropica Specialized has almost the same ratios as Marschner, so this is why i am hasitant to use it. Some say it is great and others say it's not so good.

This is how i see it

Marschner
N=15000:2000
NO3 : PO4 =66402:6132
Ratio of 10.8

Tropica Specialized (rotalabutterfly.com)
N=0.2251:0.0168
NO3 : PO4 =0.996:0.052
Ratio of 19.3

Marschner NO3 : PO4 =10.8 and Tropica NO3 : PO4 =19.3. Not exactly the same but closer than most fertilizers out there.

Now we go to NO3 to K
Marschner
N:K=15000:10000
NO3:K=66402:10000
Ratio of 6.6

Tropica Specialized (rotalabutterfly.com)
N:K=1340:1030
NO3:K=5932:1030
Ratio of 5.8
These two ratios are almost the same.

Most commercial and DIY fertilizers have so many ratios and dosing amounts it makes it no easy task to know what to start with.

Thank you all


----------



## Hanuman

aquanoobie said:


> Most commercial and DIY fertilizers have so many ratios and dosing amounts it makes it no easy task to know what to start with.


Reality is most aquarium centric fertilizers out there will work. Don't get caught in the this one is better than the other. If Tropica is what you have on hand or is the easiest to get your hands on, then go for it. All fertilizers Tropica included will claim theirs is the best and they all have their own ratios, Tropica included.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hello everyone,

I am looping in the admins in on this one (@LondonDragon @Tim Harrison). Now listen, this thread has now gone to +1030 posts mostly_ on topic _of actually discussing the application of lean dosing and the most active participants on this thread have mostly been here to educated and learn (primarily from Happi and other _lean'ers_) about this approach and possibly applying it to their own tanks and some are indeed actively doing so, including myself, and are not here to dispute or poke holes in the idea. For some reason this topic just stirs up so much controversy that it is hard to believe (must hit a nerve?) - even most of the opponents or nay-sayers think most fertilizers will work - why even bother then? Yes, fertilizer is just a (small) piece of the puzzle that makes a planted tank successful, but we rarely discuss anything else with this sort of passion... are we really that bored? 

Lean dosing might definitely not be for everyone. It's currently a somewhat questionable niche approach quite frankly, mainly because all the prerequisites and limitations are not very well understood by everyone, including myself.  It goes up against the stream and in some ways defies what in the hobby currently by most is considered the gold standard of fertilization.

Some of us are ready to dispense with a bit of disbelief to try out new ideas and approaches - that's mostly where progress are being made. We are all relatively smart people here, but some are probably too _entrenched_ to accept anything that on face value sounds a bit crazy, illogical etc. instead of exploring if the steps further down the road - or rabbit hole - may actually make sense.  I've been in a room full of engineers back in the early 2000's saying a touch screen and no physical keyboard was the dumbest idea ever... well, I don't think I need to take this line of reasoning much further..

I will just very politely suggest that unless we are in on this thread ready to play along, have an open-mind and are ready to dispense with a bit of disbelief and are actually interested in possibly trying out the lean approach, that we instead spend our energy on helping fellow hobbyists with Q&A's or something else. We have a ton of _sitting duck_ questions here on UKAPS that all of us can jump in on with our varying degree of expertise and help out. A more productive path in my opinion if we are not really in on this... Or alternatively set up a new thread to post counter arguments to lean dosing and just leave alone the Crazy Ones of us who want's to learn, experiment and focus on the specifics of lean dosing 

Some of us have actually considered taking this conversion _"somewhere else"_  (beyond PM'ing each other, which is already a loss for the community) and I hardly think anyone here is _really_ interested in that to happen.

Thank you for listening,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman

I agree with the above in general. I suppose you are referring to me and Gregg and perhaps some others when you are referring to "opponents or nay-sayers". I think you are missing the point entirely. In fact I'm not even agains't "lean dosing" per say. I am simply waiting for factual evidence in modern setups where this regime works long term, that's about it. Some evidence has been given by some members as of lately which is a good thing. I will speak for myself but I have been clear and expressed reasons for my doubts. Being critical doesn't mean being against something. Also no one is stopping anyone from doing their own little house experiment. This is just a forum not the school where teachers will give grades.


MichaelJ said:


> I will just very politely suggest that unless we are in on this thread ready to play along, have an open-mind and are ready to dispense with a bit of disbelief and are actually interested in possibly trying out the lean approach, that we instead spend our energy on helping fellow hobbyists with Q&A's or something else. We have a ton of _sitting duck_ questions here on UKAPS that all of us can jump in on with our varying degree of expertise and help out. A more productive path in my opinion if we are not really in on this... Or alternatively set up a new thread to post counter arguments to lean dosing and just leave alone the Crazy Ones of us who want's to experiments and focus on the specifics of lean dosing
> 
> Some of us have actually considered taking this conversion _"somewhere else"_ (beyond PM'ing each other, which is already a loss for the community) and I hardly think anyone here is _really_ interested in that to happen.


The title of this thread is rather clear "Lean dosing *pros and cons*". Looks to me we are at the heart of it and if some contradiction is not tolerated because it goes against the feelings of some then I guess this is going nowhere. Although I have been rough in some instances I always do so to "shake up the tree" while always remaining polite. Also, I do not distort other's words or ignore people questions and requests.

I am happy to stay away from this thread and come back in a few months times see the evolution of things.


----------



## Yugang

MichaelJ said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I am looping in the admins in on this one (@LondonDragon @Tim Harrison). Now listen, this thread has now gone to +1030 posts mostly_ on topic _of actually discussing the application of lean dosing and the most active participants on this thread have mostly been here to educated and learn (primarily from Happi and other _lean'ers_) about this approach and possibly applying it to their own tanks and some are indeed actively doing so, including myself, and are not here to dispute or poke holes in the idea. For some reason this topic just stirs up so much controversy that it is hard to believe (must hit a nerve?) - even most of the opponents or nay-sayers think most fertilizers will work - why even bother then? Yes, fertilizer is just a (small) piece of the puzzle that makes a planted tank successful, but we rarely discuss anything else with this sort of passion... are we really that bored?
> 
> Lean dosing might definitely not be for everyone. It's currently a somewhat questionable niche approach quite frankly, mainly because all the prerequisites and limitations are not very well understood by everyone, including myself.  It goes up against the stream and in some ways defies what in the hobby currently by most is considered the gold standard of fertilization.
> 
> Some of us are ready to dispense with a bit of disbelief to try out new ideas and approaches - that's mostly where progress are being made. We are all relatively smart people here, but some are probably too _entrenched_ to accept anything that on face value sounds a bit crazy, illogical etc. instead of exploring if the steps further down the road - or rabbit hole - may actually make sense.  I've been in a room full of engineers back in the early 2000's saying a touch screen and no physical keyboard was the dumbest idea ever... well, I don't think I need to take this line of reasoning much further..
> 
> I will just very politely suggest that unless we are in on this thread ready to play along, have an open-mind and are ready to dispense with a bit of disbelief and are actually interested in possibly trying out the lean approach, that we instead spend our energy on helping fellow hobbyists with Q&A's or something else. We have a ton of _sitting duck_ questions here on UKAPS that all of us can jump in on with our varying degree of expertise and help out. A more productive path in my opinion if we are not really in on this... Or alternatively set up a new thread to post counter arguments to lean dosing and just leave alone the Crazy Ones of us who want's to learn, experiment and focus on the specifics of lean dosing
> 
> Some of us have actually considered taking this conversion _"somewhere else"_  (beyond PM'ing each other, which is already a loss for the community) and I hardly think anyone here is _really_ interested in that to happen.
> 
> Thank you for listening,
> Michael



I am with you @MichaelJ . I brought something out of the box a couple of months ago. From the pushback on that, and absence of constructive support, I have learned my own lessons. I respect @Happi , yourself and others for your perseverance.

If I may share one observation about the thread on Lean Dosing, is that I believe it would be useful to have a good *design of the experiment*. Avoiding the risk of trying to boil the ocean  (including basically everything and excluding nothing), it may be practical to set up the experiment for one very narrowly defined case. Include just a couple of plants, not all. Decide on CO2, WC, light, etc. Benchmark just one lean mix, with one opposite not-lean dosing. When indeed for this particular case there is evidence, it can be independently verified. From this first success as a starting point the scope can be broadened and potentially a new dosing philosophy emerges.


----------



## erwin123

The problem with experiments is maybe one is trying too hard. If I had two high tech tanks I would happily run one with APT EI dosing and one with APT complete levels of dosing and just enjoy the result. Dennis Instagram shows he gets good results with both.


----------



## MichaelJ

Hanuman said:


> I agree with the above in general. I suppose you are referring to me and Gregg and perhaps some others when you are referring to "opponents or nay-sayers". I think you are missing the point entirely.


Hi @Hanuman,  thanks for your reply.  Quite frankly, what I am *really missing entirely *is being able to follow @Happi's (who actually have very limited time for this) and his cohords recommendations and reasoning without having  them constantly distracted by counter arguments that has zero benefit to us who wish to apply this method and learn more about the specifics... I am critical about this as well, but I have decided to play along and try it out following the recommendations as mentioned in previous posts.  PM'ing with each other on a public forum  is just completely counterproductive, but we have only been doing so because of the recent accumulation of _clutter_ here - I want to have this conversion _pedal-to-the-metal_ out in the open for everyone who is genuinely interested, to benefit and make their own assessment.



Hanuman said:


> In fact I'm not even agains't "lean dosing" per say. I am simply waiting for factual evidence in modern setups where this regime works long term, that's about it.


That is totally what I want as well - thats why I am trying it out. This is a long haul experiment - I don't except miracles in a couple of months. And when/if it works I want to see it work long term - month after month. If so, I will convert my second tank to the same regime.



Hanuman said:


> Some evidence has been given by some members as of lately which is a good thing.


Anecdotal yes, but I agree.



Hanuman said:


> The title of this thread is rather clear "Lean dosing *pros and cons*". Looks to me we are at the heart of it and if some contradiction is not tolerated because it goes against the feelings of some then I guess this is going nowhere.


Unfortunately yes. This is why I early on suggested the  admins to set up a Topic where this could be discussed in a fashion that didnt encourage those less than productive pro/con discussions.  Wouldn't it be terribly annoying if we who are not CO2-users would trample on the CO2 topics all the time telling everyone that CO2 is an unnecessary and expensive complication to the hobby, instead of actually helping people choose the correct regulator or fix their flow or whatever... I think so.



Hanuman said:


> Although I have been rough in some instances I always do so to "shake up the tree" while always remaining polite. Also, I do not distort other's words or ignore people questions and requests.


We all have our own style and temperament and that's fine and the way it should be in my opinion.



Hanuman said:


> I am happy to stay away from this thread and come back in a few months times see the evolution of things.


Yes, that would be my humble recommendation for now. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Simon Cole

MichaelJ said:


> we rarely discuss anything else with this sort of passion... are we really that bored?


There has been tremendous value in getting to the bottom of these answers, and that goes right back to the 1950s when people first began adapting Hoagland's solution for aquatic plants.
The passion is closer to stress because new hobbyists are struggling to control algae and it is often an expensive hobby.



Yugang said:


> it would be useful to have a good *design of the experiment*.


That is exactly where the discussion needs to go.
1.  Experimental design and prior agreement of validity. It's not going to happen unless people have two equal tanks, control certain variables and test others.
2.  Organise and condense any evidence. Quantitively would be better, as @JoshP12 suggested when he measured root length, which could be in a simple table or described in a paper.
3.  Comment on the results

4.  We can still have a massive debate on a specific thread, but I would close that debate after a set time period when evidence has been reviewed and enlightenment is reached.
By all means have a regular monthly debate if we need it, but contain each debate so that it ends and consensus is done via a survey to identify points of conjecture and guide further research.
At least new members could see evidence trails that they might support. A survey/poll can go a long way when a lot of people have reviewed some evidence and want to publish their support for an idea...
_...Does such and such experiment show us:  x, y and z nutrient lock out, was the carbon dioxide variable sufficiently controlled, did the plants slow down. _That kind of thing.


----------



## ElleDee

I generally agree with your thinking @Simon Cole, but any real experiment also needs replication, so we need, like, 6 tanks in each group, otherwise it's just more anecdote. That's obviously not practical, but I'm not kidding either. This is the real reason people have been fighting about this for years - we don't have any real research on the specific topics the hobby is most interested in. 

But honestly I don't even have a firm idea of what counts as "lean" and what doesn't. I understand the principle of the thing of course, but I mean in numerical terms. I suspect there are too many different nutrients and other factors (CO2, light, plant mass) and it gets tangled with talk of ratios that it difficult to pin down. But if you want to do a proper experiment you have to get that all in order as well.


----------



## Yugang

ElleDee said:


> I generally agree with your thinking @Simon Cole, but any real experiment also needs replication, so we need, like, 6 tanks in each group, otherwise it's just more anecdote. That's obviously not practical, but I'm not kidding either. This is the real reason people have been fighting about this for years - we don't have any real research on the specific topics the hobby is most interested in.
> 
> But honestly I don't even have a firm idea of what counts as "lean" and what doesn't. I understand the principle of the thing of course, but I mean in numerical terms. I suspect there are too many different nutrients and other factors (CO2, light, plant mass) and it gets tangled with talk of ratios that it difficult to pin down. But if you want to do a proper experiment you have to get that all in order as well.


Valid remarks, yet even an imperfect design of experiment is better than no design at all.

A good approximation would be an agreed start setup (smart choice of plants, CO2, and other parameters), at EI dosing or similar, that is than gradually transferred to lean. This would test the limits of each species, where some will thrive and perhaps some will start to struggle. Before doing the experiment, as also Simon says, review if the experiement design is considered smart and valid. It would be a pity to do an experiment, only to discover after a couple of months that there are good arguments that it were invalid or trivial. With a reviewed design of experiment it will likely be an intesting journey, no matter what the results.

(What worries me, as an example, is that the experiment is done on a low tech tank - whereas I believe some thought that the lean promise was more for CO2 injected tanks as an alternative to more traditional dosing for these.)


----------



## Simon Cole

ElleDee said:


> any real experiment also needs replication, so we need, like, 6 tanks in each group, otherwise it's just more anecdote.


Not in my opinion. What we want is replicability.
Take two tanks, grow plants three times and you would have two groups with three data sets and maybe 50 plants as the population size.
You could certainly use one tank with enough controlled variables (inert substrate, deionised water,  etc), but the problem would be using that to describe a more complex system. That is why two tanks is ideal.
With two tanks you can also test bivariate or multivariate analysis with two or more variable. It also gives a direct comparison over time.  This is useful because your substrate has the same age, ambient lighting conditions are equal etc., and you get the option of using tap water and regulating conditions that are temporally-bounded. For instance, you could vary the light and the carbon dioxide enrichment of both aquariums equally, meeting the flexibility of adaptive-EI but also producing statistically valid evidence.  
Reliable water testing is out the window, unless somebody has a proper laboratory. You would be looking at biometric data like @JoshP12 suggests. There are two classes of biometric data: algal growth and plant growth.
Water quality would need to be controlled with regular water changes.
Complex variables like filter maturity and substrates could be standardised to enable control.    
Sorry for the rant, but with one tank you can replicate and test one variable. With two you can test multiple variables simultaneously. Both would work. Can we be bothered...... ummmmmm



Yugang said:


> Before doing the experiment... review if the experiment design is considered smart and valid


My ideas above might be pants, and I lack motivation, but I'm grateful you appreciate what I am trying to say.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 
I honestly think we are back to <"re-arranging the deck-chairs"> on the Titanic.


ElleDee said:


> That's obviously not practical, but I'm not kidding either. This is the real reason people have been fighting about this for years


Replication is a real issue, you also have the <"multi-factorial nature of the variables that govern plant growth">.   It is why I've referred to <"shades of grey"> and <"Donald Rumsfeld"> a lot.

I would give the disclaimer that I've never kept a high tech tank or ,<"done aesthetics">, but from a <"luddite viewpoint"> I think these are the important factors:

*Plants*

Plants need all fourteen (or seventeen) <"essential nutrients"> for plant growth.  
Plant requirements for these macro and micro nutrients <"vary by several order of magnitude"> and may also <"vary by plant">.  
All plants can only take up <"nutrients as ions">.
For micro-nutrients the three levels are <"_none", "some" _and _"toxic_">. As long as we are in the "_some_" zone nothing else really matters.
*Fertilisers*

Manufacturers don't care about the <"Marschner ratio">, they want to produce a fertiliser that "works" using the most <"cost effective salts they can">.
If a fertiliser has been developed for <"liquid feeding or hyproponics"> in <"commercial horticulture">  it "works". If it didn't? No-one would buy it and those who did? Will have <"gone into liquidation">.  
cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12

This threads intense. These experiments are pet projects on our end. It’s too hard to control and perform excellent empiricism.

As hobbyists, I think it’s the wrong track to be honest.

I think we need to define our goals - which are dynamic and changing … like our tanks.

We get consumed by this glass box. It drives us mad. It’s chaos. But it is chaos, a dynamic equilibrium of interconnected variables, a spiders web intricately woven - a snowflake. Sorry feeling poetic with an early morning coffee.


i don’t want to create a newbie guide/progression guide for a nice path to take - but ultimately what the hobbyists needs is a set of tools/know how to maneuver the situations that arise. How to recorrect a tank after coming back from vacation. The way you do that is not the same as how to re correct a tank after dropping in biscuits and/or loads of fish food.

How to recorrect after you run out of co2.

Most people struggle to get it to the point where you are doing re correction.

It’s ironic - when you see the recorrections and see  all the ways you could approach a situation , you can see why all the methods work.

This threads crazy long now … and I haven’t read it all … but everyone is right whether we like it or not. For each argument, we need to trace back why the observation could have happened from first principles.

Plant need food, plant get food.

The leaf is more sensitive to changing parameters since it doesn’t have the same environment and structure as a root.

So use highest probability agreed upon targets based on the shoulders of giants from the past 100 years.

They made a mistake about ferts and algae because their co2 sucked. And we’re now making a mistake about light. Turning down your light simply makes the inefficiencies of your system unseen - the algae dont get to exploit the system because you maintenance before it gets the chance since you’ve choked the energy in the system. And plants are ugly relative to high light.

Tom Barr made EI for fun. He was curious. He wanted to test boundaries. To achieve plant forms we all love, it’s hard mode - plain and simple. And as @Simon Cole has stated - an anecdote on water changes. Increasing water change frequency increasing control - plain and simple. The more times you reset to control, the less change - the leaf sensitivity can adapt via genetics etc … to an extent because of N/P pathways under rich conditions … and I don’t want to bang on about this I already did 50 pages ago.


Terrestrial plants literature use soil ratios.

Do you see something? Aquarium hobbyist talk about water column dosing. Terrestrialist talk about root dosing. They both are facilitated with water but have a different interface: a root and a leaf.

And they are physiologically different.

We need to harness the learning of the past - and guess who beat us to the chase our friend Dennis Wong.

He toned down EI, kept the potassium from ADA, and uses osmocote while at the same time advocating for low KH and moderate GH? Basically he favours leaf sensitivity - picks the middle road - give K for root nutrition mobility … then blasts the root with super cheap soil doped with osmocote (terrestrial research shoulder) … no wonders half the world literally uses his line.

The die hard ADA are old - they’ve been using it since before Wong came into the picture. And they are sponsored or they have money and are pleased with the results so don’t care to change.

Now I’m rambling … oh ya … everyone is right … and I love UKAPS. ❤️

Josh


----------



## JacksonL

Hanuman said:


> I agree with the above in general. I suppose you are referring to me and Gregg and perhaps some others when you are referring to "opponents or nay-sayers". I think you are missing the point entirely. In fact I'm not even agains't "lean dosing" per say. I am simply waiting for factual evidence in modern setups where this regime works long term, that's about it.


The issue is, that you have been continuously asking for this in a thread where we are discussing doing just that and other experiments.
I think you had a point, but continuing with it is just dragging what is an interesting thread far off course. 
Changing from EI to a leaner dosing regime with urea resulted in a transformation of some of the plants in my tank. I posted before and after full tank shots. At this stage, considering it is the only thing I changed I can only conclude with the evidence in front of me that urea makes a difference.
Now that opinion may change in a few months time when I experiment with replacing the urea with equal amounts of NO3. Hopefully this thread hasn’t been locked up by then.


----------



## plantnoobdude

I shared these before, not sure if everyone have seen this but for the benefit of  those who haven't. while it's not a journal, tons of pics!
Happi-singh


----------



## ElleDee

@Simon Cole, you are giving me flashbacks to my master's defense here, but if you are doing things properly I don't believe you have multiple replications within the same tank because the tank itself is the experimental unit. It's is the smallest grouping that could be randomly assigned to a treatment, so to have replication you have to have more tanks, not sample more within the tank. Everything in one tank belongs to the same treatment, so it's all one unit. If you took multiple measurements of plants within the tank they could be treated as subsamples if the data were pooled, or if you compared different species it could be treated as a separate experiment. 

(I learned about this using apple trees as an example - you can't create reps by sampling more apples from the same two trees and comparing apples. The entire tree gets the same treatment, so you have to compare entire trees. Everything treatment you add requires multiple additional trees and that's why the apple program takes up so much space on the research farm.)

This is very off in the weeds of experimental design, but it comes up a lot in the plant sciences. I understand we aren't trying to publish a journal article here, but I just want to recognize some of what it takes to do even straightforward research.


----------



## Yugang

After 50 pages, I believe part of the confusion is clarification of expectations. Sometimes a posting is meant merely for information, not necessarily asking for agreement/endorsement of an idea that is work in progress. Anyone is free to choose and spend their time on other threads, or in front of their tank. Yet constructive contributions never come at the wrong time. Sometimes a posting is to help/educate others. Sometimes a posting is to excite and inspire others to mention a few.

I believe another part of the confusion is lack of focus and clarity of ‘scientific approach’, including design of experiment. The reality that there are many parameters at play, does not mean one should give up designing smart experiments to test hypothesis, nor does it necessarily mean that hypothesis would not have value. Agriculture has comparable complexity, and smart experiments driven by economic rationale brought understanding of lean dosing to that sector.

I am not yet sure if I believe in lean for high tech as a ‘mainstream solution’. Others have explained their reservations much better than I could articulate, and with deeper knowledge of aquatic plants. But I like following this thread, as I believe it is one of the few in UKAPS where it is about progress rather than an echo chamber of established ideas or sharing for educational purpose. It makes me feel humble, perhaps a bit embarrassed, that for big progress in our hobby we like to refer to some of the big names in the hobby, mostly decades ago. Wouldn’t we welcome some fresh air and progress for the hobby in this decennium?


----------



## John q

MichaelJ said:


> I will just very politely suggest that unless we are in on this thread ready to play along, have an open-mind and are ready to dispense with a bit of disbelief and are actually interested in possibly trying out the lean approach


Well said mate 👏

For me, I was incredibly sceptical at the start of this thread way back in November, but think I've shown I'm willing to try alternative approaches to see "if" it works. 

I don't have picturesque tanks with difficult plants for our members to gaze upon in awe. I also don't have a wife that would allow me to set up several test tanks, although I constantly try and push the boundaries 😅 

What I can offer is 2 tanks, with fish and lots of plants, and a simplistic approach of dosing certain fertiliser regimes and reporting my findings. 

I've no axe to grind, my knowledge is lacking, and I'm here to learn... that last sentence probably sums up 99% of the peeps that visit ukaps. 

With that in mind let's all play nice 🥴


----------



## GreggZ

Yugang said:


> I am not yet sure if I believe in lean for high tech as a ‘mainstream solution’. Others have explained their reservations much better than I could articulate, and with deeper knowledge of aquatic plants. But I like following this thread, as I believe it is one of the few in UKAPS where it is about progress rather than an echo chamber of established ideas or sharing for educational purpose. It makes me feel humble, perhaps a bit embarrassed, that for big progress in our hobby we like to refer to some of the big names in the hobby, mostly decades ago. Wouldn’t we welcome some fresh air and progress for the hobby in this decennium?


It's interesting for me to see comments like this above. I’ve heard several refer to this thread as something new and progressive in the hobby.

What most don’t know is this discussion has been going on for well over a decade. It’s been the same people proposing the same ideas on many different platforms with the exact same arguments. The method has never really caught on which I think is a source of frustration to those who advocate for it. I was surprised to see it here as I thought it faded away a long time ago.

And while some think the discussion here is contentious at times, trust me you have no idea at how heated these arguments were years ago. This is definitely the kinder and gentler version of what it was in years past.

Personally I don’t have a horse in this race. If someone can improve their game using the “marschener ratio” or “lean” dosing or whatever exactly it is we are discussing here I am for it. I’ve always said if you can show me an example of a really spectacular tank then I am interested in learning more about their methods.

The issue I have is with the numerous statements of “fact” that are clearly debatable. Similarly calling widely implemented dosing strategies like EI “myths” deserves some rebuttal. Showing one picture from a Tom Barr tank to dismiss a widely used method deserves some rebuttal. Cherry picking one picture from a member and posting it in a very misleading way deserves rebuttal. Claiming a member here is “falsifying” their results deserves some rebuttal. Calling very prominent people in the hobby “snake oil salesman” deserves some rebuttal. And I could go on and on.

I have no issues at all with someone testing a method like this. In fact I am all for it. But I do take issue with many of the statements made and I don’t see a problem with calling those out. It’s the nature of a discussion.

And it’s interesting there was a suggestion to bring the discussion to a private setting. This also fits in with the same pattern going back over a decade. If too many people disagreed with the very broad statements being presented as fact, they would sequester to a “private” chat. I personally know people who did just that. Pretty much every one would contact me later to tell me that they got banned from the group. Why? Not agreeing with the groupthink. In general when this discussion comes up it’s very intolerant of competing ideas. And it's too bad. Just because one idea works does not invalidate others. Heck some of the pics posted of various tanks from around the world in the last few pages is a testament to the diversity of methodologies that can be successful.

All that being said in the end I actually think this has been a good thread. People freely discussing ideas and presenting both sides of an argument. Maybe there have been a few instances where things got a bit out of line, but that has clearly been on both sides. In the scheme of things it’s been very tame compared to what took place years ago. If anyone has ever heard of the “Microtox Wars” then you know what I am talking about. You haven’t seen out of control unless you lived through that. I think some are still scarred!

For those trying this method I encourage you to keep up with it, and I will look forward to seeing your results.


----------



## John q

GreggZ said:


> And while some think the discussion here is contentious at times, trust me you have no idea at how heated these arguments were years ago


Haha veteran from the toxicity wars. Things go very circular. We live and learn..  we learn..


----------



## Simon Cole

ElleDee said:


> I don't believe you have multiple replications within the same tank because the tank itself is the experimental unit... so to have replication you have to have more tanks


Very good point.
Suppose we wanted to test the impact of carbon dioxide enrichment on 100 terrestrial pine trees. We would have one field planted with trees maintained in enriched conditions, and we would have another with ambient carbon dioxide levels. In an ideal world, we would have numerous fields replicating the study, but we have to rely upon other researchers to replicate the experiment. Sure if we had enough fields that could account for experimental failures (like the enrichment system failing to provide enough nutrients and for variation between fields), but is that really necessary. Is it reasonable and is it possible. Experimental research always suffers from this kind of criticism. If there is belief afterwards that the experiment did not account for an unknown variable then there is the option of Bayesian statistics afterwards, and if something was missed that it can be investigated in the future. Few experiments are designed perfectly. But it is often still possible to add a drop to the knowledge pool.

I would have scolded your assessors if they did not have legitimate belief for an unknown variable affecting your Master's project. That is why it is better to discuss experiments in advance and agree the terms of reference. If they told me that an experiment was not possible on just two fields, then I would turn around and ask them to prove it. Let them try refuting a conjecture with absence of evidence. If they could show me that the carbon dioxide enrichment system has a 50% chance of breaking, then I would agree that this risk was not factored. But if they had no data, then my evidence is valid and their conjecture is an imaginary bias.

So taking the example of an aquarium, if the two tanks had statistically significant results in plant growth after the experiment was repeated... and then it was found that the temperature on one was slightly higher. That would mean that the next experiment would have to show that that temperature difference was a valid variable. Both tanks would be planted and have identical conditions except for temperature... so on and so forth. To me, it doesn't matter whether you have one tank of a hundred, if you are testing two populations of cloned planted with defined variables and controlled conditions then you will be able to draw enough evidence for me to believe it.

Too many unknowns?
I have no idea. But in order for there to be too many unknowns, it must either be demonstrated scientifically or there must be belief.
I don't know whether I'm that bothered personally. In a practical sense there will always be too many unknowns. But at least we would know the value of different dosing strategies. And when I say value, it might be insignificant. I was going to study dung beetles at one point. That is relatively more insignificant, or is it, I don't know. But at least I would salute anyone for trying to resolve these issues.
We actually need certificates of scientific achievement. The UKAPS Nobel prize award.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


ElleDee said:


> ....... but if you are doing things properly I don't believe you have multiple replications within the same tank because the tank itself is the experimental unit. It's is the smallest grouping that could be randomly assigned to a treatment, so to have replication you have to have more tanks, not sample more within the tank.


That one for me. The question then becomes_ "how small in volume can the tanks be_?" Before that invalidates the DOE.


Simon Cole said:


> Experimental research always suffers from this kind of criticism. If there is belief afterwards that the experiment did not account for an unknown variable then there is the option of Bayesian statistics afterwards, and if something was missed that it can be investigated in the future. Few experiments are designed perfectly. But it is often still possible to add a drop to the knowledge pool.


That <"is also true">. I think the only  way you could really do this is by <"metadata analysis">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> And it’s interesting there was a suggestion to bring the discussion to a private setting. This also fits in with the same pattern going back over a decade. If too many people disagreed with the very broad statements being presented as fact, they would sequester to a “private” chat.



Hi @GreggZ  This was brought up by myself as well as a way to keep the discussion on track/topic.  I personally think of it this way; I have decided to run the experiment to test out the approach (theory if you will). I am already past the pros and cons consideration - I just want to grow more challenging stem plants under higher light in a low-CO2 environment. I have tried it before and failed. Happi and others have convinced me it is possible to get good results with careful attention to fertilizer and certain other water parameters - whatever it takes in terms of ratios, choice of compounds, water hardness, acidity, temperature etc.  I'm in on it! Thats all there is to it!  I don't know all the details or have all the knowledge that I may need along the way so I will have to obtain that mainly from Happi and his cohorts, but if they get bogged down by having to counter argue _this or that_ all the time or possibly get into trouble in heated arguments, loose interest in helping etc., I am not going to get that help from here. The alternative is then to take the discussion somewhere else...  and that would be unfortunate, and mostly because of the ones amongst us that are adding very little besides controversy.

As to the discussion of scientific approach -  well, thats just not going to happen in my case - this will all be anecdotal whichever way it goes... I only have two planted aquariums. The tank where I run the _lean experiment_  I am changing a ton of variables (water, light and dosing) at the same time,  adding a bunch of nice looking somewhat challenging stem-plants and now its _off to the races - fingers crossed   _

Anyway, I think I have pretty much outlined everything I wanted to say in post 1032.



GreggZ said:


> For those trying this method I encourage you to keep up with it, and I will look forward to seeing your results.


Thanks @GreggZ - I will certainly keep everyone posted - I will probably start a journal for that.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

Simon Cole said:


> So taking the example of an aquarium, if the two tanks had statistically significant results in plant growth after the experiment was repeated... and then it was found that the temperature on one was slightly higher. That would mean that the next experiment would have to show that that temperature difference was a valid variable. Both tanks would be planted and have identical conditions except for temperature... so on and so forth.


This is exactly why it's so difficult to pinpoint any absolute truths in this hobby. Someone performs an "experiment" then deems that "proof". The only thing it proved it was happened in that tank with those exact set of parameters.

I have personally done all kinds of experiments with my tank over the years. I've also documented the results. Does it have value? Maybe anecdotally.

Here's the thing. Even given all that I have observed over many years, half the time I could very well be drawing the wrong conclusions. This hobby is far from an exact science that is for sure!!


----------



## plantnoobdude

GreggZ said:


> This is exactly why it's so difficult to pinpoint any absolute truths in this hobby. Someone performs an "experiment" then deems that "proof". The only thing it proved it was happened in that tank with those exact set of parameters.


yep, this goes for most everything in the hobby. I'll link it back to what Vin coined conditional tolerance/intolerance. lets say I add 4ppm K weekly instead of the 1.3ppm K I am dosing now. and my ammannia stunts, can I say that ammannia stunts under high K? no. I can only say that under my tank conditions, increasing levels of K causes problems in ammannia. it is very hard to conclusively prove anything about plants in aquariums, because there are just too many variables.


----------



## ElleDee

Simon Cole said:


> Very good point.
> Suppose we wanted to test the impact of carbon dioxide enrichment on 100 terrestrial pine trees. We would have one field planted with trees maintained in enriched conditions, and we would have another with ambient carbon dioxide levels. In an ideal world, we would have numerous fields replicating the study, but we have to rely upon other researchers to replicate the experiment. Sure if we had enough fields that could account for experimental failures (like the enrichment system failing to provide enough nutrients and for variation between fields), but is that really necessary. Is it reasonable and is it possible. Experimental research always suffers from this kind of criticism. If there is belief afterwards that the experiment did not account for an unknown variable then there is the option of Bayesian statistics afterwards, and if something was missed that it can be investigated in the future. Few experiments are designed perfectly. But it is often still possible to add a drop to the knowledge pool.
> 
> I would have scolded your assessors if they did not have legitimate belief for an unknown variable affecting your Master's project. That is why it is better to discuss experiments in advance and agree the terms of reference. If they told me that an experiment was not possible on just two fields, then I would turn around and ask them to prove it. Let them try refuting a conjecture with absence of evidence. If they could show me that the carbon dioxide enrichment system has a 50% chance of breaking, then I would agree that this risk was not factored. But if they had no data, then my evidence is valid and their conjecture is an imaginary bias.
> 
> So taking the example of an aquarium, if the two tanks had statistically significant results in plant growth after the experiment was repeated... and then it was found that the temperature on one was slightly higher. That would mean that the next experiment would have to show that that temperature difference was a valid variable. Both tanks would be planted and have identical conditions except for temperature... so on and so forth. To me, it doesn't matter whether you have one tank of a hundred, if you are testing two populations of cloned planted with defined variables and controlled conditions then you will be able to draw enough evidence for me to believe it.



It is necessary, reasonable, and possible. It is standard practice for agricultural experiments! First, you can usually divide fields into individual plots that receive the treatments (randomly assigned to control for within-field variation) so the experimental unit is not the entire field and it is quite common to have the whole experiment run in several different fields and always, always over multiple years. If you're lucky you may have other research partners to help, but that's not always the case. It is an enormous pain to be sure, but it's done that way for a mathematical reason, not conjecture.

I don't know anything about how other types of research is done, but the design for these kinds of plant/field experiments is pretty well established and _not_ routinely criticized. Probably every student has a moment where they are like, "Ughhhh, why do I have to do this much work anyway????" but by the end of my program I had learned how the statistics work, and in many cases I was required to read the foundational papers on which the practices were based. The concept of pseudoreplication, which is what we were talking about with the tank being the experimental unit, goes back to this paper from 1986, but a lot of the ins and outs of experimental design were pioneered in the 1950s and 60s. Nobody is making extra work for no reason, and in fact a lot of effort has gone into figuring out the minimum amount of work needed to move the science forward. 

But to address the last bit, it is assumed that there is going to be variation within the experiment that you can't control for no matter what, be it temperature or what else. If you conduct the same experiment twice, even if you try to get it perfect, you are going to end up with results that are different. You hope that they are not that different, but you don't know how it's going to turn out until you do it, in part because you don't know the answer to the question you are research ahead of time. This is why replication and randomization is so important - they work to distribute all the little differences (aka experimental error) more or less evenly between treatment groups and without it you can end up with very, very wrong conclusions.



dw1305 said:


> That one for me. The question then becomes_ "how small in volume can the tanks be_?" Before that invalidates the DOE.
> 
> That <"is also true">. I think the only  way you could really do this is by <"metadata analysis">.


It's a good question that I don't really know the answer to. Well, the answer is that it can be as small as you want so long as the size of the tank is not itself influencing the growth of the plant so much that you wouldn't be able to generalize the results of the experiment, but I don't know what that is. You might be able to go pretty small, but obviously it'd have to be uniform and the tanks would have to be randomized in space (can't have all the tanks from one treatment grouped together). I definitely haven't thought through how best to control for error in this sort of experiment. 

As for metadata analysis, that's a weaksauce desperation move for when you can't do proper randomized, controlled experiments. That's sort of a joke, but one of the joys of a plant experiment is that we can work with literal clones that we have total control over. This is why we can get away with just 6 or so replications per treatment instead of the sometimes thousands of subjects needed for human research. It's quite a bargain if you look at it that way!


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> yep, this goes for most everything in the hobby. I'll link it back to what Vin coined conditional tolerance/intolerance. lets say I add 4ppm K weekly instead of the 1.3ppm K I am dosing now. and my ammannia stunts, can I say that ammannia stunts under high K? no. I can only say that under my tank conditions, increasing levels of K causes problems in ammannia. it is very hard to conclusively prove anything about plants in aquariums, because there are just too many variables.


Exactly. I was talking with Vin about this just the other day. Most would be surprised how humble many of the well known folks in the hobby are about their conclusions. Part of that may be over time they've seen it all and understand how easy it is to make false assumptions in this hobby. 

That's why it's difficult to let some of the broad proclamations of fact in this thread go unchecked. They are stated as facts, but they are in fact opinion. They claim to be backed up with science, but the experiments only reflect an isolated result observed in those specific parameters. Many times it has little correlation to actual results that hobbyists experience.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Sorry late to the party and don’t have time to read the entire thread. Just out of interest did anyone actually come up with a definition of lean dosing?


----------



## aquanoobie

Hi all
Macek.g presented tons of beatiful pictures and as a bonus he included info on dosing. Thank you macek! 

Let's see 

NO3 7.2 ppm per week or 1 ppm a day
NO3 10 ppm per week or 1.4 ppm a day
7 ppm NO3 from KNO3 and 5 NO3 from urea per week or 1 ppm and 0.7 ppm a day 

P04 0.2 - 0.5 ppm per week or 0.03 - 0.07 ppm a day 

K 12 ppm per week or 1.7 ppm a day
K 8 - 15 ppm per week or 1.1 ppm and 2.1 ppm a day 

Everybody agrees macek's and his friend's tanks are super beautiful. And he also disclosed the dosing strategy. Isn't this an opportunity to establish what lean means? Because if this is lean then we have nothing to argue about. It works wonders the proof is here. We don't need million dollar scientific research to prove it, just open your eyes. 

Macek also mentioned light at 120 PAR. 

This thread has now more than thousand posts but it wasn't necessary because the title is "Lean dosing pros and cons". It doesn't say "Lean versus rich dosing", it doesn't say "Rich dosing pros". I didn't want to criticize but at the same time I see people are noticing it too. 

Thank you all 

Post in thread 'Lean dosing pros and cons' Lean dosing pros and cons 

Post in thread 'Lean dosing pros and cons' Lean dosing pros and cons 

Post in thread 'Lean dosing pros and cons' Lean dosing pros and cons 

Post in thread 'Lean dosing pros and cons' Lean dosing pros and cons 

Post in thread 'Lean dosing pros and cons' Lean dosing pros and cons


----------



## MichaelJ

Tim Harrison said:


> Just out of interest did anyone actually come up with a definition of lean dosing?


_Wait!, what?_ 

But seriously Tim, I don't really think anyone completely carved it out in stone yet. I can only vaguely attempt to define it myself - but I think the prerequisites goes something like this:


Soft to very soft water (almost complete absence of KH and very low GH (2-4 GH).
Slightly acidic to acidic water (High 6 to down to high 5 pH)
Rich/mature substrate
Weekly low (lean) amounts of NPK with N primarily from NH4/Urea/NH4NO3 and with an eye for ratios (Marschner).
Low amount of traces,  but carefully crafted/picked in terms of choice of  elements and chelates.
Low'ish temperature

There might be more, but thats what I have picked up so far. 

And of course, regardless of our choice of water and dosing we still have to make sure we have stable water  parameters, adequate filtration and flow and keep our maintenance up to par - the lean regime might enable us to do WC's less frequent but of course also depends on factors such as stocking levels vs. plant mass etc.  Less than weekly WC's is _not_ my objective though.  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude

MichaelJ said:


> _Wait!, what?_
> 
> But seriously Tim, I don't really think anyone completely carved it out in stone yet. I can only vaguely attempt to define it myself - but I think the prerequisites goes something like this:
> 
> 
> Soft to very soft water (almost complete absence of KH and very low GH (2-4 GH).
> Slightly acidic to acidic water (High 6 to down to high 5 pH)
> Rich/mature substrate
> Weekly low (lean) amounts of NPK with N primarily from NH4/Urea/NH4NO3 and with an eye for ratios (Marschner).
> Low amount of traces,  but carefully crafted/picked in terms of choice of  elements and chelates.
> Low'ish temperature
> 
> There might be more, but thats what I have picked up so far.
> 
> And of course, regardless of our choice of water and dosing we still have to make sure we have stable water  parameters, adequate filtration and flow and keep our maintenance up to par - the lean regime might enable us to do WC's less frequent but of course also depends on factors such as stocking levels vs. plant mass etc.  Less than weekly WC's is _not_ my objective though.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


as for wc's I have gone two weeks since my last water change. the day after the water change, tds was 120. today, two weeks later the tds is 121ppm. I top off with ro to a set point every few days. (line on side of the tank). logically, I could go much longer without water changes, but i still want to change water atleast every two weeks for now, I will be swapping to 25% twice a month for now.


----------



## Zeus.

MichaelJ said:


> Rich/mature substrate
> Weekly low (lean) amounts of NPK with N primarily from NH4/Urea/NH4NO3



Sounds a bit like the  ADA system - substrate packed with nutrients and ferts at low levels 

I like the idea of the experiment, however in practice it would be hard/costly having controls and ideally you shouldn't now which tank was getting say EI level ferts , low level ferts and no ferts and would take some time. Would need multiple tanks at least three for each sample IMO ( We could still say its single blind as plants don't have eyes  )


----------



## MichaelJ

plantnoobdude said:


> as for wc's I have gone two weeks since my last water change. the day after the water change, tds was 120. today, two weeks later the tds is 121ppm. I top off with ro to a set point every few days. (line on side of the tank). logically, I could go much longer without water changes, but i still want to change water atleast every two weeks for now, I will be swapping to 25% twice a month for now.


HI @plantnoobdude  I will definitely monitor TDS - as I've done weekly for a long time now - If I eventually don't see much reason to keep up the weekly WC's I will try and put it off for another week or just do less weekly. Also as a side-note I have removed most of my floating plants in my _lean tank_ to avoid too much carnage from having them sucking up all the fertilizers (sorry Darrel/@dw1305 I had to do it lol) and to let more light in    ... I still have the stems floating but I hope to put them into the substrate tomorrow and post a picture. Half the tank is still a jungle and the other half was completely weeded out to give rooom for the more challenging stems. Its completely messed up, but I am not in it to win any prices or admiration from aquascapers 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

Zeus. said:


> Sounds a bit like the ADA system - substrate packed with nutrients and ferts at low levels


Hi @Zeus. I'll have to read up on the ADA system ... so my substrate is actually regular gravel, but it's very mature (+2 years old), so I would suggest it's packed with  lots of microbial activity and nutrients - which brings up the question of the sustainability when/if the substrate gets "depleted" - I'm not too worried though.  



Zeus. said:


> I like the idea of the experiment, however in practice it would be hard/costly having controls and ideally you shouldn't now which tank was getting say EI level ferts , low level ferts and no ferts and would take some time. Would need multiple tanks at least three for each sample IMO ( We could still say its single blind as plants don't have eyes )


Right on. Would be hard, very time consuming and very costly to run these experiments with all it takes to make it meet the rigorous protocol you would normally expect from a bonafide scientific experiment. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## GreggZ

plantnoobdude said:


> as for wc's I have gone two weeks since my last water change. the day after the water change, tds was 120. today, two weeks later the tds is 121ppm. I top off with ro to a set point every few days. (line on side of the tank). logically, I could go much longer without water changes, but i still want to change water atleast every two weeks for now, I will be swapping to 25% twice a month for now.


Not a judgement on water changes, but a TDS meter is a good gauge of nutrients in the system but not dissolved organics and waste.


----------



## JoshP12

Tim Harrison said:


> Sorry late to the party and don’t have time to read the entire thread. Just out of interest did anyone actually come up with a definition of lean dosing?


i love it.

The irony is the plant doesn’t care. It grows. 

Lean is a fallacy. So is rich. You can give millions of ppm but what’s in the plant under any given condition? 

It’s intuitive. 

We have 2 mediums for nutrition:
1) water column
2) substrate

Lean substrate = inert 

Rich substrate = high CEC with “natural” (poop) or “artificial” enrichment (root tabs) 

Medium substrate = inert with tabs 

Medium substrate is not so good. With low CEC things get messy. CEC = cation exchange capacity 

The root can choose what nutrients it takes. Put simply: Amazonia should fry anything in it with that ammonia … it doesn’t - clearly the root is a master chooser or has an anti-ammonia super power and anti-phosphorous or something lol.

So just go rich substrate it will help. And like that’s really rich. Super rich. Thousands of ppm rich. Put that in water and everything die.

Back to 1) —> water column 
Dosing often refers to N/P since and here I go again - the nutrient pathway at leaf interface for Nitrogen and Phosphate is unregulated in the same way that the rest are and N and P get forced into the leaf and have to be used. 

To define rich, we have to create a datum, a relative beast. 
So lean = no N and P 
Medium = some N and and P 
Rich = more N and P 

Needs numbers? Medium = PPS pro Rich = EI Lean = less

But get this, PPS pro is pretty darn rich — it forces plants to grow. And get this ADA high K drives growth via leidbig and forces the rich substrate to top up the nutrients … so ADA IS RICH!!!!! 

it’s all fake. It’s not real. There is no lean. There is no rich. 

Plant needs nutrient to grow. It will grow based on what you feed it and like Darrel always says like a car assembly and it will just grow. 

The concept of Rich vs Lean has to do with how much N and P you force feed (I cheated by saying ADA leveraged N and P demand via leidbig and potassium - because it does —- but through our definition of rich, it is lean since low N and P in column). 

The plant grows based on what it can get inside it. What you put in is not magical and it is not rich or lean - it is. And the plant acquires it and tops itself up from the root - and if it can adapt it will.

On the adaptation note - if you want to predict whether a plant will grow well under rich conditions, then compare it’s submerged form to its emersed form … notice Anubias looks the same (grows fine under EI and poor co2 implementation <—- see that … all plants can grow under EI with good co2 and good light and good gas …) … Pogostemon erectus looks kinda similar … grows fine under decent co2 and EI … Rotala looks completely different lol <— struggles under EI with poor substrate and co2 — in the same conditions Anubias will grow fine. 

This has to do with the ability for N and P to regulate metabolic rates and influence co2 demand - there is no way around it.

Yep … it’s intuitive. 

And after 1000 of these posts, I think a reader will have the intuition  … or rage quit and buy commercial fertilizer, lights, and soil and follow the instructions enjoying their hobby in peace 😂.


----------



## erwin123

JoshP12 said:


> Rotala looks completely different lol <— struggles under EI with poor substrate and co2 — in the same conditions Anubias will grow fine.


sweeping statements like "Rotala struggles under EI with poor substrate and Co2" may lead to unnecessary controversy.  Best to be more specific - for example, if you had problems growing Rotala  using EI, you can share your experience, but there are others who have no problem with EI  and inert substrate who may be willing to share how to do it.


----------



## MichaelJ

JoshP12 said:


> Yep … it’s intuitive.


Hi @JoshP12 I like your posts,  and they are interesting to try and decipher, but often I am never entirely sure what some of you posts means to be honest - No offense, your writing style is probably just too dense - dense; as in "too closely compacted in terms of substance"  for me to comprehend 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> but a TDS meter is a good gauge of nutrients in the system but not dissolved organics and waste.


HI @GreggZ,   Yep, not everything will show up as TDS for sure - We generally do not have the ability to measure TOC/BOD etc. you can make some inferences from ORP/Redux readings though. I own an ORP meter and  sort just use it for confirmation of what I already assume/know, about my water quality, but otherwise you just have to use your best guess based on bio-load and thats essentially why I am doing weekly WC's (occasionally going over) to get rid of organic waste and such, and not as much to get rid of any excess of the nutrients that I dose (I know what I dose anyway).  But In my lean tank I might push it a bit and do a little less percentage.  Of course,  going long in-between water changes is tricky and I do not recommend that,  but it can be done - see Walstad.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman

Hanuman said:


> I am happy to stay away from this thread and come back in a few months times see the evolution of things.





MichaelJ said:


> Yes, that would be my humble recommendation for now.


Actually, I have reconsidered. With all due respect I don't see why I should censor myself for the reading comfort of a few. I reckon I might have been a bit too pushy, but for what it is worth, I think for good reasons. I'll use velvet gloves next time not to offend the sensitive minds.



MichaelJ said:


> Yep, not everything will show up as TDS for sure - We generally do not have the ability to measure TOC/BOD etc. you can make some inferences from ORP/Redux readings. I own an ORP meter and sort just use it for confirmation of what I already assume about my water quality, but otherwise you just have to you best guess based on bio-load and thats essentially why I doing weekly WC's (occasionally going over) not really to get rid of any excess of the nutrients that I dose (I know what I dose anyway). Of course, going too long without water changes is tricky, but can be done - see Walstad.


Everything can be done depending on the power of the tank. Think of a bear hibernating consuming low amounts of calories vs a bear in hyperphagia that consumes up to 60.000 kcal per day. Waste generated will be dramatically different.
 There is really no need to have equipment to measure what's in your water specially when you are using RO. That's the whole point of richer dosing and changing large amounts of water in a high tech system. It is not only for removing organics it is also to reset nutrient levels and prevent accumulation through time. Some will change as much a 80% (or more) weekly or even bi-weekly. Raj comes to mind but I know a few others do that too. I am at around 60% weekly and I don't bother guessing about fish load or plant waste. Once every few months I will do a larger water change just for good measure. Only moment I measure TDS is when I change something dramatically in the tank, so that I can have a reference point, but other than that I find it pretty unnecessary.


----------



## bazz

I'm following this thread with great interest and would like to enquire if anyone thinks that this lean dosing method would be of any benefit to tanks largely containing Crypts, Buce and Swords etc...? It may have already been mentioned but it's so long now I cannot remember.
Thanks!


----------



## Tim Harrison

MichaelJ said:


> _Wait!, what?_
> 
> But seriously Tim, I don't really think anyone completely carved it out in stone yet. I can only vaguely attempt to define it myself - but I think the prerequisites goes something like this:
> 
> 
> Soft to very soft water (almost complete absence of KH and very low GH (2-4 GH).
> Slightly acidic to acidic water (High 6 to down to high 5 pH)
> Rich/mature substrate
> Weekly low (lean) amounts of NPK with N primarily from NH4/Urea/NH4NO3 and with an eye for ratios (Marschner).
> Low amount of traces,  but carefully crafted/picked in terms of choice of  elements and chelates.
> Low'ish temperature
> 
> There might be more, but thats what I have picked up so far.
> 
> And of course, regardless of our choice of water and dosing we still have to make sure we have stable water  parameters, adequate filtration and flow and keep our maintenance up to par - the lean regime might enable us to do WC's less frequent but of course also depends on factors such as stocking levels vs. plant mass etc.  Less than weekly WC's is _not_ my objective though.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


So no general consensus yet as to a firm definition?
Maybe any nutrient level lower than EI?


----------



## Hanuman

Tim Harrison said:


> So no general consensus yet as to a firm definition?


Absolutely none I would say so myself. I am not even sure what lean is anymore.


----------



## Hanuman

bazz said:


> I'm following this thread with great interest and would like to enquire if anyone thinks that this lean dosing method would be of any benefit to tanks largely containing Crypts, Buce and Swords etc...? It may have already been mentioned but it's so long now I cannot remember.
> Thanks!


That would depend if your tank is low tech or high tech (high light/CO2) and the amount of plants of each of those species . Generally I would be wary of "lean*" dosing tanks with mainly epiphyte in a high tech environment due to the fact that epiphyte being slow growers are prone to algae sticking to them much easier than on fast growing stems. Also do note that having grown over 15 different species of bucep, I can tell you that many have different growth rates. Some will be extremely slow. Crypt also depends which but generally speaking they can do fine in richer and leaner environments, how lean, I can't tell you. Swords are usually heavy root feeders so I guess as long as you provide a rich substrate a leaner water column fertilization would do.

* But the problem here is that we are back to square one. What is lean dosing for you?


----------



## Conort2

bazz said:


> I'm following this thread with great interest and would like to enquire if anyone thinks that this lean dosing method would be of any benefit to tanks largely containing Crypts, Buce and Swords etc...?


My crypts didn’t like it lean, i lost all my crypt flamingo when I went from rich to lean. I had an inert substrate too so was proper ‘lean’. They bounced back quick enough though when I upped my dosing.

As you’ve seen in this thread though there’s multiple ways to make things work and just because it didn’t work for me doesn’t mean it won’t work for you.

Cheers


----------



## Hanuman

Tim Harrison said:


> Maybe any nutrient level lower than EI?


Problem is that there is EI low and EI medium, so would lean mean sub EI low? All this is just semantics and leads nowhere.
My opinion of all this is that the term "lean" is just too broad. But beyond that the major problem I see is that it also depends on the plant setup you have in your tank and that's something I don't see really people talking about. It's like it is assumed that these low/lean recipes  would work no matter the plants. That is just not the case. 
So before having a definition of what lean is we need a scope, and that's far from being agreed upon.


Conort2 said:


> My crypts didn’t like it lean, i lost all my crypt flamingo when I went from rich to lean. I had an inert substrate too so was proper ‘lean’. They bounced back quick enough though when I upped my dosing.


Well under those circumstances and if you don't feed the substrate with osmocote/root tabs/fish waste, basically most plant won't do well eventually.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Would Eli be a good reference point  from which to define lean dosing since the nutrient levels involved are well known?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


ElleDee said:


> As for metadata analysis, that's a weaksauce desperation move for when you can't do proper randomized, controlled experiments. That's sort of a joke, but one of the joys of a plant experiment is that we can work with literal clones that we have total control over.


<"I agree">, the issue is just space, time and money.  Data mining, using probability, is never going to offer the same level of certainty as a properly designed experiment, but having spent some time with ecologists (and modelers) I've begun to understand <"that it is a valid approach">.


John q said:


> Haha veteran from the toxicity wars. Things go very circular. We live and learn.. we learn..


We have been having this conversation for a <"long time on UKAPS as well">. Personally I've rolled back from my position in 2009, you have to believe the weight of evidence and EI (rich dosing) obviously works,  although I still don't fully understand why.


GreggZ said:


> Not a judgement on water changes, but a TDS meter is a good gauge of nutrients in the system but not dissolved organics and waste.


I've advocated conductivity readings as well (to give you a datum range of readings in the <"Goldilocks zone">). It isn't the parameter you would want to measure, but conductivity is a linear scale and the meters are <"pretty much plug and play">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Yugang

Hanuman said:


> So before having a definition of what lean is we need a scope, and that's far from being agreed upon


This is key, that is why ...


Yugang said:


> Valid remarks, yet even an imperfect design of experiment is better than no design at all.



I fully agree to the arguments that a fully scientific design of experiment is not feasible for the hobby, unless one allocates multiple testtanks and lots of work. But for the context of a hobby, the most basic, and in my view essential element of DOE is at a minimum describe the parameters and the actions planned, review these to check if it makes sense and can be tweaked to optimize.  The journals that will be set up are not scientific logbooks, but at least some documentation and evidence that can be referenced. It's not hopeless, we don't need solid science while still making progress with some basic tools.

I may be totally wrong, it's been a long time since I kept a low tech tank -- My concern is that the 'lean' experiment on a low tech tank will not bring  much that we didn't know already. For high tech seems a very different hypothesis, and agree that at a minimum the parameters should be described for any meaningful discussion.



Hanuman said:


> Think of a bear hibernating


Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad having the thread hibernating for a while,  until there are some concrete plans/results to discuss 😊


----------



## Zeus.

Which dose are we counting and ignoring ! We should count them all IMO
Our choice of substrate affects the starting dose massively and is a one off that can last the life of the scape eg ADA AS then drip feed a low dose weekly/daily is this lean dosing ?  as ferts are in abundance for quite some time.
As long as the ferts are in abundance then IMO its not lean dosing. Adding root tabs is a mega dose but daily dosing is a relatively small dose.
If all nutrients are always in abundance then its EI dosing in my book. Trouble with this is do we count CO2 ! as at what [CO2] is CO2 non limiting
If ferts are close to level of not being in abundance or low for one or more nutrients then its lean dosing IMO Like when we limit one nutrient to get plants to be deficient for a specific colour change.


----------



## Tim Harrison

My concern is that without a general consensus on clearly defined parameters, in essence a definition, lean dosing is not easily repeatable in folks tanks, let alone in experiments. And can therefore lead to confusion, problems, disillusionment and  people leaving the hobby, especially those just starting out.

After all, to learn from best practice is the main reason many of us are here in the first place. Isn’t it?

Surely then it’s to the advantage of the proponents of lean dosing to come up with a firm definition? And surely anything less will more likely than not just muddy the waters?


----------



## erwin123

I'm following plantnoobdude's journal closely. Regarding the assertion that you need single/double blind, controls, and other experimental techniques... maybe if someone was defending a thesis  I don't need a controlled double-blind experiment to convince me. Just 'real' photos taken regularly

I'm appreciative of the fact that he has plants in a pot in inert substrate so we can see if there is any difference vs the plants that are in aquasoil.

I look forward to seeing regular updates and if he gets better results than what I'm getting with APT, maybe I'm off to buy a bottle of Tropica to see if I can replicate it! (as I still prefer all-in-one substitutes rather than DIY).


----------



## Tim Harrison

erwin123 said:


> I'm following plantnoobdude's journal closely. Regarding the assertion that you need single/double blind, controls, and other experimental techniques... maybe if someone was defending a thesis  I don't need a controlled double-blind experiment to convince me. Just 'real' photos taken regularly
> 
> I'm appreciative of the fact that he has plants in a pot in inert substrate so we can see if there is any difference vs the plants that are in aquasoil.
> 
> I look forward to seeing regular updates and if he gets better results than what I'm getting with APT, maybe I'm off to buy a bottle of Tropica to see if I can replicate it! (as I still prefer all-in-one substitutes rather than DIY).


That’s great, As someone who’s spent a great deal of time helping folk out I genuinely wish you every success. But we’re still no closer to a definition of lean dosing.

Unless it’s specifically growing plants in a pot in inert substrate. And dosing with a bottle of Tropica. That’s pretty vague though, wouldn’t you agree? Which is kind of the point I’m trying to make.

And, I don’t remember making reference to single/double blind controls, neither do I think it necessary. Which is just as well since I don’t think the above parameters would yield statistically significant data. So overall not particularly helpful.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Yugang said:


> I may be totally wrong, it's been a long time since I kept a low tech tank - My concern is that the 'lean' experiment on a low tech tank will not bring much that we didn't know already. For high tech seems a very different hypothesis, and agree that at a minimum the parameters should be described for any meaningful discussion.


No, I'm pretty sure you are right, you have a lot more <"wriggle room with a low tech.">, partially because things happen a lot more slowly. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Zeus.

Tim Harrison said:


> specifically growing plants in a pot in inert substrate. And dosing with a bottle of Tropica



My Pot Scape nearly fits the bill in its later stages when all the ADA AS was removed and dosing a TSN clone, the trace elements would of been deferent as I didn't do a DIY trace clone of TSN - Used APFUK/TNC Trace ( APFUK/TNC trace are the same % of elements), however I would class this as a very causal experiment aka 'messing about'


----------



## JoshP12

erwin123 said:


> sweeping statements like "Rotala struggles under EI with poor substrate and Co2" may lead to unnecessary controversy.  Best to be more specific - for example, if you had problems growing Rotala  using EI, you can share your experience, but there are others who have no problem with EI  and inert substrate who may be willing to share how to do it.


You pick one line? The line before I attest that you can grow anything under EI ... . I don't have issues growing any plany under EI. I can induce issues and fix them. 

Read any forum and you will see thousands of threads about rotala and EI. 

Anyways in conjunction with the post below, if I did that Erwin I'd write a novel and most certainly no one would read it. 


MichaelJ said:


> Hi @JoshP12 I like your posts,  and they are interesting to try and decipher, but often I am never entirely sure what some of you posts means to be honest - No offense, your writing style is probably just too dense - dense; as in "too closely compacted in terms of substance"  for me to comprehend
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


No offense taken mate.


----------



## John q

JoshP12 said:


> if I did that Erwin I'd write a novel and most certainly no one would read it.


I would... especially if the title was "Lean dosing, pro's and Cons" 😁


----------



## GreggZ

Tim Harrison said:


> That’s great, As someone who’s spent a great deal of time helping folk out I genuinely wish you every success. But we’re still no closer to a definition of lean dosing.


The problem is we are really discussing two different things at the same time.

I think the vast majority would agree that "lean" dosing means dosing less nutrients. So a reasonable person would say that if you are dosing 1/4 EI, then that is dosing "lean". Seems simple enough. Dose more = richer, dose less = leaner.

And it can easily be applied to the EI method. Here is a quote from Tom Barr.

_Start with normal EI dosing and then slowly and progressively reduce the dosing rate till you note a negative plant growth response.
Then simply bump back up to the last prior dosing level. This is the ideal dosing rate for your tank. This takes a few weeks of reduction to do it correctly and of course watching your plants and growth, but you will do this anyway._

And then there is the "Happi" method. High light, medium CO2, and "lean" dosing with very specific ratios (Marschener) and very specific ingredients (Urea, no CSM+B). My understanding is that with this method unless you are carefully following every aspect, then you are not "lean" dosing. So for instance if you are using KNO3, you are not lean dosing. If you are using the wrong ratio of K,  then you are not lean dosing. At least that is my understanding. I have to admit I get a bit confused when trying to follow it, so someone correct me if I am wrong.

Here's a link to a Happi post early in this thread which I think kind of summarizes it.









						Lean dosing pros and cons
					

The OP’s original questions:   My question is what is the benefits or limitations of switching to APT Zero or just lean dosing in general? Would my epiphytes suffer if I switched to lean dosing? Would I possibly swap one type of algae issue for another?   Initial response:   You can keep your...



					www.ukaps.org
				




So again I think this thread has devolved into two things. A general discussion of what most people would consider "lean" dosing, and then the definition of "lean" dosing as prescribed by Happi.

To further confuse things earlier in this thread he said that if you are dosing 3x to 6x the proper ratio then you are still "lean" dosing. 

Now excuse me I have to go lay down with a cold compress on my head for a few minutes.


----------



## Tim Harrison

GreggZ said:


> I think the vast majority would agree that "lean" dosing means dosing less nutrients. So a reasonable person would say that if you are dosing 1/4 EI, then that is dosing "lean". Seems simple enough. Dose more = richer, dose less = leaner.
> 
> And it can easily be applied to the EI method. Here is a quote from Tom Barr.
> 
> _Start with normal EI dosing and then slowly and progressively reduce the dosing rate till you note a negative plant growth response.
> Then simply bump back up to the last prior dosing level. This is the ideal dosing rate for your tank. This takes a few weeks of reduction to do it correctly and of course watching your plants and growth, but you will do this anyway._


That seems reasonable and perhaps the beginnings of a workable definition of lean dosing. And to be frank it's a method already used by many.


----------



## Yugang

It's Friday night in HK, enjoy a good wine, and after weekly 60% WC my tank is really happy. High tech, 23.4 ppm CO2, dosing 61.7 %  EI, but who cares? I used to do low tech three decades ago, no clue about ferts, but who cared, it worked.



Riverside Scaper said:


> This is the scape currently, plants are growing in slowly and things are generally headed in the right direction



Really beautiful tank, congratulations, would suggest to continue what you do, and do whatever works for you. We're an interesting bunch, 😝 Be patient, good advice takes careful reflection 😃


----------



## KirstyF

I love this thread and find it endlessly fascinating. Sure, folks get a little tense now and then but I think it has remained mostly good natured and a good contribution to the forum. 

I may be wrong (lean’ dosers, feel free to leap in) but I think the reason we don’t have a definition of ‘lean’ is because the nature of ‘lean’ is to have ‘enough’. Whatever that may mean, in whatever tank you run.

Full EI is an actual number and folks will still use Full EI, half EI and variations between but the ethos is ‘ferts to excess’. Easy!! 

Lean, as proposed here, is variable, it is not a single fixed quantity of X. It may alter depending on plants, tank, substrate, desired outcome etc, and involves some maintenance of ratios (No shouting please!!) as well as potentially tweaking depending on results. (Please correct me if I’m wrong) 

This is potentially the very reason why EI folks talk about repeatability being an issue. The more complex, the more difficult to replicate. There is no one thing that I see that can be defined as ‘lean’. 

This does not however, IMO, detract from it as a viable method. Happi is directly supporting and offering advice to the folks here that are experimenting with these concepts and again, IMO, wins a whole bunch of brownie points for that effort. It certainly hasn’t been a ‘dump and run’.

Those folks testing things out are, in certain cases, doing so with some healthy skepticism, and allowing their personal results to direct them.

We, as onlookers, get the pleasure of watching their progress and results and making up our own minds on how we feel about the whole thing. 

As regards evidence…in reality, the only useful evidence is that which resonates with us. For some that’s scientific journals, for some it’s pictures, for some it’s having someone you know achieve something or achieving it yourself….and guess what…we’ve got all of that going on in this thread!! 

So let’s call it Happi dosing! He’s put enough examples up on the thread and seems happy to provide suggestions to anyone interested in trying it! It’ll work for you, or it won’t! 

And let’s remember that we are all right …but actually we are all wrong. 
Any person stating a ‘fact’ regardless of the quantity of supporting evidence, scientific or otherwise, is wrong. 

The closest to right is ‘the evidence that I have personally gathered up to this point in time, supports my conclusion that…..!’…..and you’ll still be wrong.

Why? Because there’s not really any such thing as a fact, only your version of your truth. 

The person next to you will have different evidence and the person reading this thread 50years from now (I suspect it could still be going the) will laugh at our naivety….after all, they will know there are at least 15 essential nutrients, right!!😂


----------



## aquanoobie

GreggZ said:


> And then there is the "Happi" method. High light, medium CO2, and "lean" dosing with very specific ratios (Marschener) and very specific ingredients (Urea, no CSM+B). My understanding is that with this method unless you are carefully following every aspect, then you are not "lean" dosing. So for instance if you are using KNO3, you are not lean dosing. If you are using the wrong ratio of K, then you are not lean dosing. At least that is my understanding. I have to admit I get a bit confused when trying to follow it, so someone correct me if I am wrong.


Hi 
This is getting more and more confusing. Have a "simple" question, isn't this lean dosing? 

NO3 7 - 12 ppm per week
P04 0.2 - 0.5 ppm per week
K 8 - 15 ppm per week 

Also, does it matter where N comes from to be lean? Either from substrate, ure or KNO3. 

Thank you


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


KirstyF said:


> I may be wrong (lean’ dosers, feel free to leap in) but I think the reason we don’t have a definition of ‘lean’ is because the nature of ‘lean’ is to have ‘enough’. Whatever that may mean, in whatever tank you run.


That was the original rationale behind the <"Duckweed Index">, just <"add "enough"> when the plants begin to signs of distress. All the time the plants are healthy (and in some form of growth), just carry on with water changes etc., but <"don't add any fertiliser">.

I used this approach because originally my interest in "planted tanks" was in the <"phytoremediation of waste water">, where nutrients were usually present in abundance.

I've changed my approach a little over time. Now I use a <"hybrid Duckweed index">, purely because if you have an iron (Fe) deficiency you can't use the <"visual aspect of the Duckweed Index"> and it takes a while for <"new, healthy, leaves to grow"> when iron stops being <"Liebig's limiting nutrient">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## aquanoobie

Zeus. said:


> If all nutrients are always in abundance then its EI dosing in my book.


Hi
How can it be? Abundance can mean anything. For those who need fast growth for sale has abundance different meaning than for others who don't want fast growth in order to preserve scape. Both groups have abundance of nutrients but still very diferent levels. Or am I wrong.

Thank you all


----------



## plantnoobdude

aquanoobie said:


> Hi
> How can it be? Abundance can mean anything. For those who need fast growth for sale has abundance different meaning than for others who don't want fast growth in order to preserve scape. Both groups have abundance of nutrients but still very diferent levels. Or am I wrong.
> 
> Thank you all


I agree, if you had less nutrients then plants need, plants simply would not grow. in that sense any amount of nutrients could be considered an abundance no?


----------



## ElleDee

Of course @Happi should get to name his own technique. I definitely support giving it more specific terminology so everyone is in the same page. And then he can be the final authority on what it is and isn't, and can make changes if he wants.


----------



## KirstyF

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> That was the original rationale behind the <"Duckweed Index">, just <"add "enough"> when the plants begin to signs of distress. All the time the plants are healthy (and in some form of growth), just carry on with water changes etc., but don't add any fertiliser.
> 
> I used this approach because originally my interest in "planted tanks" was in the <"phytoremediation of waste water">, where nutrients were usually present in abundance.
> 
> I've changed my approach a little over time. Now I use a <"hybrid Duckweed index">, purely because if you have an iron (Fe) deficiency you can't use the <"visual aspect of the Duckweed Index"> and it takes a while for <"new, healthy, leaves to grow"> when iron stops being <"Liebig's limiting nutrient">.
> 
> cheers Darrel


Which, in effect, is a version of ‘lean dosing made easy’ 👍

I wonder if, in a tank with high light, Co2 and ‘difficult’ stems, whether there would be any degree of separation between the point at which such plants perform well and the point at which the ‘canary floater’ starts to suffer. i.e do these/would these plants have a lower tolerance for dosing than the floaters do? No idea, but interesting thought!!


----------



## GreggZ

aquanoobie said:


> Hi
> This is getting more and more confusing. Have a "simple" question, isn't this lean dosing?
> 
> NO3 7 - 12 ppm per week
> P04 0.2 - 0.5 ppm per week
> K 8 - 15 ppm per week
> 
> Also, does it matter where N comes from to be lean? Either from substrate, ure or KNO3.
> 
> Thank you


You are right to be confused.

If you dose at the low end of what you listed above I think 99.23% of people would call that "lean". And at the high end maybe "medium"??

With the "Happi" method it depends. If you are using KNO3 and not Urea, then it is not lean. The K is too high in relation to N, so it's not lean. If you were not using the correct recipe for micros, then it is not lean. 

At least that is my understanding. If I am wrong someone please correct me. 

That's why these threads have ended up like this for about a decade.


----------



## JoshP12

As I read the developement here, I think people - myself included - are developing the real intuition of Leidbigs law.

On all levels, Leidbig's is dictating growth.

Perhaps there is no definition of lean or rich ... there is only "proper dosing":

Dosing (providing nutrients via substrate and/or column) such that an attempt to provide the limiting nutrient does not destroy (where destruction is sadness in the eye off the beholder) your ecosystem.

It just so happens that if you reduce N and P in the column, it has a profound effect on everything else ...
High N and P in column mean you may need more CO2 ... and to obtain that could "destroy" your "ecosystem" ... by hurting your fish.  uh oh ... and there are thousands of ways you can alleviate the co2 demand ... DUCK.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


KirstyF said:


> I wonder if, in a tank with high light, Co2 and ‘difficult’ stems, whether there would be any degree of separation between the point at which such plants perform well and the point at which the ‘canary floater’ starts to suffer. i.e do these/would these plants have a lower tolerance for dosing than the floaters do? No idea, but interesting thought!!


I'm pretty sure there would be, I don't grow any <"fast growing"> or difficult plants. I ideally want plants that can limp along <"on petrol fumes">. 

A <"lot of the floating plants"> I've tried need a bit more TLC than I offer.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Tim Harrison

Okay, I'm beginning to see why this thread is 55 pages long, composed of 1099 messages and counting. In order to discuss the pros and cons of something surely you first need to know exactly what it is you're discussing? That consensus doesn't seem to have been reached at any point in the discussion, and doesn't look like it ever will.  As such it's doomed to spiral on ad infinitum. No wonder some posters are loosing the will to live.

I'm guessing many of us lean dose already and have done for some time. Some use EI as a baseline and tweak as @GreggZ describes above in post #1087, which makes perfect sense since the baseline is easily quantifiable and doesn't require testing etc. It is therefore relatively easy to replicate. As such it is likely to make life as easy as possible and vastly improve chances of success, especially for those just starting out on their planted tank journey.

@Happi,It seems folk are still confused as to the exact nature of your methodology so I'm guessing you haven't been explicit enough in your explanations. It would be greatly appreciated if you could do that below so all the relevant information is in one post for the sake of convenience if not clarity, so anyone reading this thread in future won't have to wade through a mountain of posts to get to the nub of the discussion. It might help you to imagine that none of us has any prior knowledge of your methodology whatsoever.

Then hopefully, we can all do what @Yugang is doing at this precise moment in time, and put our feet up with a glass of wine. Except we'll all rest safe and sound in our newly acquired knowledge...


----------



## Zeus.

aquanoobie said:


> How can it be? Abundance can mean anything.


Abundance is above the plants needs and below toxic for anything in the tank. The term 'ferts in excess' is avoided as this may also imply toxic
However this abundance concentration range will vary on many factors waters-

 pH when/if CO2 injected-
 dKH -which is resting tanks noninjected pH in reality
Which chelate is used for certain trace elements may render a abundant [Fe] as not available
Plus low flow can render a shortage locally esp in the case of CO2

If using intense lighting the abundance lower level will increase also as demand will increase.
So the term abundance 'may' sound a little vague, however it covers many variations in other parameters. So in my book ''Ferts in abundance' encompasses everything.


----------



## Zeus.

Tim Harrison said:


> That consensus doesn't seem to have been reached at any point in the discussion, and doesn't look like it ever will.


Al least if we had reached a conclusion and a  summary thread could be closed the thread and start a new thread. As with all reports I jump to the summary and conclusion  first - then based on the what's said I can see if the rest is worth reading


----------



## GreggZ

Tim Harrison said:


> Okay, I'm beginning to see why this thread is 55 pages long, composed of 1099 messages and counting. In order to discuss the pros and cons of something surely you first need to know exactly what it is you're discussing? That consensus doesn't seem to have been reached at any point in the discussion, and doesn't look like it ever will.  As such it's doomed to spiral on ad infinitum. No wonder some posters are weary of the whole thing.
> 
> I'm guessing many of us lean dose already and have done for some time. Some use EI as a baseline and tweak as @GreggZ describes above in post #1087, which makes perfect sense since the baseline is easily quantifiable and doesn't require testing etc. It is therefore relatively easy to replicate. As such it is likely to make life as easy as possible and vastly improve chances of success, especially for those just starting out on their planted tank journey.
> 
> @Happi, I feel compelled to point out that the above perhaps can't be said of your methodology. It seems folk are still confused as to its exact nature, so I'm guessing you haven't been explicit enough in your explanations. It would be greatly appreciated if you could do that below so all the relevant information is in one post for the sake of convenience if not clarity, so anyone reading this thread in future won't have to wade through a mountain of posts to get to the nub of the discussion. It might help you to imagine that none of us has any prior knowledge of your methodology whatsoever.
> 
> Then hopefully, we can all do what @Yugang is doing at this precise moment in time, and put our feet up with a glass of wine. Except we'll all be safe and sound in our newly acquired knowledge...


LOL this might be my favorite post in the entire thread. It's a little early for me here in the US and I prefer Scotch but I'll be joining you as soon as I can!!


----------



## MichaelJ

GreggZ said:


> LOL this might be my favorite post in the entire thread. It's a little early for me here in the US and I prefer Scotch but I'll be joining you as soon as I can!!


I am Bourbon guy myself, but I try not to drink before 11 am (CDT) - but quite honestly I am not very entrenched on that "dosing" paradigm! 

Cheers @GreggZ !
Michael


----------



## Happi

#1,058 have covered most of the answers already regarding lean. My approach isn't much different except we do not need to add high gh such as 5, this is reasonable if one want to add bit more extra Fe and traces, in some cases people who keep shrimps. 

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
Traces similar to tropica or somewhere between tropica and tenso cocktail, mainly maintaining Fe:Mn ratio at 2:1

Gh 2-3, kh 0-1 is sufficient, adding higher GH 5 or so with 0-1 kh give you better option of adding more Fe and Micros. Higher GH also create an mechanism that protect plants from being harmed in case of overdosing of micros.

Adding more K 5-10 under higher GH will also work fine, it might not be needed in such quantities. Refer to tropica specialised or Marchner for reference.

Also do consider that you cannot maintain the exact ratio for all elements in the tap water if one is trying to create the same scenario as Marchner. The goal here isn't or dose Exactly like Marschner or Tropica but use them as a guide to understand why they have such ratio, why they choose to use mix of nh4 with no3 etc.

Also consider the way nutrients interact and prectipate with each other in the water and the soil. Your Tap water will certainly interfere with some of these elements and the modification to your dosing will be required at that point.


----------



## plantnoobdude

Zeus. said:


> Abundance is above the plants needs and below toxic for anything in the tank. The term 'ferts in excess' is avoided as this may also imply toxic
> However this abundance concentration range will vary on many factors waters pH when/if CO2 injected, dKH -which is resting tanks noninjected pH in reality, which chelate is used for certain trace elements may render a abundant [Fe] as not available. Plus low flow can render a shortage locally esp in the case of CO2
> If using intense lighting the abundance lower level will increase also as demand will increase.
> So the term abundance 'may' sound a little vague, however it covers many variations in other parameters. So in my book ''Ferts in abundance' encompasses everything.


so then every single dosing regime is EI? Im sorry I don't quite understand. if you don't have all nutrients above the plants needs then plants would not grow?
"If all nutrients are always in abundance then its EI dosing in my book."   post #1079
I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand what you mean. cheers!


----------



## MichaelJ

Happi said:


> #1,058 have covered most of the answers already regarding lean. My approach isn't much different except we do not need to add high gh such as 5, this is reasonable if one want to add bit more extra Fe and traces, in some cases people who keep shrimps.





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
> Traces similar to tropica or somewhere between tropica and tenso cocktail, mainly maintaining Fe:Mn ratio at 2:1
> 
> Gh 2-3, kh 0-1 is sufficient, adding higher GH 5 or so with 0-1 kh give you better option of adding more Fe and Micros. Higher GH also create an mechanism that protect plants from being harmed in case of overdosing of micros.
> 
> Adding more K 5-10 under higher GH will also work fine, it might not be needed in such quantities. Refer to tropica specialised or Marchner for reference.
> 
> Also do consider that you cannot maintain the exact ratio for all elements in the tap water if one is trying to create the same scenario as Marchner. The goal here isn't or dose Exactly like Marschner or Tropica but use them as a guide to understand why they have such ratio, why they choose to use mix of nh4 with no3 etc.
> 
> Also consider the way nutrients interact and prectipate with each other in the water and the soil. Your Tap water will certainly interfere with some of these elements and the modification to your dosing will be required at that point.



Hi @Happi I am glad  I got it _almost_ right.  Yesterday I did a WC in my _lean tank_ and tested the water; it's now  ~4 GH / 0.5 KH range / ~6.2 pH. The TDS  (90 ppm) is still a bit high  due to residual fertilizers from my previous semi-level EI dosing presumably, but other than that  I believe other parameters that I dose are there now as well with the exception of for K - due to my usage of K2CO3 to raise my RO water to ~0.5 KH.

I have made all these changes fairly slowly and plants and fish are still doing great! - after weeding out  (as in removing...  ) the floating plants the light levels reaching the bottom of the tank is significantly higher - still no sign of algae or anything concerning - even my crypts seems to be doing fine with the (gradual) changes.  The stem's are still floating, but I will put those in later today and take a picture - in the meantime the tetras are enjoying the additional swimming space 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12

plantnoobdude said:


> so then every single dosing regime is EI? Im sorry I don't quite understand. if you don't have all nutrients above the plants needs then plants would not grow?
> "If all nutrients are always in abundance then its EI dosing in my book."   post #1079
> I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand what you mean. cheers!


Consider a pulse. 

At each pulse, the plant is performing a "grow". 

At each "grow", nutrients needed to "grow" are thrown into the "grow site" (just picture it as a box and everything gets thrown into it). 

The nutrients are thrown in from the water column and the substrate in ANY combination that the plant can/wants/needs. 

So you have this chamber that is being fueled and yielding a result. Stuff goes in. Something happens. Stuff comes out. This is a "grow". 

All of the nutrients had to be there before the "grow" (to move into the chamber) and after the "grow" (to move into the chamber for the next pulse). 

In essence, if things are growing, the nutrients are always in excess or the "grow site" lacks a nutrient and growth is jammed. 

So it's always "EI".


----------



## aquanoobie

JoshP12 said:


> So it's always "EI".


Are you going to tell that to Takashi Amano?


----------



## John q

Zeus. said:


> Al least if we had reached a conclusion and a summary thread could be closed


Why would we close the thread?  Leave it open for those that want to participate in it. 
Censorship is errrmmm.


----------



## JoshP12

aquanoobie said:


> Are you going to tell that to Takashi Amano?


Takashi Amano already knows this and he isn't concerned with being called "EI" <-- he fundamentally knows that EI is a concept and the numbers are meaningless. EI is about more than fert targets. It's about how you run a system with datums, flow management, saving money, dry salts. ADA is about a system too. I own all of Amano's books and admire him for his work in this hobby.

People who build these systems and understand them laugh and shake their head when they read about tunnel vision on nutrients. There is so much more to this game. To be honest - there's too much to understand ... and when you realize the interconnectedness off these systems you realize that we know absolutely nothing. The only way to make any headway is to consider it a dynamic system of finterconnected stuff and see how that stuff MIGHT interact under a series of constantly changing parameters. 

Tom Barr knows that plants primarily get their nutrition from roots. He built EI for fun. Look at his tanks ... they use soil. And the inert ones? That's for fun and curiousity. ANYONE who scapes inert ... does 3x weekly water changes and resets to datum and dose whatever fert is sponsoring them.

Amano was curious. He built an empire and sold a system that works so people don't have to think - they can focus on art.

Literally, we get curious and want to understand why ... most just want to grow nice plants and are cheap. No one gets into dry salts because ADA doesn't work.

The plant needs to be fed ... so feed it and focus on the big picture: *this is an ecosystem. *

Dennis Wong exploited the need - people struggled with EI because it is hard mode because of how hard rich water column dosing is to manage -- and ADA is expensive.

Everyone knows ADA is rich dosing - but ADA without potassium doesn't work. Buy his books ... you will see every single parameter on every single tank.


----------



## Zeus.

John q said:


> Why would we close the thread? Leave it open for those that want to participate in it.
> Censorship is errrmmm.



Sorry bad choice of words 😬


----------



## John q

Zeus. said:


> Sorry bad choice of words 😬


Only pulling your leg mate, 😀


----------



## Zeus.

John q said:


> Only pulling your leg mate, 😀


But either way I was wrong to suggest the thread should be closed


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

JoshP12 said:


> Takashi Amano already knows this and he isn't concerned with being called "EI" <-- he fundamentally knows that EI is a concept and the numbers are meaningless. EI is about more than fert targets. It's about how you run a system with datums, flow management, saving money, dry salts. ADA is about a system too. I own all of Amano's books and admire him for his work in this hobby.
> 
> People who build these systems and understand them laugh and shake their head when they read about tunnel vision on nutrients. There is so much more to this game. To be honest - there's too much to understand ... and when you realize the interconnectedness off these systems you realize that we know absolutely nothing. The only way to make any headway is to consider it a dynamic system of finterconnected stuff and see how that stuff MIGHT interact under a series of constantly changing parameters.
> 
> Tom Barr knows that plants primarily get their nutrition from roots. He built EI for fun. Look at his tanks ... they use soil. And the inert ones? That's for fun and curiousity. ANYONE who scapes inert ... does 3x weekly water changes and resets to datum and dose whatever fert is sponsoring them.
> 
> Amano was curious. He built an empire and sold a system that works so people don't have to think - they can focus on art.
> 
> Literally, we get curious and want to understand why ... most just want to grow nice plants and are cheap. No one gets into dry salts because ADA doesn't work.
> 
> The plant needs to be fed ... so feed it and focus on the big picture: *this is an ecosystem. *
> 
> Dennis Wong exploited the need - people struggled with EI because it is hard mode because of how hard rich water column dosing is to manage -- and ADA is expensive.
> 
> Everyone knows ADA is rich dosing - but ADA without potassium doesn't work. Buy his books ... you will see every single parameter on every single tank.



Yup 👍🏽

Wonderful, wonderful  #1111 post @JoshP12

ADA, Tropica and EI systems… Lots and lots and lots of nutrients when the whole system is accounted for, differing levels of location dependency, differing methods of getting them into the plants. Why choose one method when you can utilise all the systems as specific tools at specific times?

With all the free time you have you can focus on the very behaviour of the thing that matters, the plant.

You get some control. 

When to intervene, how to intervene, how to cut, how much root space it prefers, whether it can survive longer periods without its preferences attended to (water column nitrate restriction), which nutrient channels to force the plant to use, speed of uptake (K), how much light relative to available areas in the system (where to plant), how close to the source of co2 it prefers to be, how much co2 fluctuation it can tolerate, when to abandon root structures and when not to (timing).

“To know Mother Nature, is to love her smallest creations”… Gotta look after your bacterial assemblage. It’s running the show and we barely give it any credit.

It’s a beautiful hobby because there’s always so much more to learn and it’s humbling. The Art of Nature Aquarium.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Geoffrey Rea said:


> “To know Mother Nature, is to love her smallest creations”… Gotta look after your bacterial assemblage. It’s running the show and we barely give it any credit.


Not to mention symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhiza. You’re right, we still have much to learn…


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Tim Harrison said:


> Not to mention symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhiza. We still have much to learn…



Of course… Mustn’t forget the fungi. Then all the other stuff we are blissfully unaware of yet.

Everyday is a school day.


----------



## aquanoobie

JoshP12 said:


> Everyone knows ADA is rich dosing


Thank you very much for this response. It is an eye opener.


----------



## JoshP12

aquanoobie said:


> Thank you very much for this response. It is an eye opener.


The water column is lean in N and P. The substrate is rich in all (including bacteria).

As a system it is undoubtedly rich.


----------



## Yugang

Suggestion to UKAPS..... Copyright this thread, and perhaps one or two others, and sell to some business school. It is absolute gold dust for a case study on innovation 😝

Seriously, with all caveats one could make, it is a lovely discussion and I admire the friends who continue to push it forward.

加油 !!! *(Keep Going, don't give up)*​


----------



## JoshP12

Yugang said:


> Suggestion to UKAPS..... Copyright this thread, and perhaps one or two others, and sell to some business school. It is absolute gold dust for a case study on innovation 😝
> 
> Seriously, with all caveats one could make, it is a lovely discussion and I admire the friends who continue to push it forward.
> 
> 加油 !!! *(Keep Going, don't give up)*​


If we could agree on anything, we could probably also publish in the literature …


----------



## Easternlethal

Has anyone found that anaerobic conditions affect plants and hence the amount of dosing needed too? 

We were also recently having some interesting conversations over at TPT about that until that got shut down by the moderator for 'misleading newbies'

I have been thinking of late that the interaction between substrate and water might explain some of the variations we have seen across what certain plants need


----------



## JoshP12

Easternlethal said:


> Has anyone found that anaerobic conditions affect plants and hence the amount of dosing needed too?


Hmm … my gut says It would have to. Assuming anaerobic conditions in substrate … means something will change in bacterial assembly. And necessarily any root stuff … but I think that’s the crux.

If there is a root, there should be no anaerobic conditions. A healthy root should oxygenate the substrate … fueling favourable bacterial symbiosis for nutrient acquisition and mobility.

If the root isn’t oxygenating … turn up your lights and probably your co2 (as it is the likely culprit for jamming the system) … this assumes you’ve already leaned out N and P in the column and are feeding fish well to produce good urea and ammonia …

If you have anaerobic pockets and no roots, the whole thing is probably moot … I mean it’s just a pocket of bacteria? Probably will have some pseudo allelopathic or electromagnetic effect but i bet not anything we could change with dosing regime … maybe plant choice like putting crypts instead of ludwigia … or repens instead of riccia as example.


Easternlethal said:


> I have been thinking of late that the interaction between substrate and water might explain some of the variations we have seen across what certain plants need


I’d agree — but it will also depend on CEC, decay, oxygen, age, surrounding roots, plant choice, water flow, light availability … affecting biodiversity …

Certainly a connection - several nodes along the way.


----------



## GreggZ

Geoffrey Rea said:


> When to intervene, how to intervene, how to cut, how much root space it prefers, whether it can survive longer periods without its preferences attended to (water column nitrate restriction), which nutrient channels to force the plant to use, speed of uptake (K), how much light relative to available areas in the system (where to plant), how close to the source of co2 it prefers to be, how much co2 fluctuation it can tolerate, when to abandon root structures and when not to (timing).


Therein lies one of the biggest differences between success and failure. Horticulture and a holistic approach. I've had discussions about this recently. Of all the information available out there this is where it is lacking. Very difficult for someone to learn other than trial and error.

So many focus on nutrient tunnel vision when it's everything else they should be concentrating on.



Easternlethal said:


> Has anyone found that anaerobic conditions affect plants and hence the amount of dosing needed too?
> 
> We were also recently having some interesting conversations over at TPT about that until that got shut down by the moderator for 'misleading newbies'
> 
> I have been thinking of late that the interaction between substrate and water might explain some of the variations we have seen across what certain plants need


Another TPT'er! I believe this to be true. Substrate plays a bigger role long term than most think. Earlier this year I went through a period where the tank was just not right. To make a long story short I drained the tank and thoroughly cleaned the old substrate. The different was remarkable. 

Another holistic not fertilizer based solution to an issue. Not as sexy to talk about as ferts, but can make a huge difference.


----------



## JoshP12

GreggZ said:


> Another holistic not fertilizer based solution to an issue. Not as sexy to talk about as ferts, but can make a huge difference.


You mean the base that houses all of the microbiology and thousands of ppm of nutrition matters?! where nature has a separate physiological thing (the root) solely developed to selectively pull nutrients from is not sexy?!

I’ve been on this thread too long … I’ve become cheeky. I left for 40 pages 😂.

Hallelujah Greggz.

Christel’s book talks about substrate extensively and how the root is built for this job. It also has analysis of substrate from all of the biotopes - the tables are endless .

I hate to say but if you look through journals for over 1 year with people who don’t change the substrate, you can see the plants “change” from stunning to less stunning to really not as stunning as they were … to … time to rescape or root tab … but root tabs only go so far .. eventually you need to get those organics and that pH back to where it needs to be for optimization.

AND then by that point the substrate is so choked by roots, you have to lift the whole thing out and rinse and repeat … or call it the humic layer and pile another bag of soil on top and great as start up …


----------



## GreggZ

JoshP12 said:


> You mean the base that houses all of the microbiology and thousands of ppm of nutrition matters?! where nature has a separate physiological thing (the root) solely developed to selectively pull nutrients from is not sexy?!
> 
> I’ve been on this thread too long … I’ve become cheeky. I left for 40 pages 😂.
> 
> Hallelujah Greggz.
> 
> Christel’s book talks about substrate extensively and how the root is built for this job. It also has analysis of substrate from all of the biotopes - the tables are endless .
> 
> I hate to say but if you look through journals for over 1 year with people who don’t change the substrate, you can see the plants “change” from stunning to less stunning to really not as stunning as they were … to … time to rescape or root tab … but root tabs only go so far .. eventually you need to get those organics and that pH back to where it needs to be for optimization.


Yes in my opinion it has much to do with reduced O2 in the substrate for the reduced or anoxic bacteria. I know others who I very much respect who have seen the same thing. I wrote about this real time when I went through this in my journal, but sadly it's gone until I repost it somewhere. 

As we have discussed nutrient dosing is not the cause of and the solution to all planted tank problems. Much more to it than that. If that's all someone concentrates on then they have likely have never kept a really successful tank for any period of time.


----------



## Easternlethal

JoshP12 said:


> If the root isn’t oxygenating … turn up your lights and probably your co2 (as it is the likely culprit for jamming the system) … this assumes you’ve already leaned out N and P in the column and are feeding fish well to produce good urea and ammonia …
> 
> If you have anaerobic pockets and no roots, the whole thing is probably moot … I mean it’s just a pocket of bacteria? Probably will have some pseudo allelopathic or electromagnetic effect but i bet not anything we could change with dosing regime … maybe plant choice like putting crypts instead of ludwigia … or repens instead of riccia as example.


In my latest tank I experimented with deep substrate at least 4 inches deliberately to create anaerobic conditions and lightly planted with much of the surface uncovered. Near the glass where I do have plants the roots are deep and white but I cannot believe that this action alone would be enough to oxygenate much. dosing is very low. we know at least about bacteria and redox but I bet there is more to it than that. Can you compensate with ferts? yes of course. but where's the fun in that


GreggZ said:


> Another TPT'er!


Ex TPT'er. I will no longer participate in a forum which censors people's views and allows only comments agreeing with the moderator whilst advertising itself as a public members forum.


----------



## GreggZ

Easternlethal said:


> Ex TPT'er. I will no longer participate in a forum which censors people's views and allows only comments agreeing with the moderator whilst advertising itself as a public members forum.


Well I have to say you summed it pretty well and I completely agree. It was not just me, but was happening over and over again.


----------



## erwin123

Easternlethal said:


> In my latest tank I experimented with deep substrate at least 4 inches deliberately to create anaerobic conditions and lightly planted with much of the surface uncovered. Near the glass where I do have plants the roots are deep and white but I cannot believe that this action alone would be enough to oxygenate much. dosing is very low. we know at least about bacteria and redox but I bet there is more to it than that. Can you compensate with ferts? yes of course. but where's the fun in that








My tank substrate is 4.7 inches - not deliberately but the result of an accumulating of 10 years worth of substrate. 😅 How does one check whether conditions at the bottom are anaerobic? I disturb the top half of the substrate weekly when  I insert osmocote (about 2 inches into the substrate)...


----------



## Easternlethal

Yes being from HK we also know full well the long term damage that 'moderating' public discussions in order to fit a narrative can cause. Free TPT. And thanks to UKAPS for providing us with a safe harbor.


----------



## Hanuman

erwin123 said:


> My tank substrate is 4.7 inches - not deliberately but the result of an accumulating of 10 years worth of substrate. 😅 How does one check whether conditions at the bottom are anaerobic? I disturb the top half of the substrate weekly when  I insert osmocote (about 2 inches into the substrate)...


Well if you give it enough time and don't disturb the substrate it will become anaerobic as oxygen is unable to access the lower parts due to compaction. You can then actually see black patches appear when that happens.


----------



## Easternlethal

erwin123 said:


> My tank substrate is 4.7 inches - not deliberately but the result of an accumulating of 10 years worth of substrate. 😅 How does one check whether conditions at the bottom are anaerobic? I disturb the top half of the substrate weekly when  I insert osmocote (about 2 inches into the substrate)...


seeing pockets of gas also provides a good visual indication. Do you find plants grow better in your tank after 10 years? That's harder to measure but somehow seems to be the case (my personal observation)


----------



## erwin123

thanks, I'll keep an eye out for black patches/ pockets of gas.


----------



## Hanuman

> 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
> Traces similar to tropica or somewhere between tropica and tenso cocktail, mainly maintaining Fe:Mn ratio at 2:1
> 
> Gh 2-3, kh 0-1 is sufficient, adding higher GH 5 or so with 0-1 kh give you better option of adding more Fe and Micros. Higher GH also create an mechanism that protect plants from being harmed in case of overdosing of micros.
> 
> Adding more K 5-10 under higher GH will also work fine, it might not be needed in such quantities. Refer to tropica specialised or Marchner for reference.


Ok so everyone, I have summed up in general terms the above lean recipe numbers in the IFC calculator and compared it to some other well known and established fert regimes:






The compound selection is not optimized and you can see we are slightly above target for K but truth is, it's peanuts. It would be a matter of tweaking a few of the compounds if one wants to reach 100% of those targets. Calcium and KH are not officially part of the ferts/recommendation of Tropica/APT but I know for a fact that Dennis is rather flexible on the Ca and Mg range (Ca = 10 to 40 ppm and Mg = 2 to 10 ppm).

All in all this looks like a hybrid between Tropica, APT, EI low/mid dosing.

Have a good weekend and remember, keep your sleeves wet.


----------



## Easternlethal

One thing I noticed is Ca seems quite high. Do your syns like them? I find they don't even like sharing a tank with seryu as they are so sensitive to it. But I'm not a syn expert

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanuman

Easternlethal said:


> One thing I noticed is Ca seems quite high. Do your syns like them? I find they don't even like sharing a tank with seryu as they are so sensitive to it. But I'm not a syn expert





If that's the case then my Ca is actually higher than that. I'm at 20ppm. My Syngonanthus macrocaulon are doing just fine until they reach a certain height and then they start melting. I think that's totally unrelated to Ca though. Other people are experiencing the same thing some no and I have yet to pin point the cause of this melting. And it's not KH either as my tank is at kh =0

Syns are better in soft water. I know that Syngonanthus uaupes for instance will not like it if KH starts going up. They are very sensitive, more so than Syngonanthus macrocaulon or other Syngonanthus. Seryu leaches carbonate in the water so yes, seryu is not welcomed in a tank that has Syngonanthus. There is a guy over at TPT that specialises in Syns. His name is Dennis Singh over there.


----------



## Easternlethal

Yea I know dennis - have followed him for ages. But if I go over to tpt and start asking about lean dosing plants - especially syns somewhatshocked will burst a blood vessel

Am going to try your regime..


----------



## Hanuman

Not sure which regime you are referring to but my regime is in my journal (see my signature) which is very far from the one above. The one I posted above is the one made up by the member Happi.


----------



## JoshP12

Can we sticky this beast?


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


GreggZ said:


> I know others who I very much respect who have seen the same thing. I wrote about this real time when I went through this in my journal, but sadly it's gone until I repost it somewhere.


There is quite a lot of scientific literature on the interactions within <"the rhizosphere">.  <Image "from*">.





Unsurprisingly there are a lot on <"wet paddy" Rice (_Oryza sativa_)">, unfortunately I don't have many references for this (and it takes a long time to sort through the papers because there are literally thousands of them published every year), but I have quite a few for <"Constructed wetlands">.   This is <"from"**>







> ........._ Paddy-rice rhizosphere is a unique habitat characterized by redox heterogeneity that is generated from radial O2 loss from roots and intensive water management, which allows the differentiation of microbial niches in the narrow rhizosphere and leads to strong couplings of functional processes.
> This review summarizes the biogeochemical processes of key elements (C, N, P, and Fe) in the rice rhizosphere and their coupling mechanisms. We emphasize the redox gradient in rice rhizosphere and the role of microorganisms in element cycling under altering redox conditions. We argue that C turnover and nutrient (N and P) availability are closely linked to each other, during which Fe reduction and oxidation play important roles._........



* Yakov Kuzyakov, Bahar S. Razavi, (2019) "Rhizosphere size and shape: Temporal dynamics and spatial stationarity" _Soil Biology and Biochemistry, _* 135,  pp* 343-360 
** Xiaomeng Wei, Zhenke Zhu, Liang Wei, Jinshui Wu, Tida Ge, (2019) "Biogeochemical cycles of key elements in the paddy-rice rhizosphere: Microbial mechanisms and coupling processes,"
_Rhizosphere,_ *10*,

cheers Darrel


----------



## Karmicnull

For those of you wondering whether you can keep your Urea in solution, <This paper> measures Urea's degradation rate in Ph 6-8 solution as approximately 3x10E-6/h depending on temperature and concentration. So by my bad maths that means you're good for several months.


----------



## John q

Karmicnull said:


> For those of you wondering whether you can keep your Urea in solution,


Brilliant, always good to put some  scientific meat on the bones. 👍


----------



## aquanoobie

Karmicnull said:


> For those of you wondering whether you can keep your Urea in solution, <This paper> measures Urea's degradation rate in Ph 6-8 solution as approximately 3x10E-6/h depending on temperature and concentration. So by my bad maths that means you're good for several months.


Hi all
Don't know what this rate constant is about but this scientific notation says coefficient 3, base 10 and exponent -6. Exponent is minus six not plus six. 

3x10E-6 = 0.000 003 hour = 0.00018 minute = 0.0108 of a second 

How do you see it?


----------



## Hufsa

Karmicnull said:


> For those of you wondering whether you can keep your Urea in solution, <This paper> measures Urea's degradation rate in Ph 6-8 solution as approximately 3x10E-6/h depending on temperature and concentration. So by my bad maths that means you're good for several months.





aquanoobie said:


> Hi all
> Don't know what this rate constant is about but this scientific notation says coefficient 3, base 10 and exponent -6. Exponent is minus six not plus six.
> 
> 3x10E-6 = 0.000 003 hour = 0.00018 minute = 0.0108 of a second
> 
> How do you see it?



It would be great if someone fluent in science could do a bit of a "for dummies" take-away of this paper for the rest of us.
I took a look at it and it is highly relevant and interesting to me, if only I knew what it said 😅


----------



## Karmicnull

aquanoobie said:


> Hi all
> Don't know what this rate constant is about but this scientific notation says coefficient 3, base 10 and exponent -6. Exponent is minus six not plus six.
> 
> 3x10E-6 = 0.000 003 hour = 0.00018 minute = 0.0108 of a second
> 
> How do you see it?


The way I read the paper it was degrading by 3 times ten  to the -6 per hour. Ie after one hour 99.9997% of the Urea is still in solution.  But I may have misunderstood.


----------



## aquanoobie

Karmicnull said:


> The way I read the paper it was degrading by 3 times ten  to the -6 per hour. Ie after one hour 99.9997% of the Urea is still in solution.  But I may have misunderstood.


It is explained here, Rate equation - Wikipedia
but it is above my pay grade. I hope somebody can clarify the results of the research paper. Great find BTW.


----------



## Alexv95

Thank you all for this great thread, I've been wanting to participate for a while but couldn't catch up on my reading .
I wanted to discuss several points with you, the first of which concerns the amazing @Sudipta setup. I would like to quote a thread from MichaelJ (from another topic) which summarises the key elements :



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



With a similar configuration, I had found a few months ago the youtube channel of Yulia aquascape : https://www.youtube.com/c/YuliaAquascape





After reading the comments on his channel and watching the videos, here are the key points (I'm summarising) :

No CO2 injection : 
The author's assumptions : *source of CO2* 1. From fish inhalation 2. When the lights are off (Dark) the plants emit CO2 3. Skimmers also suck up CO2 elements from the outside air 4. *When changing water* (Water Change), new water contains CO2 (pearling plants for 2-3 days)?

KH and GH : unfortunately unknown here, Yulia indicates that he uses well water, from the ground, rich in minerals but does not know the parameters
pH : also unknown
temperature : big difference here, he mentionned a water *temperature of 25-30 °C*
Very low water column nutrients : same assumption here, he uses a liquid fertiliser which seems to be lean and doses once a week.
Rich dirt DIY substrate and gravel here
No mention of root tabs
Merk Bio KCL fertilizer  - (content?)
No PAR data but 1. LED SAKKAI Pro 26W (Blue & White) 2. PHILIP LED 8W x 2Pcs (Warm) 3. DAY 47 Philip LED up to 12W x 2Pcs for a 60cm x 30cm x 40cm. So approx 1W LED/L. Even with a low PAR/W efficiency, I think strong lighting can be expected with such values. Given the density of the plants and colours also.
100% WC ! 3-4 days, sometimes 5 days & 7 days (pearling plants for 2-3 days)
No/infrequent uprooting : same here
*No filtration* !
So I see 3 big differences with Sudipta's tank: no filter here, relatively high temperatures and big water changes (for CO2 inputs). The plants are dense, the biomass should be high.
What do you think? I wanted to discuss other points but I will do so in another post.


----------



## Yugang

You're a bit early with your great post @Alexv95 ...
The 2022/2023 season of Lean Dosing Pro's and Con's  starts in November , and @MichaelJ and @Happi are taking a well deserved break right now


----------



## Kelvin12

Came across this U tube video myself and  will be following his methods later.  Sure is impressive growth and a pretty well relaxed approach.  

Dirk


----------



## Wookii

Alexv95 said:


> Thank you all for this great thread, I've been wanting to participate for a while but couldn't catch up on my reading .
> I wanted to discuss several points with you, the first of which concerns the amazing @Sudipta setup. I would like to quote a thread from MichaelJ (from another topic) which summarises the key elements :
> 
> 
> 
> With a similar configuration, I had found a few months ago the youtube channel of Yulia aquascape : https://www.youtube.com/c/YuliaAquascape
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading the comments on his channel and watching the videos, here are the key points (I'm summarising) :
> 
> No CO2 injection :
> The author's assumptions : *source of CO2* 1. From fish inhalation 2. When the lights are off (Dark) the plants emit CO2 3. Skimmers also suck up CO2 elements from the outside air 4. *When changing water* (Water Change), new water contains CO2 (pearling plants for 2-3 days)?
> 
> KH and GH : unfortunately unknown here, Yulia indicates that he uses well water, from the ground, rich in minerals but does not know the parameters
> pH : also unknown
> temperature : big difference here, he mentionned a water *temperature of 25-30 °C*
> Very low water column nutrients : same assumption here, he uses a liquid fertiliser which seems to be lean and doses once a week.
> Rich dirt DIY substrate and gravel here
> No mention of root tabs
> Merk Bio KCL fertilizer  - (content?)
> No PAR data but 1. LED SAKKAI Pro 26W (Blue & White) 2. PHILIP LED 8W x 2Pcs (Warm) 3. DAY 47 Philip LED up to 12W x 2Pcs for a 60cm x 30cm x 40cm. So approx 1W LED/L. Even with a low PAR/W efficiency, I think strong lighting can be expected with such values. Given the density of the plants and colours also.
> 100% WC ! 3-4 days, sometimes 5 days & 7 days (pearling plants for 2-3 days)
> No/infrequent uprooting : same here
> *No filtration* !
> So I see 3 big differences with Sudipta's tank: no filter here, relatively high temperatures and big water changes (for CO2 inputs). The plants are dense, the biomass should be high.
> What do you think? I wanted to discuss other points but I will do so in another post.




Really interesting videos there, though I'm not sure it's relevant to this thread as we don't know anything about his dosing regime - though it does appear to be a complete NPK + Micros liquid fert.

I think there are a few key takeaways for me that I think aid his success;

He uses a very bacterially mature substrate, and plenty of it and so largely avoids any new tank syndrome. It seems to have a quite a mix of stuff in it, potentially some organic substances too, so possibly a fair bit of CO2 produced by the substrate for the plant roots, plus the obvious nutrient store. He appears to be a bit secretive about the substrate, but I'd wager he takes it straight from his outdoor growing tubs, and maybe mixes a bit of peat or other compost to it - it is clearly very well aged.
He does two very large water changes  (>80% by the looks of it) per week, and so adds a good amount of dissolved CO2 to the system at those points, and removes any excess organics and ammonia from the water column at that point. The fact that he has no surface movement also ensures that dissolved CO2 remains in the water column for an extended period.
He runs relatively low light (I don't agree with your assessment that he has strong lighting - 24-26W of lighting on a 72 litre tank is really quite low), and runs an extended 12 hour photo period to maximise photosynthesis and DO production.
He is clearly meticulous with his maintenance. You can see the care he takes over trimming individual stems, and repositioning individual stems with teasers, which likely suggests a great deal of time is dedicated to maintaining that tank that a quick YouTube video can't really show.
It's certainly a stunning result, and something I may have a stab at myself at some point - though I'd be reluctant to add livestock to such a system.


----------



## JoshP12

I think it is important to say that the 80% water change exposes the plants to atmospheric gas and the plants then store those gases. 

If repeated regularly and consitently, I don't think it is too farfetched to think the plant would respond by planning its consumption ... especially within reason (manipulating local environments of rhizosphere, plant surface, etc).


----------



## Alexv95

Thank you for your comments.



Wookii said:


> Really interesting videos there, though I'm not sure it's relevant to this thread as we don't know anything about his dosing regime - though it does appear to be a complete NPK + Micros liquid fert.
> 
> I think there are a few key takeaways for me that I think aid his success;
> 
> He uses a very bacterially mature substrate, and plenty of it and so largely avoids any new tank syndrome. It seems to have a quite a mix of stuff in it, potentially some organic substances too, so possibly a fair bit of CO2 produced by the substrate for the plant roots, plus the obvious nutrient store. He appears to be a bit secretive about the substrate, but I'd wager he takes it straight from his outdoor growing tubs, and maybe mixes a bit of peat or other compost to it - it is clearly very well aged.
> He does two very large water changes  (>80% by the looks of it) per week, and so adds a good amount of dissolved CO2 to the system at those points, and removes any excess organics and ammonia from the water column at that point. The fact that he has no surface movement also ensures that dissolved CO2 remains in the water column for an extended period.
> He runs relatively low light (I don't agree with your assessment that he has strong lighting - 24-26W of lighting on a 72 litre tank is really quite low), and runs an extended 12 hour photo period to maximise photosynthesis and DO production.
> He is clearly meticulous with his maintenance. You can see the care he takes over trimming individual stems, and repositioning individual stems with teasers, which likely suggests a great deal of time is dedicated to maintaining that tank that a quick YouTube video can't really show.
> It's certainly a stunning result, and something I may have a stab at myself at some point - though I'd be reluctant to add livestock to such a system.


Yes, I agree that it is a bit annoying for the analysis not to know the exact fertilisation. 
For the light, where do you see that he uses only 26W? On this video :  he mentions 3 lights with a total of 66 W. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll be surprised if we can get such colours (rotala, alternanthera...) with low lighting, without CO2 injection.

The other aspect I wanted to talk about was CO2  (thx to mention it) : if we consider dissolved CO2, in @Sudipta's tank, there are many gas exchanges with the surface, which I guess tended to level out the CO2 level: the CO2 produced was removed at night to the equilibrium concentration with atmosphere. And conversely, during photosynthesis when the plants consumed all the CO2, the exchanges offers the opportunity to reintroduce some. The CO2 avaliable is always low butwith  a relatively constant rate.

Here, with your hypotheses (which I also agree with) and with limited gas exchanges, I expect the rate to be maximum when the lighting are turned on and very low few hours later. We are typically in the fluctuating CO2 situations described by T. Barr, D. Wong and others, with great risk of unhealthy plants and algae +++. But nothing like that.
What is your opinion ?
My other hypothesis would be that ultimately without rich fertilization, plant growth is slowed down and the demand for CO2 is lower. But the substrate is still rich. And D. Walstad talks about this case of CO2 that can go down to 0 in her method, she recommends siesta to regenerate it. But this does not prevent fluctuations.
I'm confused on this point.


----------



## Wookii

Alexv95 said:


> For the light, where do you see that he uses only 26W? On this video :


I thought in your analysis you were saying which lights he was using in videos 1, 2 and 3:



Alexv95 said:


> No PAR data but 1. LED SAKKAI Pro 26W (Blue & White) 2. PHILIP LED 8W x 2Pcs (Warm) 3. DAY 47 Philip LED up to 12W x 2Pcs for a 60cm x 30cm x 40cm.



So are you saying he’s using all those at once?

If so, that is a fair bit more - that’d put him at about Chihiros WRGB II level.



Alexv95 said:


> I'm confused on this point.



Yes, me too. Even if most of the CO2 is coming from water changes, it’s very boom and bust - such inconsistency should be a nightmare for algae management.

His videos show the plants pearling, so there must be CO2 present, but that could well be filmed immediately after a water change.


----------



## Sudipta

Alexv95 said:


> Thank you all for this great thread, I've been wanting to participate for a while but couldn't catch up on my reading .
> I wanted to discuss several points with you, the first of which concerns the amazing @Sudipta setup. I would like to quote a thread from MichaelJ (from another topic) which summarises the key elements :
> 
> 
> 
> With a similar configuration, I had found a few months ago the youtube channel of Yulia aquascape : https://www.youtube.com/c/YuliaAquascape
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading the comments on his channel and watching the videos, here are the key points (I'm summarising) :
> 
> No CO2 injection :
> The author's assumptions : *source of CO2* 1. From fish inhalation 2. When the lights are off (Dark) the plants emit CO2 3. Skimmers also suck up CO2 elements from the outside air 4. *When changing water* (Water Change), new water contains CO2 (pearling plants for 2-3 days)?
> 
> KH and GH : unfortunately unknown here, Yulia indicates that he uses well water, from the ground, rich in minerals but does not know the parameters
> pH : also unknown
> temperature : big difference here, he mentionned a water *temperature of 25-30 °C*
> Very low water column nutrients : same assumption here, he uses a liquid fertiliser which seems to be lean and doses once a week.
> Rich dirt DIY substrate and gravel here
> No mention of root tabs
> Merk Bio KCL fertilizer  - (content?)
> No PAR data but 1. LED SAKKAI Pro 26W (Blue & White) 2. PHILIP LED 8W x 2Pcs (Warm) 3. DAY 47 Philip LED up to 12W x 2Pcs for a 60cm x 30cm x 40cm. So approx 1W LED/L. Even with a low PAR/W efficiency, I think strong lighting can be expected with such values. Given the density of the plants and colours also.
> 100% WC ! 3-4 days, sometimes 5 days & 7 days (pearling plants for 2-3 days)
> No/infrequent uprooting : same here
> *No filtration* !
> So I see 3 big differences with Sudipta's tank: no filter here, relatively high temperatures and big water changes (for CO2 inputs). The plants are dense, the biomass should be high.
> What do you think? I wanted to discuss other points but I will do so in another post.



wow.. these are really beautiful. Plants look really vibrant and healthy, significantly better than any of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks. However, I am little bit confused as I see Amazon link for CO2 kit in most of his video descriptions. Are you absolutely sure that these are non-CO2 setups?


----------



## Hanuman

Sudipta said:


> wow.. these are really beautiful. Plants look really vibrant and healthy, significantly better than any of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks. However, I am little bit confused as I see Amazon link for CO2 kit in most of his video descriptions. Are you absolutely sure that these are non-CO2 setups?


In all his videos:







The above pretty much answers the pearling. Changing water so regularly you are bringing in CO2 nearly daily.


Alexv95 said:


> Here, with your hypotheses (which I also agree with) and with limited gas exchanges, I expect the rate to be maximum when the lighting are turned on and very low few hours later. We are typically in the fluctuating CO2 situations described by T. Barr, D. Wong and others, with great risk of unhealthy plants and algae +++. But nothing like that.
> What is your opinion ?
> My other hypothesis would be that ultimately without rich fertilization, plant growth is slowed down and the demand for CO2 is lower. But the substrate is still rich. And D. Walstad talks about this case of CO2 that can go down to 0 in her method, she recommends siesta to regenerate it. But this does not prevent fluctuations.
> I'm confused on this point.


1. CO2 fluctuates as much in his tanks than in any CO2 injected tank (day/night). The idea of CO2 fluctuation is misunderstood IMO. It's not whether it fluctuates as much intra day (although that can have consequences under certain conditions), but whether it is erratic and inconsistence week after week. One also needs to consider lighting vs CO2 consumption. In the case of his tanks, CO2 is consistent in the way he does WC regularly and often pretty much maintais CO2 levels week after week. Plants will adapt and grow accordingly. He is also not bombarding those tanks with indecent amounts of PAR. Those are low to medium lit tanks. Nowhere near what you see in high tech tanks with 200umol as a minimum in many instances. Look at one of his 60cm tank with 2 x 12W LEDs perched at ~20 cm+ from the water surface.... That is was I call very low light. There is another one with 50W which is obviously higher energy but again, look at where the lights are positionned, quite high. I am pretty sure a PAR meter would read under 100umols at substrate level specially be cause he used cheap LED bulbs. 

2. Those tanks are 100% heavily planted with fast growing stem plants. Algae has little chance in these scenarios considering the very rich, fertile substrate. Plants are nowhere being limited by nutrients. Also, note this innocuous comments in bold letters in the description:





Overall I am not impressed considering we only see 3-4 months worth of tank life. I call that the grace period where everything is basically at its prime and little exogenous intervention and management is needed. Plants are doing all the heavily lifting here. Aquascaper is merely cuddling plants. What would be more interesting to see is those tanks under the same regime after 6 months to a year. That would really be a test. But I bet those tanks are dismantled after 6 months or so because the amount of work required to maintaining them is high. Plus the grace period is over and you need to start adjusting things like ferts, trimming, etc etc.

This is what I dislike about these youtube videos. Often time they just show the beginning and great part and omit the rest. Then people are left with a biased opinion on what to expect if they do the same.


----------



## Sudipta

Hanuman said:


> The above pretty much answers the pearling. Changing water so regularly you are bringing in CO2 nearly daily


Thanks for the information. That makes sense. I saw in one of his videos, he mentionned that sometimes he changes water 5 times a week and even every day occasionally. I am wondering if he is changing water during the light period. I have seen massive improvement in plant growth when I was doing daily water changes last summer (25% during light period) in one my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks while treating ich with high temperature (84F) and ich-X. I did that for 3 straight weeks and the plants did exceptionally well, even better than my other tanks where I was doing weekly water changes with lower temperature (75-77F).


----------



## Hanuman

Sudipta said:


> I am wondering if he is changing water during the light period.


If I had to speculate I would say it's beneficial to do WC during the photoperiod since plants would be exposed to atmospheric CO2 which they can capture and store in their leaves. Josh made a comment in that regard and I would tend to agree.


JoshP12 said:


> I think it is important to say that the 80% water change exposes the plants to atmospheric gas and the plants then store those gases.


But regardless of doing it during the photoperiod or not I think it is still beneficial overall to do WC more often than not. It's not only about CO2 but also about removing organics and reseting fert levels. It would basically equate to what happens in a river where water flows and constantly brings new nutrient, CO2 etc. That's my theory at least.


----------



## Wookii

Hanuman said:


> Aquascaper is merely cuddling plants.


You take it to a new level man! I'm making that quote of the day! 😂


Sudipta said:


> I saw in one of his videos, he mentioned that sometimes he changes water 5 times a week and even every day occasionally.



That would explain it a bit then, as that would mean he is in essence dosing the tank with CO2 pretty frequently.


----------



## Hanuman

Wookii said:


> You take it to a new level man! I'm making that quote of the day! 😂


One got to laugh else it's a depressing life! That's my moto.


----------



## Wookii

Hanuman said:


> One got to laugh else it's a depressing life! That's my moto.



Absolutely, very much mine too! 👍


----------



## Tim Harrison

Hanuman said:


> If I had to speculate I would say it's beneficial to do WC during the photoperiod since plants would be exposed to atmospheric CO2 which they can capture and store in their leaves. Josh made a comment in that regard and I would tend to agree.


I think that's pretty much the nub of it. Aquatic plants adapted to life under water will be pretty good at absorbing gases from the atmosphere. So when they're exposed to 410ppm CO2, as opposed to 10ppm in water, via a daily water change you bet they're going to do okay, so no great mystery.

And I'm guessing they'll most likely store atmospheric gases in their aerenchyma to be used later on in the photoperiod upon re-submergence. This method of getting CO2 in to aquatic plants is nothing new I remember reading about it way back, not sure where, probably the Barr Report.


----------



## Sudipta

Tim Harrison said:


> This method of getting CO2 in to aquatic plants is nothing new I remember reading about it way back, not sure where, probably the Barr Report.


I think you are referring to this. I was quite surprised last year when the plants did really well in relatively high temperature in one of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks since I was changing water every day for 3 weeks due to ich issues. However, it made a lot of sense after I read Tom's post and also from a conversation with him.








						Why water change day seems to grow aquatic plants better
					

Basic simple question: why do my plants seem to grow better/best the day of the water change?   I do a large water change in the morning right after the lights come on, then late in the day, there is mad pearling and obviously better growth than any other day of the week.  I've measured plant...




					barrreport.com


----------



## Gorillastomp

Isn't pearling associate with the fact that you add fresh water high in dissolved oxygen ?

Because i make water change using my tap which comes from a well. I doubt this water is high in co2 and change water by the overflow method. I get mad pearling as well after a wc.


----------



## Hanuman

Gorillastomp said:


> Isn't pearling associate with the fact that you add fresh water high in dissolved oxygen ?


Pearling is associated with plant consuming CO2 and producing/perspiring O2.



Gorillastomp said:


> Because i make water change using my tap which comes from a well. I doubt this water is high in co2


I can't tell you for sure about your water specifically but typically well waters can have a very high CO2 content. So that is probably why you see lots of pearling specially if you have adequate amounts of light.


----------



## Gorillastomp

Hanuman said:


> I can't tell you for sure about your water specifically but typically well waters can have a very high CO2 content.


 How would you know this? My water is out at PH 8.3-8.4, if i let it sit a day its comes down to around 8.2 - 8.3.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


Gorillastomp said:


> How would you know this? My water is out at PH 8.3-8.4, if i let it sit a day its comes down to around 8.2 - 8.3.


It can be a temperature (and / or) pressure effect. All dissolved gases are more soluble at lower temperature (and higher pressure), which means that if you do a 50% water change with cool water all that "spare" dissolved gas will come out of solution as the water warms.

In this case most of  "pseudo pearling" the  bubbles will be nitrogen (N2), purely because the atmosphere is ~70% nitrogen.

Water (at 25oC) holds, a maximum of, ~13 mg / litre dissolved N2 and 8 mg / litre oxygen (O2), everything else (CO2, Argon (Ar) etc) are just traces.

cheers Darrel


----------



## _Maq_

Wookii said:


> He does two very large water changes  (>80% by the looks of it) per week, and so adds a good amount of dissolved CO2 to the system at those points...


Tap water, due to elevated pressure, often contains lots of dissolved *air*. There's no reason to expect significantly elevated content of CO2 from this source.
However, if a *well water* is the source, it may very well contain high levels of CO2. In lower parts of many wells CO2 rich atmosphere is the norm => partial pressure of CO2 is higher => water is full of CO2.


----------



## Wookii

_Maq_ said:


> Tap water, due to elevated pressure, often contains lots of dissolved *air*. There's no reason to expect significantly elevated content of CO2 from this source.



But air contains in excess of 400ppm CO2, so if that water has “lots of dissolved air” in it, it will be naturally much higher in dissolved CO2 than water that is in CO2 equilibrium with the air. This can be shown fairly easily by measuring the pH increase after allowing tap water to degas.


----------



## _Maq_

Wookii said:


> But air contains in excess of 400ppm CO2, so if that water has “lots of dissolved air” in it, it will be naturally much higher in dissolved CO2 than water that is in CO2 equilibrium with the air. This can be shown fairly easily by measuring the pH drop after allowing tap water to degas.


Will you explain? I think if I leave the tap water to degas, CO2 content would decrease, and pH would *rise*, as a result. Am I missing here something?


----------



## Wookii

_Maq_ said:


> Will you explain? I think if I leave the tap water to degas, CO2 content would decrease, and pH would *rise*, as a result. Am I missing here something?



Yes, you’re missing the train of the conversation which is about the video of the low tech tank in post #1147 and possible explanations as to how the person running the tanks was achieving apparent ‘high tech’ growth on a ‘low tech basis’. One of which was increased CO2 levels by daily water changes.

You also have to appreciate that whilst you might wait 24 hours for your water change water to degas, most don’t and go straight from tap to tank via hose or bucket.


----------



## _Maq_

But my question remains unanswered: Will you explain? I think if I leave the tap water to degas, CO2 content would decrease, and pH would *rise*, as a result.


----------



## Gorillastomp

Ita depends of your water supply, mine PH goes down  if i let it sit on counter. That would mean my water supply is really low in dissolved co2. I use Well water.


----------



## Wookii

_Maq_ said:


> But my question remains unanswered: Will you explain? I think if I leave the tap water to degas, CO2 content would decrease, and pH would *rise*, as a result.



Explain what? Your statement is correct, but not relevant to what is being discussed?


----------



## _Maq_

Wookii said:


> But air contains in excess of 400ppm CO2, so if that water has “lots of dissolved air” in it, it will be naturally much higher in dissolved CO2 than water that is in CO2 equilibrium with the air. This can be shown fairly easily by measuring the pH drop after allowing tap water to degas.


If pH drops on degassing, it's not the proof of what you are saying - that the tap water would be naturally much higher in dissolved CO2. It would be a proof of the opposite.


----------



## Wookii

_Maq_ said:


> If pH drops on degassing, it's not the proof of what you are saying - that the tap water would be naturally much higher in dissolved CO2. It would be a proof of the opposite.



Ah sorry yes, typo on my part, a pH increase on degassing. My post corrected.


----------



## _Maq_

So it was a misunderstanding, @Wookii. I never happened to check my tap water afresh and then a few hours later. Did you? What was the result?


----------



## sparkyweasel

dw1305 said:


> It can be a temperature (and / or) pressure effect. All dissolved gases are more soluble at lower temperature (and higher pressure), which means that if you do a 50% water change with cool water all that "spare" dissolved gas will come out of solution as the water warms.


Which is why we sometimes get 'pearling' on hardscape, glass walls, filters etc.


----------



## Wookii

_Maq_ said:


> So it was a misunderstanding, @Wookii. I never happened to check my tap water afresh and then a few hours later. Did you? What was the result?



I have some time ago - I’m an RO user not tap so haven’t measured recently, but digging out the pH meter to run a test just now for the purposes of this conversation:

Water fresh from the tap:







Water from the same tap that’s been standing for a good 12 hours+:





Taken with a calibrated Hanna Halo HI11102.

Alkalinity at this time of year approximately KH7 give or take.

Someone smarter than me can probably estimate the difference in dissolved CO2 that could be accounting for the difference in pH, but the overriding point being at an approximate pH0.7 difference it’s not an insignificant amount of additional dissolved CO2.


----------



## _Maq_

Wookii said:


> Someone ... can probably estimate the difference in dissolved CO2 that could be accounting for the difference in pH


Some 28 ppm decreased to 5 ppm. But it *strongly* depends on alkalinity.
Still, it's a strong argument that you're right - and I was wrong - in that a fresh tap water can contain remarkable amount of CO2. Wow!


----------



## Hanuman

_Maq_ said:


> in that a fresh tap water can contain remarkable amount of CO2. Wow!


Indeed it does and that's a fact. Tap water can contains a good amount of CO2 due to how the water is processed in water plants before it is sent back into the pipes. This is not intentional but a consequence of the water treatment processes.


----------



## GreggZ

Hanuman said:


> Indeed it does and that's a fact. Tap water can contains a good amount of CO2 due to how the water is processed in water plants before it is sent back into the pipes. This is not intentional but a consequence of the water treatment processes.


Agreed. Tap water can contain a good deal of CO2. The same for well water. I've got well water going through an RO system, and even after the RO the water still contains CO2. 

Many people make the mistake of testing pH right out the tap. It's always best to fully degas and age it for a few days. And it can cut both ways.

Sometimes there is CO2 added which lowers pH, and there can also be other things (like sodium hydroxide) added that raise pH. Either way best to let a sample to come to equilibrium with atmosphere before testing.


----------



## Alexv95

I'm back a little late but the conversation still seems relevant.



Tim Harrison said:


> I think that's pretty much the nub of it. Aquatic plants adapted to life under water will be pretty good at absorbing gases from the atmosphere. So when they're exposed to 410ppm CO2, as opposed to 10ppm in water, via a daily water change you bet they're going to do okay, so no great mystery.
> 
> And I'm guessing they'll most likely store atmospheric gases in their aerenchyma to be used later on in the photoperiod upon re-submergence. This method of getting CO2 in to aquatic plants is nothing new I remember reading about it way back, not sure where, probably the Barr Report.



Thank you I was not aware of this possibility. I did have in mind the possibility of adding CO2 via tap water.
To know if the CO2 contribution comes from the new water or from the atmosphere, I think a test could be done with a false water change: empty the tank and fill it with the same water from the tank. If the plants grow well / better with this false water change, this would indicate that the capture of CO2 from the air is effective for their growth.



Sudipta said:


> wow.. these are really beautiful. Plants look really vibrant and healthy, significantly better than any of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks. However, I am little bit confused as I see Amazon link for CO2 kit in most of his video descriptions. Are you absolutely sure that these are non-CO2 setups?


With the pictures I think your tanks are better. Have you ever tried to stop changing the water in your tanks? With the lean dosing it seems that it could work but there is still the question of CO2 input with these water changes.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Alexv95 said:


> I think a test could be done with a false water change: empty the tank and fill it with the same water from the tank.


That’d be one way of doing it. If you leave tap water to degas in a container overnight it’d be pretty safe to assume CO2 levels would equilibrate with atmospheric levels.


----------



## Sudipta

Alexv95 said:


> With the pictures I think your tanks are better. Have you ever tried to stop changing the water in your tanks?


Although I have not done this with any of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks but I have been experimenting with Ammannia pedicillata golden in a small plastic container. It has been almost 4 months since I have done any water change and I also added huge amount of ammonia containing root tab but the plants are still doing okay (top leaves are getting smaller since I posted the last update on June 20.)
We can't directly correlate this with actual planted tank but I still think it is somewhat informative.
Here is the link;








						sudiorca's non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank
					

I have been doing a little experiment with Ammania pedicillata 'golden' in a small plastic container (no CO2 injection) since Jan 20, 2022. The container was setup on Dec 22, 2021 with 2 inches of ADA Amazonia V1 and 600 mL of ro-di water and kept in dark to cycle. I never added any water column...




					www.plantedtank.net


----------



## _Maq_

dw1305 said:


> *Plants*
> 
> Plants need all fourteen (or seventeen) <"essential nutrients"> for plant growth.
> Plant requirements for these macro and micro nutrients <"vary by several order of magnitude"> and may also <"vary by plant">.


I disagree. Marschner's numbers are valid universally. Only monocots require much less Ca.
However, plants differ significantly in their _abilities to uptake_ nutrients upon differing external conditions, par example pH.


dw1305 said:


> All plants can only take up <"nutrients as ions">.


Mostly, not exclusively. But yes, uptake of other forms is of minor significance, perhaps with the exception of P.


dw1305 said:


> For micro-nutrients the three levels are <"_none", "some" _and _"toxic_">. As long as we are in the "_some_" zone nothing else really matters.


To that I'd add that toxic levels are difficult to detect. I suspect toxicity of micronutrients happens more often than we believe.


dw1305 said:


> *Fertilisers*
> 
> Manufacturers don't care about the <"Marschner ratio">, they want to produce a fertiliser that "works" using the most <"cost effective salts they can">.


I suggest that a community called UKAPS should adopt strictly negative attitude toward commercial blends of nutrients, aka "universal" fertilizers. Nothing of that sort can ever exist. It may be a way for beginners or less engaged hobbyists, but a forum dedicated to aquatic plants should be aware of its inherent limitations.


Tim Harrison said:


> Just out of interest did anyone actually come up with a definition of lean dosing?


In natural habitats, P and N (less often) are usually limiting nutrients. Plants are adapted to that. My experience strongly suggests that if these two are in short supply, plants grow slowly but signs of nutritional imbalance seldom appear. On the other hand, if N or P are plentiful and any other nutrient is not in adequate supply, plants show signs of nutrient deficiencies.
So I suggest we stick to N & P when talking about "rich" or "lean". To me, lean dosing is close to what plants know from their natural habitats. I define it not by its content in water column (P is difficult to measure, and most of it is in the substrate, anyway; ammonium also tends to get adsorbed to organic matter in the substrate) but by the content in the water I use for water change.
Usually, I change 20 per cent water weekly, and that water contains 1 to 3 µM P (0.1 to 0.3 mg/L H3PO4) and 16 to 48 µM N (equivalent to 1 to 3 mg/L NO3). The actual amount available to plants is supposedly lower because of plant and microbial consumption. In any case, it is still more than in most natural habitats. Keeping these levels, my plants do not stunt and rarely show nutrient deficiencies, but they grow relatively slowly.
Can we call it "lean dosing"?


MichaelJ said:


> I can only vaguely attempt to define it myself - but I think the prerequisites goes something like this:
> 
> Soft to very soft water (almost complete absence of KH and very low GH (2-4 GH).
> Slightly acidic to acidic water (High 6 to down to high 5 pH)
> Rich/mature substrate
> Weekly low (lean) amounts of NPK with N primarily from NH4/Urea/NH4NO3 and with an eye for ratios (Marschner).
> Low amount of traces, but carefully crafted/picked in terms of choice of elements and chelates.
> Low'ish temperature


Although soft and acidic waters are typically low-nutrient in the nature, I don't see good enough reasons for tying lean conditions exclusively with them. Like I said, it's the content (or, more precisely, _availability_) of N & P which defines "lean" and "rich".
I'm hesitant when reading words "nutrient-rich substrate". A very clean silica sand is relatively "passive" substrate, meaning its sorption ability is low. However, once it gets enriched with decaying organic matter (detritus), adsorption increases significantly. From then on, individual nutrients behave in their own natural ways. Nitrates, chlorides, sulfates, molybdates do not adsorb, so they do not accumulate in the substrate. Ammonium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, and boron adsorb on clays, if present, in differing degree (subject to the type of clay and ambient factors like pH), and partially on detritus. Phosphorus and transition metals tend to desert water column rapidly both because of microbial uptake and adsorption.
I've experimented with enriching substrate with purified clays, zeolites, ferric oxide, charcoal, and peat. None of them is a _source of nutrients_ per se, they just enhance adsorption of selected nutrients. In theory, keeping nutrients within the substrate should be a good anti-algae measure, and some reports confirm that it may work in natural waters. My experiments did not lead to any remarkable results, so the question remains open to me.
Enriching sediment with fertilizers in pills/tabs? Many aquarists report good results. It depends. If they release nutrients too quickly, microbes (not plants) will be the first to gain advantage and proliferate. With that, some negative development may occur. I don't use them.


> @dw1305: EI (rich dosing) obviously works, although I still don't fully understand why.


Neither do I! Plants should be stressed from high concentrations of nutrients. Microbes should flood the tank. Phytoplanton should quickly dominate and suppress macrophytes by light attenuation. Yet it does not happen. Why?
My only suggestion (pretty weak) is that plants massively supported by CO2 produce in excess secondary metabolites incl. those which may have an allelopathic effect.


GreggZ said:


> If you are using KNO3 and not Urea, then it is not lean. The K is too high in relation to N, so it's not lean. If you were not using the correct recipe for micros, then it is not lean.


Excess K is not a problem in relation to N & P, but in relation to Mg, Ca (and Na). The latter happens pretty often, it's perhaps the most widespread source of nutritional defects.
Micros cannot be effectively measured. Yes, I follow Marschner when preparing my stock solutions; it's a good measure not to overdose. But then, I follow what the plants tell me. Iron deficiency occurs most often by far. Those who use tap water should know that_ tap water very often contains more than enough micronutrients_. Again, with the exception of iron.


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
> Traces similar to tropica or somewhere between tropica and tenso cocktail, mainly maintaining Fe:Mn ratio at 2:1
> Gh 2-3, kh 0-1 is sufficient, adding higher GH 5 or so with 0-1 kh give you better option of adding more Fe and Micros. Higher GH also create an mechanism that protect plants from being harmed in case of overdosing of micros.
> Adding more K 5-10 under higher GH will also work fine, it might not be needed in such quantities.


Marschner is a good starting point, yet it cannot be followed in practice. Firstly, plants uptake some nutrients preferentially in relation to others. Typically, K vs. Mg & Ca, or P vs. S. Secondly, in many cases the question of availability is decisive. So it's not bad to dose Fe and Mn in 2:1 ratio, but in the end, you have to observe your plants and detect the signs of deficiency.
I would never suggest dosing micronutrients on regular basis, without plants' feedback, and most of all, I find outright dangerous to use commercial blends of micronutrients. They are made for _farmers_. Conditions in fields differ substantially from those in our tanks. The main difference is that in the field many micros are lost due to leaching, but in a tank, transition metals accumulate! Typically, Tenso Coctail is rich in molybdenum, because Mo (unlike other transition metals) poorly binds to soil particles, and much is lost due leaching. Another difference is that in fields, oxic conditions prevail. The presence of oxygen is decisive in making micros (and phosphorus) soluble or insoluble.


----------



## _Maq_

In spring, I tested _Ammannia crassicaulis_ and _Ludwigia glandulosa_. In broad terms, tanks A and B (from left to right) were acidic, tanks C and D were alkaline. Tanks A & C featured lean dosing (16 µM N), tanks B & D rich dosing (160 µM N).
You can see that both plants were able to utilize increased doses of N & P. Thus, they don't belong among the group of slow-growers. (Slow-growers are generally unable to benefit from increased available nutrients, so, in nature, they are outcompeted in fertile biotopes. On the other hand, they invest in durability of their tissues, so they can "wait", while "fast-growers" cannot cope with nutrient-limited conditions. Roughly speaking - for details, ask @Simon Cole).😆
Secondly, you can see that _Ludwigias_ stunted in C & D. All tanks were freshly established and in all of them, I took pain to dose all micronutrients in the very same amount. _Ammanias_ prospered both in acidic and alkaline conditions, but _Ludwigias_ were unable to uptake micros in alkaline water. So, increased dosing of micros was of no use if the given species cannot manage. (More detailed pics and mineral composition of water can be submitted if anyone interested.)


----------



## erwin123

Thats an interesting photo, thanks for sharing.  2 observations:

While C & D appear to have slower growth, the red colour of the _Ludwigia glandulosa in _C& D appears to be more attractive. 
_Ammannia crassicaulis _didn't turn red under lean dosing and remained very green


----------



## _Maq_

erwin123 said:


> the red colour of the _Ludwigia glandulosa in _C& D appears to be more attractive


It looks nice but it's due to lack of chlorophyll. So it's a defect.
Most likely, my plants were genuine _Ammannia crassicaulis_. Most _A. c._ in the trade are actually _Ammannia gracilis_ which takes orange-reddish hue much more easily. In my experience, _A. crassicaulis_ remains yellow even under intense light. But yes, under high-tech high-light high-all treatment things may turn differently.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


_Maq_ said:


> I disagree. Marschner's numbers are valid universally.


You may well be right.

This is the Third Edition of  <"Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants">. Personally <"I'm not after optimal growth"> etc., I just want some plant growth.


_Maq_ said:


> I suggest that a community called UKAPS should adopt strictly negative attitude toward commercial blends of nutrients, aka "universal" fertilizers. Nothing of that sort can ever exist. It may be a way for beginners or less engaged hobbyists, but a forum dedicated to aquatic plants should be aware of its inherent limitations.


I can see where you are coming from, and many of our members do use dry salts, but I think it is a <"bit of a stretch"> to expect people to buy all the individual salts to make up their own <"micro-nutrient mixes"> etc. and I'd guess that even the people who do make their own mixes are going to use a commercial <"trace element mix">.

There are inherent limitations of <"commercial fertiliser mixes">, but there is also the disclaimer that commercial hydroponic fertilisers must fulfill the basic requirement of promoting plant growth, or they companies that make them would have gone out of business.

I'm going to stick by what I wrote earlier in the thread, and I'm going to carry on recommending <"Solufeed 2 : 1 : 4"> etc.


dw1305 said:


> *Plants*
> 
> Plants need all fourteen (or seventeen) <"essential nutrients"> for plant growth.
> Plant requirements for these macro and micro nutrients <"vary by several order of magnitude"> and may also <"vary by plant">.
> All plants can only take up <"nutrients as ions">.
> For micro-nutrients the three levels are <"_none", "some" _and _"toxic_">. As long as we are in the "_some_" zone nothing else really matters.
> *Fertilisers*
> 
> Manufacturers don't care about the <"Marschner ratio">, they want to produce a fertiliser that "works" using the most <"cost effective salts they can">.
> If a fertiliser has been developed for <"liquid feeding or hyproponics"> in <"commercial horticulture"> it "works". If it didn't? No-one would buy it and those who did? Will have <"gone into liquidation">.


cheers Darrel


----------



## GreggZ

_Maq_ said:


> In spring, I tested _Ammannia crassicaulis_ and _Ludwigia glandulosa_. In broad terms, tanks A and B (from left to right) were acidic, tanks C and D were alkaline. Tanks A & C featured lean dosing (16 µM N), tanks B & D rich dosing (160 µM N).
> You can see that both plants were able to utilize increased doses of N & P. Thus, they don't belong among the group of slow-growers. (Slow-growers are generally unable to benefit from increased available nutrients, so, in nature, they are outcompeted in fertile biotopes. On the other hand, they invest in durability of their tissues, so they can "wait", while "fast-growers" cannot cope with nutrient-limited conditions. Roughly speaking - for details, ask @Simon Cole).😆
> Secondly, you can see that _Ludwigias_ stunted in C & D. All tanks were freshly established and in all of them, I took pain to dose all micronutrients in the very same amount. _Ammanias_ prospered both in acidic and alkaline conditions, but _Ludwigias_ were unable to uptake micros in alkaline water. So, increased dosing of micros was of no use if the given species cannot manage. (More detailed pics and mineral composition of water can be submitted if anyone interested.)
> 
> View attachment 191296


While I find the results interesting in a very general broad sense, IMO it does not really “prove” much at all.

The problem with these types of experiments is that it doesn’t account for the many other variables from tank to tank. Pretty much what this proves is what happened in those particular tanks, with that particular set up, and those particular plants.

Let’s say we add CO2, or vary the concentration of CO2, how do plants react? Let’s say we provide a fresh nutrient rich substrate, what happens? Increase light? Decrease light? Increase water changes? Decrease water changes. Add fish? Increase dGH? Decrease dGH? Change dGH Ca/Mg ratio? Vacuum substrate regularly, never vacuum substrate? Add more micros? Add less micros? Vary macro nutrient composition and ratios? More PO4, less PO4? Add more K? Less K?

And I could go on and on.

In the real world with a real tank all these variables are at play every day. Each tank is a unique ecosystem. And not to be lost is that different plants have different optimal conditions. You may set up a tank to grow something like Rotala Wallachii perfectly, but when you add 20 other species you will realize that they may have different preferences.

What I find far more interesting is someone who can keep a wide variety of plants at near peak health and create something beautiful. And I do understand that is not your focus. But even so the plants in these tanks do not look to be in peak health. Lot’s of algae on old growth and the substrate looks dirty with algae as well.

I think sometimes folks make the mistake of looking at a tank like a science experiment. In my experience it’s part science and part art. Heck even something as underdiscussed as pruning/horticulture skills can make the difference between success and failure. A technique that works with one plant might cause another to fail. The only way to learn these things is with time and experience.

Heck I have planted the same plant in three different spots in my tank and two flourish and one fails? All seemingly in the same conditions. Just saying the mysteries of the planted tank are not easily solved like a math problem. And of all the things that make for a great planted tank, nutrient dosing is probably the least important. A well run planted tank can get by well on a wide range of nutrients and a nutrient centric approach many times leads to failure. People can’t see the forest through the trees.

Funny thing is that when you get to know some of the best in the hobby not once does the discussion of Marschner's ratio come up. In fact dosing is pretty low on the list of what is discussed.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


_Maq_ said:


> In natural habitats, P and N (less often) are usually limiting nutrients. Plants are adapted to that. My experience strongly suggests that if these two are in short supply, plants grow slowly but signs of nutritional imbalance seldom appear. On the other hand, if N or P are plentiful and any other nutrient is not in adequate supply, plants show signs of nutrient deficiencies.


I'm pretty sure that is right.


_Maq_ said:


> A very clean silica sand is relatively "passive" substrate, meaning its sorption ability is low. However, once it gets enriched with decaying organic matter (detritus), adsorption increases significantly. From then on, individual nutrients behave in their own natural ways. Nitrates, chlorides, sulfates, molybdates do not adsorb, so they do not accumulate in the substrate. Ammonium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, and boron adsorb on clays, if present, in differing degree (subject to the type of clay and ambient factors like pH), and partially on detritus. Phosphorus and transition metals tend to desert water column rapidly both because of microbial uptake and adsorption.
> I've experimented with enriching substrate with purified clays, zeolites, ferric oxide, charcoal, and peat. None of them is a _source of nutrients_ per se, they just enhance adsorption of selected nutrients. In theory, keeping nutrients within the substrate should be a good anti-algae measure, and some reports confirm that it may work in natural waters. My experiments did not lead to any remarkable results, so the question remains open to me.
> Enriching sediment with fertilizers in pills/tabs? Many aquarists report good results. It depends. If they release nutrients too quickly, microbes (not plants) will be the first to gain advantage and proliferate.


That is also basically where I'm coming from. I've been using "lean dosing" with a  ~90% silica sand substrate with a small addition of Oak (_Quercus_) or Beech (_Fagus_) leaf mold and neutral clay <"for a long time now">.


_Maq_ said:


> Micros cannot be effectively measured. Yes, I follow Marschner when preparing my stock solutions; it's a good measure not to overdose. But then, I follow what the plants tell me. Iron deficiency occurs most often by far. Those who use tap water should know that_ tap water very often contains more than enough micronutrients_. Again, with the exception of iron


Agreed, I don't think there is any point in trying to measure micro-nutrient levels in the tank, I'm also much keener on "_watching the plants_", and it is a <"scientifically valid"> method.  It doesn't work <"particularly well for iron (Fe)">, which is, as you say, a <"common, and easy to recognise, micro-nutrient deficiency">.


GreggZ said:


> In the real world with a real tank all these variables are at play every day. Each tank is a unique ecosystem. And not to be lost is that different plants have different optimal conditions. You may set up a tank to grow something like Rotala Wallachii perfectly, but when you add 20 other species you will realize that they may have different preferences.





_Maq_ said:


> You can see that both plants were able to utilize increased doses of N & P. Thus, they don't belong among the group of slow-growers. (Slow-growers are generally unable to benefit from increased available nutrients, so, in nature, they are outcompeted in fertile biotopes. On the other hand, they invest in durability of their tissues, so they can "wait", while "fast-growers" cannot cope with nutrient-limited conditions. Roughly speaking - for details, ask @Simon Cole).


Agreed as well, it is the <"_horses for courses_"> argument. I've framed it in terms that you wouldn't try and grow <"Orchids and Tomatoes"> in exactly the same growing conditions, so why <"should all aquarium plants be the same">?


GreggZ said:


> I think sometimes folks make the mistake of looking at a tank like a science experiment. In my experience it’s part science and part art. Heck even something as underdiscussed as pruning/horticulture skills can make the difference between success and failure. A technique that works with one plant might cause another to fail. The only way to learn these things is with time and experience.


Same for me, a <"shades of grey world">. Personally I'm <"reasonably good with plants">, but <"I'm still cr*p with fish">. I've got better, but <"from a very low starting point">.


GreggZ said:


> And of all the things that make for a great planted tank, nutrient dosing is probably the least important. A well run planted tank can get by well on a wide range of nutrients and a nutrient centric approach many times leads to failure. People can’t see the forest through the trees.
> 
> Funny thing is that when you get to know some of the best in the hobby not once does the discussion of Marschner's ratio come up. In fact dosing is pretty low on the list of what is discussed.


Same for me again.

cheers Darrel


----------



## erwin123

GreggZ said:


> Funny thing is that when you get to know some of the best in the hobby not once does the discussion of Marschner's ratio come up. In fact dosing is pretty low on the list of what is discussed.



I do not have a chemistry/plant biology background, so I am happy to keep it simple.  

For someone like myself, it seems to make sense to buy a bottle of ferts off the shelf  and dose the tank with it.  At roughly 1 ml a day, my 500ml bottle will last me more than 1 year.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


erwin123 said:


> For someone like myself, it seems to make sense to buy a bottle of ferts off the shelf and dose the tank with it. At roughly 1 ml a day, my 500ml bottle will last me more than 1 year.


I guess that is it, if people can buy an easy to use, off the shelf  solution that works they will, and why not?

Personally I'm much too mean to give my money to the participants  in the <"World's most expensive water"> competition, but I'm also much too lazy to actually make up my own fertiliser any more, when there is a <"cheap, and acceptable, compromise"*>.

* I realise that it won't be an acceptable compromise for every-one.

cheers Darrel


----------



## GreggZ

erwin123 said:


> I do not have a chemistry/plant biology background, so I am happy to keep it simple.
> 
> For someone like myself, it seems to make sense to buy a bottle of ferts off the shelf  and dose the tank with it.  At roughly 1 ml a day, my 500ml bottle will last me more than 1 year.


This is exactly why Xiaozhuang Wong sells thousands of bottles of APT Complete. The vast majority have no idea what is in it or the level of nutrients it provides. And they don't want to. Most of the world has very small tanks and it's a matter of convenience.

We have to keep in mind that nuts like us (including myself!) on forums like this are the exception not the rule.


----------



## _Maq_

dw1305 said:


> I'd guess that even the people who do make their own mixes are going to use a commercial <"trace element mix">


I think it depends on whether you believe in necessity to use chelates.


GreggZ said:


> The problem with these types of experiments is that it doesn’t account for the many other variables from tank to tank. Pretty much what this proves is what happened in those particular tanks, with that particular set up, and those particular plants.


The way to reveal step by step the significance of individual variables in relation to the whole is doing precisely this kind of experiments. I took care to keep as many as possible variables identical in all four tanks and make them differ in two parameters only: acidic vs. alkaline and lean vs. rich. I've demonstrated that both species are able to benefit from rich nutrition, and only one of them is well adapted to alkaline environment.


GreggZ said:


> And not to be lost is that different plants have different optimal conditions.


But that was exactly what made me to make the test - to demonstrate different responses to external conditions by two species.


GreggZ said:


> But even so the plants in these tanks do not look to be in peak health. Lot’s of algae on old growth and the substrate looks dirty with algae as well.


I agree. Only that what you see is mostly fungi, most likely, because they appeared during dark cycling. However, you seem to fail to understand what experiments are performed for. It is not to take some plants and gradually adjust conditions to a state when they look (unnaturally) perfect. It is to expose them to chosen conditions and then observe, describe, and discuss the results. If algae appear, then be it. If the plants outright die, then be it. That's what experiments work like.
But frankly, I've seldom seen Ludwigia glandulosa in better shape (in tank A), even in CO2 enriched tanks. Perhaps more detailed photos would show, but, interestingly, you did not show interest.


GreggZ said:


> I think sometimes folks make the mistake of looking at a tank like a science experiment.


I think sometimes folks make the mistake of looking at a tank designed for simple scientific experiments by judging it by their personal approach to the hobby.
I fully understand that most hobbyists will ever be just hobbyists and never perform experiments. But to dismiss them, par example with an argument that _one experiment cannot solve the whole truth in its full complexity_, is just wrong. My tests are not truly "scientific", but in broader terms, this is how the science is made. Step by step, always with limited (and disputable) results, yet always pushing the limits of our knowledge a bit further. 
Some invent/create new cars, and many many more just drive them. Ignorance is fully permissible, but some people still must create new, better cars.


GreggZ said:


> Funny thing is that when you get to know some of the best in the hobby not once does the discussion of Marschner's ratio come up. In fact dosing is pretty low on the list of what is discussed.


Who are some of the best? I suppose they are those who are eminent in what *you* consider the result. Believe or not, I'm tired and actually don't like high-tech gardens which are so adored by general public. When it comes to aesthetic value, they are mostly kitch, a popular art. When it comes to learning the nature, they are outright the opposite because their methods and goals are unnatural.
I'm not about to fight a war to change this state of affairs. I'm just trying to explain that your approach is not the only possible.
That said, I'll be the first to stress over and over that care for plants does not begin with mineralization/fertilization. Does it mean we should not investigate the influence of nutrition?


----------



## KirstyF

_Maq_ said:


> I think it depends on whether you believe in necessity to use chelates.
> 
> The way to reveal step by step the significance of individual variables in relation to the whole is doing precisely this kind of experiments. I took care to keep as many as possible variables identical in all four tanks and make them differ in two parameters only: acidic vs. alkaline and lean vs. rich. I've demonstrated that both species are able to benefit from rich nutrition, and only one of them is well adapted to alkaline environment.
> 
> But that was exactly what made me to make the test - to demonstrate different responses to external conditions by two species.
> 
> I agree. Only that what you see is mostly fungi, most likely, because they appeared during dark cycling. However, you seem to fail to understand what experiments are performed for. It is not to take some plants and gradually adjust conditions to a state when they look (unnaturally) perfect. It is to expose them to chosen conditions and then observe, describe, and discuss the results. If algae appear, then be it. If the plants outright die, then be it. That's what experiments work like.
> But frankly, I've seldom seen Ludwigia glandulosa in better shape (in tank A), even in CO2 enriched tanks. Perhaps more detailed photos would show, but, interestingly, you did not show interest.
> 
> I think sometimes folks make the mistake of looking at a tank designed for simple scientific experiments by judging it by their personal approach to the hobby.
> I fully understand that most hobbyists will ever be just hobbyists and never perform experiments. But to dismiss them, par example with an argument that _one experiment cannot solve the whole truth in its full complexity_, is just wrong. My tests are not truly "scientific", but in broader terms, this is how the science is made. Step by step, always with limited (and disputable) results, yet always pushing the limits of our knowledge a bit further.
> Some invent/create new cars, and many many more just drive them. Ignorance is fully permissible, but some people still must create new, better cars.
> 
> Who are some of the best? I suppose they are those who are eminent in what *you* consider the result. Believe or not, I'm tired and actually don't like high-tech gardens which are so adored by general public. When it comes to aesthetic value, they are mostly kitch, a popular art. When it comes to learning the nature, they are outright the opposite because their methods and goals are unnatural.
> I'm not about to fight a war to change this state of affairs. I'm just trying to explain that your approach is not the only possible.
> That said, I'll be the first to stress over and over that care for plants does not begin with mineralization/fertilization. Does it mean we should not investigate the influence of nutrition?



I’d have to say, I couldn’t agree with @_Maq_ more. Anything that has the potential to expand knowledge even a little bit and even when not fully conclusive (after all, what in this hobby is) is a worthy cause. 

Tom Barr presumably ran experiments to establish the nutritional parameters around EI and whether you agree with him or not in regard to the benefits of such, he has contributed to the hobby. 

Tom Barr also advises on any number of other elements of aquatic husbandry, including a holistic approach, but EI, in itself, is still a ferts regime. 

As a hard water user, I certainly found Maq’s post interesting and it probably raises more questions for me than it answers, but that can only be a good thing and a motivation for further enquiry……and I’d take a guess and say I still don’t have as many questions as he’s still asking himself!


----------



## Alexv95

_Maq_ said:


> _Ludwigias_ were unable to uptake micros in alkaline water. So, increased dosing of micros was of no use if the given species cannot manage. (More detailed pics and mineral composition of water can be submitted if anyone interested.)
> 
> View attachment 191296


Thanks you for sharing. I am interested in more details: how much micro (iron) do you dose? How often? What chelator was used? Wouldn't using a different chelator (with better alkaline water stability) have solved the micro absorption problem?
In relation to alkalinity, are you talking about Ca, Mg or HCO3-?
I find these experiments very interesting but like @GreggZ , I think it is important to keep in mind the limitations and not to think that the conclusions are universal and that it will be impossible to grow this plant in an alkaline environment (I'm sure you know this but not necessarily all readers do).



Sudipta said:


> Although I have not done this with any of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks but I have been experimenting with Ammannia pedicillata golden in a small plastic container. It has been almost 4 months since I have done any water change and I also added huge amount of ammonia containing root tab but the plants are still doing okay (top leaves are getting smaller since I posted the last update on June 20.)
> We can't directly correlate this with actual planted tank but I still think it is somewhat informative.
> Here is the link;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sudiorca's non-CO2 supplemented softwater tank
> 
> 
> I have been doing a little experiment with Ammania pedicillata 'golden' in a small plastic container (no CO2 injection) since Jan 20, 2022. The container was setup on Dec 22, 2021 with 2 inches of ADA Amazonia V1 and 600 mL of ro-di water and kept in dark to cycle. I never added any water column...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.plantedtank.net


Tank you, yes I've already found and bookmark your topic, it's very useful.



_Maq_ said:


> Marschner is a good starting point, yet it cannot be followed in practice. Firstly, plants uptake some nutrients preferentially in relation to others. Typically, K vs. Mg & Ca, or P vs. S. Secondly, in many cases the question of availability is decisive. So it's not bad to dose Fe and Mn in 2:1 ratio, but in the end, you have to observe your plants and detect the signs of deficiency.


I'd be interested to know how you do it in practice (but it's probably too long to summarise it here). In my modest experience, I found it very difficult and I have often encountered similar problems in visual appearance but with different causes.


----------



## _Maq_

Alexv95 said:


> I am interested in more details: how much micro (iron) do you dose? How often? What chelator was used?


I think I'll start a new thread (or share this information in my Introduction thread). This is rather complex issue and a bit off-topic, here.


Alexv95 said:


> Wouldn't using a different chelator (with better alkaline water stability) have solved the micro absorption problem?


Possibly. But I rather think not. Let me believe that _Ludwigia glandulosa_ cannot live in pH > 7.0, unless somebody proves otherwise.


Alexv95 said:


> In relation to alkalinity, are you talking about Ca, Mg or HCO3-?


I use the term 'hardness' when referring to Mg & Ca content.
'Alkalinity' stands for more precise _acid neutralizing capacity_. When I refer to pH, I use terms 'acidic' and 'basic'. But 'alkaline' is perhaps permissible, too. Yet I'll be happy if any of present native speakers corrects my terminology.


Alexv95 said:


> I think it is important to keep in mind the limitations and not to think that the conclusions are universal and that it will be impossible to grow this plant in an alkaline environment (I'm sure you know this but not necessarily all readers do).


I don't believe that _Ludwigia glandulosa_ can live in basic/alkaline environment. But I'm open to demonstration that I'm wrong.
(There's a real distinction between pH over 7, and high content of bicarbonates. Both have rather distinct implications in plant metabolism. My test did not reveal whether the core of the problem is higher pH or bicarbonates. In that, I'll happily see someone to test it.)


Alexv95 said:


> I'd be interested to know how you do it in practice (but it's probably too long to summarise it here). In my modest experience, I found it very difficult and I have often encountered similar problems in visual appearance but with different causes.


I'm no magician. Yet I can tell you that keeping simultaneously the same species in differing physico-chemical environments helps *a lot*.


----------



## Freshflora

_Maq_ said:


> I think I'll start a new thread (or share this information in my Introduction thread). This is rather complex issue and a bit off-topic, here.
> 
> Possibly. But I rather think not. Let me believe that _Ludwigia glandulosa_ cannot live in pH > 7.0, unless somebody proves otherwise.
> 
> I use the term 'hardness' when referring to Mg & Ca content.
> 'Alkalinity' stands for more precise _acid neutralizing capacity_. When I refer to pH, I use terms 'acidic' and 'basic'. But 'alkaline' is perhaps permissible, too. Yet I'll be happy if any of present native speakers corrects my terminology.
> 
> I don't believe that _Ludwigia glandulosa_ can live in basic/alkaline environment. But I'm open to demonstration that I'm wrong.
> (There's a real distinction between pH over 7, and high content of bicarbonates. Both have rather distinct implications in plant metabolism. My test did not reveal whether the core of the problem is higher pH or bicarbonates. In that, I'll happily see someone to test it.)
> 
> I'm no magician. Yet I can tell you that keeping simultaneously the same species in differing physico-chemical environments helps *a lot*.
> View attachment 191311


Ludwigia glandulosa/peruensis can definitely be grown/live in alkaline and hard conditions.  I’m guessing a KH of 11 and a GH of 14 is hard and alkaline enough to demonstrate that?  Those are this guy’s conditions.  He grew it for an extended period of time in those parameters and pretty healthily.  Tsing's 125 Hybrid - IAPLC 2020 - Rank 840.


----------



## _Maq_

Thank you. @Freshflora 
I'm curious to what degree strongly chelated micronutrients can help overcome limitations given by nature. It seems this is one of such instances.


----------



## eminor

Would love to go back lean dosing but my tap already have average 19 ppm nitrate, i just lean dose po4 and micros.

I was told that rotala rotundifolia won't like hard water, get stunted, i tried, first under EI, it was true for me.
No matter how i injected co2, lots of stem was stunted. Once i switched to lean ( back then i had soft water) i had not a single stunted stem. But lots of no3 is not faulty because as i said my tap is full of it and rotala rotundifolia is growing just fine.


----------



## plantnoobdude

eminor said:


> Would love to go back lean dosing but my tap already have average 19 ppm nitrate, i just lean dose po4 and micros.


Is it possible to collect rain water?


----------



## eminor

plantnoobdude said:


> Is it possible to collect rain water?


Not anymore, too much factory nearby, so far i see no difference growing soft/hard, only soft water plant have hard time like walichii, i though ammania was soft water plant but they like my tap (GH 17 KH 11).


----------



## eminor

That's my rain water, looks how yellow it is, shrimp and snail are not dying though, but in my filterless jungle tank it need few weeks to clear it @plantnoobdude

i don't thing there is any bicarbonate or calcium in rain water so i add ca:mg  36/11 ppm, 1 ppm nitrates/ 0.1 phosphate, 0.06 iron


----------



## Hanuman

eminor said:


> That's my rain water, looks how yellow it is, shrimp and snail are not dying though, but in my filterless jungle tank it need few weeks to clear it @plantnoobdude
> 
> View attachment 192864


Isn't the color of the water due to how you store or collect the water? Honestly I doubt the color of the water is that color falling from the sky else that would imply it is extremely heavily contaminated and I wouldn't even think about putting that in a tank.


----------



## eminor

Hanuman said:


> Isn't the color of the water due to how you store or collect the water? Honestly I doubt the color of the water is that color falling from the sky else that would imply it is extremely heavily contaminated and I wouldn't even think about putting that in a tank.


That's why i put it in a garbage tank, but my roof need a big cleaning, even on my green house the rain water have a yellow tint, glass roof, 100% cleaned


----------



## Hanuman

eminor said:


> That's why i put it in a garbage tank, but my roof need a big cleaning, even on my green house the rain water have a yellow tint, glass roof, 100% cleaned


Dammm, If that's the color of your rain, I'd be seriously concerned specially if it's due to the factories you referred to above. The only other reasons I see would be due to a dust storm or you have a volcano blowing dust near your place...😟


----------



## eminor

Hanuman said:


> Dammm, If that's the color of your rain, I'd be seriously concerned specially if it's due to the factories you referred to above. The only other reasons I see would be due to a dust storm or you have a volcano blowing dust near your place...😟


There is one of the biggest european steel industry nearby, chemical industy, aluminium, gasoline there. That world is f*cked up, even the rain is not safe... that's why i need to use tap water


----------



## _Maq_

eminor said:


> That world is f*cked up, even the rain is not safe... that's why i need to use tap water


You should not hesitate and get reverse osmosis. It's a God's gift to aquarists (and tea drinkers).


----------



## eminor

_Maq_ said:


> You should not hesitate and get reverse osmosis. It's a God's gift to aquarists (and tea drinkers).



Weird thing is that there is only walichii that i struggle to grow in my tap, of course that can't be lean dosing but i see no trouble so far, i'll wait and see the coloration of the plant under that water


----------



## eminor

Hanuman said:


> Dammm, If that's the color of your rain, I'd be seriously concerned specially if it's due to the factories you referred to above. The only other reasons I see would be due to a dust storm or you have a volcano blowing dust near your place...😟


funny thing is that the yellow color intensity reduce by itself in a day, and when i put it in a tank, 1-2 days later the water is crystal clear even in my nofilter tank, how ?


----------



## Wookii

eminor said:


> funny thing is that the yellow color intensity reduce by itself in a day, and when i put it in a tank, 1-2 days later the water is crystal clear even in my nofilter tank, how ?



if you have a lot of leaves in your guttering or water butt, it could be tannins released into the water. They tend to degrade rather rapidly when exposed to light.


----------



## eminor

Wookii said:


> if you have a lot of leaves in your guttering or water butt, it could be tannins released into the water. They tend to degrade rather rapidly when exposed to light.


Does it also mean that it contain ammonia ?


----------



## Wookii

eminor said:


> Does it also mean that it contain ammonia ?



Could do, but less likely the water butt in particular should be fairly 'bacterially mature' if its got a layer of leaf litter in it.


----------



## eminor

Wookii said:


> Could do, but less likely the water butt in particular should be fairly 'bacterially mature' if its got a layer of leaf litter in it.


thansk you, rain water can't contain hardness (GH/KH) before reaching the soil right ? my roof is in concrete


----------



## Wookii

eminor said:


> thansk you, rain water can't contain hardness (GH/KH) before reaching the soil right ? my roof is in concrete



I believe it can yes, strangely rainwater rarely has a zero TDS. I'd have to defer to @dw1305 for more detail on the reasons why.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 


Wookii said:


> I'd have to defer to @dw1305 for more detail on the reasons why


Many and varied, water just wants to dissolve things, and <"very small amounts of salts" (as ions)> have a big effect on electrical conductivity.  

The first is the very small amount of dissolved CO2 that converts to H2CO3 and adds a proton (H+ ion). That proton conducts a minimal amount of electricity (1 or 2 microS). 
If you have other <"gaseous pollutants">, they also <"add some conductivity">. 
The big one for me <"is dust">. Water is a very efficient <"amphoteric solvent"> and if you have a <"lot of dust in the atmosphere">, and <"that dust"> contains CaCO3, then some of it is dissolved by the <"proton donors"> in the water and raises the conductivity (and pH). 
Sea spray (containing NaCl), you would be amazed by how far it gets inland. 
cheers Darrel


----------



## eminor

Hey guys, one of my tank is more than a year old now and i can tell that the substrate nutrients are gone which mean that i have no backup if i mess with the water column dosing, i was thinking about osmocote but my soil is 1.5 - 2 inches deep, which mean that ammonia will sooner or later be in the water with osmocote, how to solve that ? thx

i managed to clean my roof, now that autumn is here and lot of rain, tds is now 15 ppm which is near perfect to go back to lean dosing i think. 
I actually don't really know if i can call my ferts routine lean because there is so much recipe difference that i'm lost here is what i dose :

NO3 = 3-5 ppm
PO4 = 0.5 ppm
K = 3.65 ppm ( due to K in the KNO3 powder + colombo flora grow)
Mg = 11 ppm - 2.5 dGH
Ca = 4 ppm
Iron = 0.06 weekly DTPA


----------



## _Maq_

eminor said:


> I actually don't really know if i can call my ferts routine lean


Lean it surely is. Only one point is rather unorthodox - prevalence of Mg over Ca.


----------



## eminor

_Maq_ said:


> Lean it surely is. Only one point is rather unorthodox - prevalence of Mg over Ca.


yes i know,  i've read about it, but never seen difference in my experience. I dose CaCl2, which have lot of chloride in it which i'm a bit afraid of


----------



## _Maq_

eminor said:


> CaCl2, which have lot of chloride in it which i'm a bit afraid of


Don't be. In such an amount it's harmless.


----------

