-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
Lean dosing pros and cons
- Thread starter Riverside Scaper
- Start date
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.
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.
MichaelJ
Member
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
John q
Member
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 👍
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
Member
lovely visual. but I think this is the key. "seems a lot like a type of lean dosing to me."
But 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.
But 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.
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!
Last edited:
MichaelJ
Member
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
Last edited:
MichaelJ
Member
MichaelJ
Member
KirstyF
Member
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. 😊
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. 😊
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
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
Last edited:
Karmicnull
Member
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
@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
Member
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
Last edited:
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.
