• 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
  • You can now follow UKAPS on Instagram.

Lean dosing pros and cons

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
13,818
Location
nr Bath
Hi all,
Basically all plants require fertilising with the same nutrients
A bit different on low dosing regarding low energy no CO2. IME less dosing but dosing all nutrients when needed as Duckweed Index.
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

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
1,690
Location
Minnesota, USA
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
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
1,690
Location
Minnesota, USA
Chlorine (Cl).... well i didn't know that... thanks Darrel.... :lol:
Haha thats funny.:lol: ....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 :lol: Chloride is in fact a negatively charged ionic version of Chlorine.

Cheers,
Mihael
 
Last edited:

Angus

Member
Joined
29 Aug 2008
Messages
654
Location
Vauxhall, London.
Haha thats funny.:lol: ....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 :lol: 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 :lol: this answered a lot of my subsequent questions. Aquatic plants fertilizer - Aquascaping - Aquatic plants - Aqua Rebel
 

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
13,818
Location
nr Bath
Hi all,
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.
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.
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
 
Last edited:

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,598
Location
Chicago, USA
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.
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.
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

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
444
Location
UTAH, USA
1 ppm Fe from Miller Micro weekly, Urea as N (Very High Dosing of Micros) PAR 100
20160303_085301.jpg
Excess 1 ppm Fe miller.jpg

20151025_130349(0).jpg

bestpic.jpg


20151025_130334.jpg

20151214_063132.jpg



0.1 ppm Fe weekly custom Micro, Urea N, lean dosing, PAR 100
20160303_085208.jpg
20160316_145943.jpg


20160319_065850.jpg


20160501_102912.jpg


belem2.jpg

20160501_103100.jpg

0.1 Fe custom Micro weekly, Urea as N (Very Lean Dosing) PAR 80-100
received_10155879098958666.jpeg


19867153_10154920010248666_915469059_o (2).jpg


0.07 Fe Custom Micro (lean dosing) Par 80-100
20200129_050624.jpg

pantanal 3.jpg


120297781_250367702982460_8414632111165457566_n.jpg

Osmocote, high Nutrients leaching into water, PAR 40-50
20190405_205221.jpg


0.07 Fe weekly Tropica Clone, very lean dosing, PAR 40-50
20160828_154846.jpg


20160828_154922.jpg

20160807_113842.jpg
20160828_154901.jpg
20160722_102222.jpg

20160813_082059.jpg


Lean dosing, different sources of Nitrogen, Algae everywhere, PAR 80-100
120126016_1068745593542941_6542333903811990791_n.jpg



Very High Traces, High Dosing, plant damage, PAR 80-100
120826487_634227523929771_8667654487349436336_n.jpg


toxicplant.jpg
 
Last edited:

tiger15

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2018
Messages
771
Location
USA
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

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
3,139
Location
Nottingham
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@

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

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
444
Location
UTAH, USA
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
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
1,690
Location
Minnesota, USA
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 :lol: ).

Cheers,
Michael
 

Happi

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
444
Location
UTAH, USA
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

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
1,690
Location
Minnesota, USA
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
 
Last edited:

Happi

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
444
Location
UTAH, USA
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 :lol: ).

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

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
444
Location
UTAH, USA
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

Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
27 May 2017
Messages
1,774
Location
Cambridgeshire
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

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
1,690
Location
Minnesota, USA
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
 
Last edited:

Happi

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
444
Location
UTAH, USA
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

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2018
Messages
771
Location
USA
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.
 
Top