Lean dosing pros and cons

[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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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,

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.