Lean dosing pros and cons

[John q]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

GetWidth

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.