• 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

John q

Member
Joined
6 Jan 2021
Messages
697
Location
Lancashire
So for anybody that's interested I managed to find some of these recipes, without having my hand held.
 

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
12,686
Location
nr Bath
Hi all,
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.
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

Member
Joined
25 Jul 2021
Messages
72
Location
Kidderminster
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

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2018
Messages
717
Location
USA
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

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2018
Messages
717
Location
USA
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

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,553
Location
Chicago, USA
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
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:
1 ppm Fe from Miller Micro weekly, Urea as N (Very High Dosing of Micros) PAR 100
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.

Lean dosing, different sources of Nitrogen, Algae everywhere, PAR 80-100
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:
8395203944_fc997c6476_c.jpg

8394116095_02073bde83_c.jpg

8394115845_d7ca6ffd66_c.jpg

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

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
583
Location
Canada
Since < everyone is right >, I will just answer the OP's questions.
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.

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.
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).

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.

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.
This is the scape currently, plants are growing in slowly and things are generally headed in the right direction.
Yes beautiful.
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).
Beauty tank.

And great questions.

Josh
 
Last edited:

erwin123

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2021
Messages
351
Location
Singapore
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.
 
Last edited:

Happi

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
89
Location
UTAH, USA
@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

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
583
Location
Canada
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

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.
 
Last edited:

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
12,686
Location
nr Bath
Hi all,
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">.
After a bit of searching I found a floating plant that:
  1. Shows a linear response to nutrients,
  2. has a "leaf green" leaf,
  3. will grow in hard and soft water,
  4. persists in low nutrient situations,
  5. and that plant is my both my "Duckweed" and "Rice",
  6. <"Amazon Frogbit (Limnobium laevigatum)">.........
............. 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
 
Last edited:

JoshP12

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
583
Location
Canada
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

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
850
Location
Minnesota, USA
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
 
Last edited:

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
850
Location
Minnesota, USA
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 :lol:

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! :lol:
 
Last edited:

JoshP12

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
583
Location
Canada
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! :lol:

Hehe - sorry about that! I said Lean dosing is minimal water column dosing … sigh lol … had to fix it!
 
Joined
20 Dec 2019
Messages
477
Location
South Carolina
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

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
850
Location
Minnesota, USA
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
 
Last edited:

erwin123

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2021
Messages
351
Location
Singapore
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

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
850
Location
Minnesota, USA
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

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
583
Location
Canada
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:
1638098957785.png

1638098981909.png


Not those ones? But that's nature.

1638099025235.png

1638099041902.png

1638099053508.png


That fish is happy:
1638099080405.png


Natural succession!!! The Crypt Keeper!
1638099110263.png


maybe these ones:
1638099156713.png

1638099185835.png
(I induced the crinkling on the wallichi by the way!)
1638099211490.png

1638099239791.png



1638099254976.png
(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.

1638099343309.png




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
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top