Lean dosing pros and cons

[MichaelJ]

but a TDS meter is a good gauge of nutrients in the system but not dissolved organics and waste.

HI @GreggZ, Yep, not everything will show up as TDS for sure - We generally do not have the ability to measure TOC/BOD etc. you can make some inferences from ORP/Redux readings though. I own an ORP meter and sort just use it for confirmation of what I already assume/know, about my water quality, but otherwise you just have to use your best guess based on bio-load and thats essentially why I am doing weekly WC's (occasionally going over) to get rid of organic waste and such, and not as much to get rid of any excess of the nutrients that I dose (I know what I dose anyway). But In my lean tank I might push it a bit and do a little less percentage. Of course, going long in-between water changes is tricky and I do not recommend that, but it can be done - see Walstad.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Hanuman]

I am happy to stay away from this thread and come back in a few months times see the evolution of things.

Yes, that would be my humble recommendation for now.

Actually, I have reconsidered. With all due respect I don't see why I should censor myself for the reading comfort of a few. I reckon I might have been a bit too pushy, but for what it is worth, I think for good reasons. I'll use velvet gloves next time not to offend the sensitive minds.

Yep, not everything will show up as TDS for sure - We generally do not have the ability to measure TOC/BOD etc. you can make some inferences from ORP/Redux readings. I own an ORP meter and sort just use it for confirmation of what I already assume about my water quality, but otherwise you just have to you best guess based on bio-load and thats essentially why I doing weekly WC's (occasionally going over) not really to get rid of any excess of the nutrients that I dose (I know what I dose anyway). Of course, going too long without water changes is tricky, but can be done - see Walstad.

Everything can be done depending on the power of the tank. Think of a bear hibernating consuming low amounts of calories vs a bear in hyperphagia that consumes up to 60.000 kcal per day. Waste generated will be dramatically different.
There is really no need to have equipment to measure what's in your water specially when you are using RO. That's the whole point of richer dosing and changing large amounts of water in a high tech system. It is not only for removing organics it is also to reset nutrient levels and prevent accumulation through time. Some will change as much a 80% (or more) weekly or even bi-weekly. Raj comes to mind but I know a few others do that too. I am at around 60% weekly and I don't bother guessing about fish load or plant waste. Once every few months I will do a larger water change just for good measure. Only moment I measure TDS is when I change something dramatically in the tank, so that I can have a reference point, but other than that I find it pretty unnecessary.

 

[bazz]

I'm following this thread with great interest and would like to enquire if anyone thinks that this lean dosing method would be of any benefit to tanks largely containing Crypts, Buce and Swords etc...? It may have already been mentioned but it's so long now I cannot remember.
Thanks!

 

[Guest]

Wait!, what?

But seriously Tim, I don't really think anyone completely carved it out in stone yet. I can only vaguely attempt to define it myself - but I think the prerequisites goes something like this:

• Soft to very soft water (almost complete absence of KH and very low GH (2-4 GH).
• Slightly acidic to acidic water (High 6 to down to high 5 pH)
• Rich/mature substrate
• Weekly low (lean) amounts of NPK with N primarily from NH4/Urea/NH4NO3 and with an eye for ratios (Marschner).
• Low amount of traces, but carefully crafted/picked in terms of choice of elements and chelates.
• Low'ish temperature

There might be more, but thats what I have picked up so far.

And of course, regardless of our choice of water and dosing we still have to make sure we have stable water parameters, adequate filtration and flow and keep our maintenance up to par - the lean regime might enable us to do WC's less frequent but of course also depends on factors such as stocking levels vs. plant mass etc. Less than weekly WC's is not my objective though.

Cheers,
Michael

So no general consensus yet as to a firm definition?
Maybe any nutrient level lower than EI?

 

[Hanuman]

So no general consensus yet as to a firm definition?

Absolutely none I would say so myself. I am not even sure what lean is anymore.

 

[Hanuman]

I'm following this thread with great interest and would like to enquire if anyone thinks that this lean dosing method would be of any benefit to tanks largely containing Crypts, Buce and Swords etc...? It may have already been mentioned but it's so long now I cannot remember.
Thanks!

That would depend if your tank is low tech or high tech (high light/CO2) and the amount of plants of each of those species . Generally I would be wary of "lean*" dosing tanks with mainly epiphyte in a high tech environment due to the fact that epiphyte being slow growers are prone to algae sticking to them much easier than on fast growing stems. Also do note that having grown over 15 different species of bucep, I can tell you that many have different growth rates. Some will be extremely slow. Crypt also depends which but generally speaking they can do fine in richer and leaner environments, how lean, I can't tell you. Swords are usually heavy root feeders so I guess as long as you provide a rich substrate a leaner water column fertilization would do.

* But the problem here is that we are back to square one. What is lean dosing for you?

 

[Conort2]

I'm following this thread with great interest and would like to enquire if anyone thinks that this lean dosing method would be of any benefit to tanks largely containing Crypts, Buce and Swords etc...?

My crypts didn’t like it lean, i lost all my crypt flamingo when I went from rich to lean. I had an inert substrate too so was proper ‘lean’. They bounced back quick enough though when I upped my dosing.

As you’ve seen in this thread though there’s multiple ways to make things work and just because it didn’t work for me doesn’t mean it won’t work for you.

Cheers

 

[Hanuman]

Maybe any nutrient level lower than EI?

Problem is that there is EI low and EI medium, so would lean mean sub EI low? All this is just semantics and leads nowhere.
My opinion of all this is that the term "lean" is just too broad. But beyond that the major problem I see is that it also depends on the plant setup you have in your tank and that's something I don't see really people talking about. It's like it is assumed that these low/lean recipes would work no matter the plants. That is just not the case.
So before having a definition of what lean is we need a scope, and that's far from being agreed upon.

My crypts didn’t like it lean, i lost all my crypt flamingo when I went from rich to lean. I had an inert substrate too so was proper ‘lean’. They bounced back quick enough though when I upped my dosing.

Well under those circumstances and if you don't feed the substrate with osmocote/root tabs/fish waste, basically most plant won't do well eventually.

 

[Guest]

Would Eli be a good reference point from which to define lean dosing since the nutrient levels involved are well known?

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

As for metadata analysis, that's a weaksauce desperation move for when you can't do proper randomized, controlled experiments. That's sort of a joke, but one of the joys of a plant experiment is that we can work with literal clones that we have total control over.

<"I agree">, the issue is just space, time and money. Data mining, using probability, is never going to offer the same level of certainty as a properly designed experiment, but having spent some time with ecologists (and modelers) I've begun to understand <"that it is a valid approach">.

Haha veteran from the toxicity wars. Things go very circular. We live and learn.. we learn..

We have been having this conversation for a <"long time on UKAPS as well">. Personally I've rolled back from my position in 2009, you have to believe the weight of evidence and EI (rich dosing) obviously works, although I still don't fully understand why.

Not a judgement on water changes, but a TDS meter is a good gauge of nutrients in the system but not dissolved organics and waste.

I've advocated conductivity readings as well (to give you a datum range of readings in the <"Goldilocks zone">). It isn't the parameter you would want to measure, but conductivity is a linear scale and the meters are <"pretty much plug and play">.

cheers Darrel

 

[Zeus.]

Which dose are we counting and ignoring ! We should count them all IMO
Our choice of substrate affects the starting dose massively and is a one off that can last the life of the scape eg ADA AS then drip feed a low dose weekly/daily is this lean dosing ? as ferts are in abundance for quite some time.
As long as the ferts are in abundance then IMO its not lean dosing. Adding root tabs is a mega dose but daily dosing is a relatively small dose.
If all nutrients are always in abundance then its EI dosing in my book. Trouble with this is do we count CO2 ! as at what [CO2] is CO2 non limiting
If ferts are close to level of not being in abundance or low for one or more nutrients then its lean dosing IMO Like when we limit one nutrient to get plants to be deficient for a specific colour change.

 

[Guest]

My concern is that without a general consensus on clearly defined parameters, in essence a definition, lean dosing is not easily repeatable in folks tanks, let alone in experiments. And can therefore lead to confusion, problems, disillusionment and people leaving the hobby, especially those just starting out.

After all, to learn from best practice is the main reason many of us are here in the first place. Isn’t it?

Surely then it’s to the advantage of the proponents of lean dosing to come up with a firm definition? And surely anything less will more likely than not just muddy the waters?

 

[erwin123]

I'm following plantnoobdude's journal closely. Regarding the assertion that you need single/double blind, controls, and other experimental techniques... maybe if someone was defending a thesis 🙂 I don't need a controlled double-blind experiment to convince me. Just 'real' photos taken regularly

I'm appreciative of the fact that he has plants in a pot in inert substrate so we can see if there is any difference vs the plants that are in aquasoil.

I look forward to seeing regular updates and if he gets better results than what I'm getting with APT, maybe I'm off to buy a bottle of Tropica to see if I can replicate it! (as I still prefer all-in-one substitutes rather than DIY).

 

[Guest]

I'm following plantnoobdude's journal closely. Regarding the assertion that you need single/double blind, controls, and other experimental techniques... maybe if someone was defending a thesis 🙂 I don't need a controlled double-blind experiment to convince me. Just 'real' photos taken regularly

I'm appreciative of the fact that he has plants in a pot in inert substrate so we can see if there is any difference vs the plants that are in aquasoil.

I look forward to seeing regular updates and if he gets better results than what I'm getting with APT, maybe I'm off to buy a bottle of Tropica to see if I can replicate it! (as I still prefer all-in-one substitutes rather than DIY).

That’s great, As someone who’s spent a great deal of time helping folk out I genuinely wish you every success. But we’re still no closer to a definition of lean dosing.

Unless it’s specifically growing plants in a pot in inert substrate. And dosing with a bottle of Tropica. That’s pretty vague though, wouldn’t you agree? Which is kind of the point I’m trying to make.

And, I don’t remember making reference to single/double blind controls, neither do I think it necessary. Which is just as well since I don’t think the above parameters would yield statistically significant data. So overall not particularly helpful.

 

[Zeus.]

specifically growing plants in a pot in inert substrate. And dosing with a bottle of Tropica

My Pot Scape nearly fits the bill in its later stages when all the ADA AS was removed and dosing a TSN clone, the trace elements would of been deferent as I didn't do a DIY trace clone of TSN - Used APFUK/TNC Trace ( APFUK/TNC trace are the same % of elements), however I would class this as a very causal experiment aka 'messing about'

 

[JoshP12]

sweeping statements like "Rotala struggles under EI with poor substrate and Co2" may lead to unnecessary controversy. Best to be more specific - for example, if you had problems growing Rotala using EI, you can share your experience, but there are others who have no problem with EI and inert substrate who may be willing to share how to do it.

You pick one line? The line before I attest that you can grow anything under EI ... . I don't have issues growing any plany under EI. I can induce issues and fix them.

Read any forum and you will see thousands of threads about rotala and EI.

Anyways in conjunction with the post below, if I did that Erwin I'd write a novel and most certainly no one would read it.

Hi @JoshP12 I like your posts, and they are interesting to try and decipher, but often I am never entirely sure what some of you posts means to be honest - No offense, your writing style is probably just too dense - dense; as in "too closely compacted in terms of substance" for me to comprehend 🙂

Cheers,
Michael

No offense taken mate. 🙂

 

[John q]

if I did that Erwin I'd write a novel and most certainly no one would read it.

I would... especially if the title was "Lean dosing, pro's and Cons" 😁

 

[GreggZ]

That’s great, As someone who’s spent a great deal of time helping folk out I genuinely wish you every success. But we’re still no closer to a definition of lean dosing.

The problem is we are really discussing two different things at the same time.

I think the vast majority would agree that "lean" dosing means dosing less nutrients. So a reasonable person would say that if you are dosing 1/4 EI, then that is dosing "lean". Seems simple enough. Dose more = richer, dose less = leaner.

And it can easily be applied to the EI method. Here is a quote from Tom Barr.

Start with normal EI dosing and then slowly and progressively reduce the dosing rate till you note a negative plant growth response.
Then simply bump back up to the last prior dosing level. This is the ideal dosing rate for your tank. This takes a few weeks of reduction to do it correctly and of course watching your plants and growth, but you will do this anyway.

And then there is the "Happi" method. High light, medium CO2, and "lean" dosing with very specific ratios (Marschener) and very specific ingredients (Urea, no CSM+B). My understanding is that with this method unless you are carefully following every aspect, then you are not "lean" dosing. So for instance if you are using KNO3, you are not lean dosing. If you are using the wrong ratio of K, then you are not lean dosing. At least that is my understanding. I have to admit I get a bit confused when trying to follow it, so someone correct me if I am wrong.

Here's a link to a Happi post early in this thread which I think kind of summarizes it.

Lean dosing pros and cons

The OP’s original questions: My question is what is the benefits or limitations of switching to APT Zero or just lean dosing in general? Would my epiphytes suffer if I switched to lean dosing? Would I possibly swap one type of algae issue for another? Initial response: You can keep your...

www.ukaps.org

So again I think this thread has devolved into two things. A general discussion of what most people would consider "lean" dosing, and then the definition of "lean" dosing as prescribed by Happi.

To further confuse things earlier in this thread he said that if you are dosing 3x to 6x the proper ratio then you are still "lean" dosing.

Now excuse me I have to go lay down with a cold compress on my head for a few minutes.😀

 

[Guest]

I think the vast majority would agree that "lean" dosing means dosing less nutrients. So a reasonable person would say that if you are dosing 1/4 EI, then that is dosing "lean". Seems simple enough. Dose more = richer, dose less = leaner.

And it can easily be applied to the EI method. Here is a quote from Tom Barr.

Start with normal EI dosing and then slowly and progressively reduce the dosing rate till you note a negative plant growth response.
Then simply bump back up to the last prior dosing level. This is the ideal dosing rate for your tank. This takes a few weeks of reduction to do it correctly and of course watching your plants and growth, but you will do this anyway.

That seems reasonable and perhaps the beginnings of a workable definition of lean dosing. And to be frank it's a method already used by many.

 

[KirstyF]

I love this thread and find it endlessly fascinating. Sure, folks get a little tense now and then but I think it has remained mostly good natured and a good contribution to the forum.

I may be wrong (lean’ dosers, feel free to leap in) but I think the reason we don’t have a definition of ‘lean’ is because the nature of ‘lean’ is to have ‘enough’. Whatever that may mean, in whatever tank you run.

Full EI is an actual number and folks will still use Full EI, half EI and variations between but the ethos is ‘ferts to excess’. Easy!!

Lean, as proposed here, is variable, it is not a single fixed quantity of X. It may alter depending on plants, tank, substrate, desired outcome etc, and involves some maintenance of ratios (No shouting please!!) as well as potentially tweaking depending on results. (Please correct me if I’m wrong)

This is potentially the very reason why EI folks talk about repeatability being an issue. The more complex, the more difficult to replicate. There is no one thing that I see that can be defined as ‘lean’.

This does not however, IMO, detract from it as a viable method. Happi is directly supporting and offering advice to the folks here that are experimenting with these concepts and again, IMO, wins a whole bunch of brownie points for that effort. It certainly hasn’t been a ‘dump and run’.

Those folks testing things out are, in certain cases, doing so with some healthy skepticism, and allowing their personal results to direct them.

We, as onlookers, get the pleasure of watching their progress and results and making up our own minds on how we feel about the whole thing.

As regards evidence…in reality, the only useful evidence is that which resonates with us. For some that’s scientific journals, for some it’s pictures, for some it’s having someone you know achieve something or achieving it yourself….and guess what…we’ve got all of that going on in this thread!!

So let’s call it Happi dosing! He’s put enough examples up on the thread and seems happy to provide suggestions to anyone interested in trying it! It’ll work for you, or it won’t!

And let’s remember that we are all right …but actually we are all wrong.
Any person stating a ‘fact’ regardless of the quantity of supporting evidence, scientific or otherwise, is wrong.

The closest to right is ‘the evidence that I have personally gathered up to this point in time, supports my conclusion that…..!’…..and you’ll still be wrong.

Why? Because there’s not really any such thing as a fact, only your version of your truth.

The person next to you will have different evidence and the person reading this thread 50years from now (I suspect it could still be going the) will laugh at our naivety….after all, they will know there are at least 15 essential nutrients, right!!😂