Lean dosing pros and cons

[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!!😂

 

[aquanoobie]

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.

Hi
This is getting more and more confusing. Have a "simple" question, isn't this lean dosing?

NO3 7 - 12 ppm per week
P04 0.2 - 0.5 ppm per week
K 8 - 15 ppm per week

Also, does it matter where N comes from to be lean? Either from substrate, ure or KNO3.

Thank you

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

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.

That was the original rationale behind the <"Duckweed Index">, just <"add "enough"> when the plants begin to signs of distress. All the time the plants are healthy (and in some form of growth), just carry on with water changes etc., but <"don't add any fertiliser">.

I used this approach because originally my interest in "planted tanks" was in the <"phytoremediation of waste water">, where nutrients were usually present in abundance.

I've changed my approach a little over time. Now I use a <"hybrid Duckweed index">, purely because if you have an iron (Fe) deficiency you can't use the <"visual aspect of the Duckweed Index"> and it takes a while for <"new, healthy, leaves to grow"> when iron stops being <"Liebig's limiting nutrient">.

cheers Darrel

 

[aquanoobie]

If all nutrients are always in abundance then its EI dosing in my book.

Hi
How can it be? Abundance can mean anything. For those who need fast growth for sale has abundance different meaning than for others who don't want fast growth in order to preserve scape. Both groups have abundance of nutrients but still very diferent levels. Or am I wrong.

Thank you all

 

[plantnoobdude]

Hi
How can it be? Abundance can mean anything. For those who need fast growth for sale has abundance different meaning than for others who don't want fast growth in order to preserve scape. Both groups have abundance of nutrients but still very diferent levels. Or am I wrong.

Thank you all

I agree, if you had less nutrients then plants need, plants simply would not grow. in that sense any amount of nutrients could be considered an abundance no?

 

[ElleDee]

Of course @Happi should get to name his own technique. I definitely support giving it more specific terminology so everyone is in the same page. And then he can be the final authority on what it is and isn't, and can make changes if he wants.

 

[KirstyF]

Hi all,

That was the original rationale behind the <"Duckweed Index">, just <"add "enough"> when the plants begin to signs of distress. All the time the plants are healthy (and in some form of growth), just carry on with water changes etc., but don't add any fertiliser.

I used this approach because originally my interest in "planted tanks" was in the <"phytoremediation of waste water">, where nutrients were usually present in abundance.

I've changed my approach a little over time. Now I use a <"hybrid Duckweed index">, purely because if you have an iron (Fe) deficiency you can't use the <"visual aspect of the Duckweed Index"> and it takes a while for <"new, healthy, leaves to grow"> when iron stops being <"Liebig's limiting nutrient">.

cheers Darrel

Which, in effect, is a version of ‘lean dosing made easy’ 👍

I wonder if, in a tank with high light, Co2 and ‘difficult’ stems, whether there would be any degree of separation between the point at which such plants perform well and the point at which the ‘canary floater’ starts to suffer. i.e do these/would these plants have a lower tolerance for dosing than the floaters do? No idea, but interesting thought!!

 

[GreggZ]

Hi
This is getting more and more confusing. Have a "simple" question, isn't this lean dosing?

NO3 7 - 12 ppm per week
P04 0.2 - 0.5 ppm per week
K 8 - 15 ppm per week

Also, does it matter where N comes from to be lean? Either from substrate, ure or KNO3.

Thank you

You are right to be confused.

If you dose at the low end of what you listed above I think 99.23% of people would call that "lean". And at the high end maybe "medium"??

With the "Happi" method it depends. If you are using KNO3 and not Urea, then it is not lean. The K is too high in relation to N, so it's not lean. If you were not using the correct recipe for micros, then it is not lean.

At least that is my understanding. If I am wrong someone please correct me.

That's why these threads have ended up like this for about a decade.

 

[JoshP12]

As I read the developement here, I think people - myself included - are developing the real intuition of Leidbigs law.

On all levels, Leidbig's is dictating growth.

Perhaps there is no definition of lean or rich ... there is only "proper dosing":

Dosing (providing nutrients via substrate and/or column) such that an attempt to provide the limiting nutrient does not destroy (where destruction is sadness in the eye off the beholder) your ecosystem.

It just so happens that if you reduce N and P in the column, it has a profound effect on everything else ...
High N and P in column mean you may need more CO2 ... and to obtain that could "destroy" your "ecosystem" ... by hurting your fish. uh oh ... and there are thousands of ways you can alleviate the co2 demand ... DUCK.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I wonder if, in a tank with high light, Co2 and ‘difficult’ stems, whether there would be any degree of separation between the point at which such plants perform well and the point at which the ‘canary floater’ starts to suffer. i.e do these/would these plants have a lower tolerance for dosing than the floaters do? No idea, but interesting thought!!

I'm pretty sure there would be, I don't grow any <"fast growing"> or difficult plants. I ideally want plants that can limp along <"on petrol fumes">.

A <"lot of the floating plants"> I've tried need a bit more TLC than I offer.

cheers Darrel

 

[Tim Harrison]

Okay, I'm beginning to see why this thread is 55 pages long, composed of 1099 messages and counting. In order to discuss the pros and cons of something surely you first need to know exactly what it is you're discussing? That consensus doesn't seem to have been reached at any point in the discussion, and doesn't look like it ever will. As such it's doomed to spiral on ad infinitum. No wonder some posters are loosing the will to live.

I'm guessing many of us lean dose already and have done for some time. Some use EI as a baseline and tweak as @GreggZ describes above in post #1087, which makes perfect sense since the baseline is easily quantifiable and doesn't require testing etc. It is therefore relatively easy to replicate. As such it is likely to make life as easy as possible and vastly improve chances of success, especially for those just starting out on their planted tank journey.

@Happi,It seems folk are still confused as to the exact nature of your methodology so I'm guessing you haven't been explicit enough in your explanations. It would be greatly appreciated if you could do that below so all the relevant information is in one post for the sake of convenience if not clarity, so anyone reading this thread in future won't have to wade through a mountain of posts to get to the nub of the discussion. It might help you to imagine that none of us has any prior knowledge of your methodology whatsoever.

Then hopefully, we can all do what @22802 is doing at this precise moment in time, and put our feet up with a glass of wine. Except we'll all rest safe and sound in our newly acquired knowledge...

 

[Zeus.]

How can it be? Abundance can mean anything.

Abundance is above the plants needs and below toxic for anything in the tank. The term 'ferts in excess' is avoided as this may also imply toxic
However this abundance concentration range will vary on many factors waters-

• pH when/if CO2 injected-
• dKH -which is resting tanks noninjected pH in reality
• Which chelate is used for certain trace elements may render a abundant [Fe] as not available
• Plus low flow can render a shortage locally esp in the case of CO2

If using intense lighting the abundance lower level will increase also as demand will increase.
So the term abundance 'may' sound a little vague, however it covers many variations in other parameters. So in my book ''Ferts in abundance' encompasses everything.

 

[Zeus.]

That consensus doesn't seem to have been reached at any point in the discussion, and doesn't look like it ever will.

Al least if we had reached a conclusion and a summary thread could be closed the thread and start a new thread. As with all reports I jump to the summary and conclusion first - then based on the what's said I can see if the rest is worth reading

 

[GreggZ]

Okay, I'm beginning to see why this thread is 55 pages long, composed of 1099 messages and counting. In order to discuss the pros and cons of something surely you first need to know exactly what it is you're discussing? That consensus doesn't seem to have been reached at any point in the discussion, and doesn't look like it ever will. As such it's doomed to spiral on ad infinitum. No wonder some posters are weary of the whole thing.

I'm guessing many of us lean dose already and have done for some time. Some use EI as a baseline and tweak as @GreggZ describes above in post #1087, which makes perfect sense since the baseline is easily quantifiable and doesn't require testing etc. It is therefore relatively easy to replicate. As such it is likely to make life as easy as possible and vastly improve chances of success, especially for those just starting out on their planted tank journey.

@Happi, I feel compelled to point out that the above perhaps can't be said of your methodology. It seems folk are still confused as to its exact nature, so I'm guessing you haven't been explicit enough in your explanations. It would be greatly appreciated if you could do that below so all the relevant information is in one post for the sake of convenience if not clarity, so anyone reading this thread in future won't have to wade through a mountain of posts to get to the nub of the discussion. It might help you to imagine that none of us has any prior knowledge of your methodology whatsoever.

Then hopefully, we can all do what @22802 is doing at this precise moment in time, and put our feet up with a glass of wine. Except we'll all be safe and sound in our newly acquired knowledge...

LOL this might be my favorite post in the entire thread. It's a little early for me here in the US and I prefer Scotch but I'll be joining you as soon as I can!!

 

[MichaelJ]

LOL this might be my favorite post in the entire thread. It's a little early for me here in the US and I prefer Scotch but I'll be joining you as soon as I can!!

I am Bourbon guy myself, but I try not to drink before 11 am (CDT) - but quite honestly I am not very entrenched on that "dosing" paradigm!

Cheers @GreggZ !
Michael

 

[Happi]

#1,058 have covered most of the answers already regarding lean. My approach isn't much different except we do not need to add high gh such as 5, this is reasonable if one want to add bit more extra Fe and traces, in some cases people who keep shrimps.

My approach is similar to tropica or Marchner as already mentioned before. Weekly target of:
N 3 (containing 50-75% urea/nh4 components)
P 0.3
K 2-3
Fe 0.1
Traces similar to tropica or somewhere between tropica and tenso cocktail, mainly maintaining Fe:Mn ratio at 2:1

Gh 2-3, kh 0-1 is sufficient, adding higher GH 5 or so with 0-1 kh give you better option of adding more Fe and Micros. Higher GH also create an mechanism that protect plants from being harmed in case of overdosing of micros.

Adding more K 5-10 under higher GH will also work fine, it might not be needed in such quantities. Refer to tropica specialised or Marchner for reference.

Also do consider that you cannot maintain the exact ratio for all elements in the tap water if one is trying to create the same scenario as Marchner. The goal here isn't or dose Exactly like Marschner or Tropica but use them as a guide to understand why they have such ratio, why they choose to use mix of nh4 with no3 etc.

Also consider the way nutrients interact and prectipate with each other in the water and the soil. Your Tap water will certainly interfere with some of these elements and the modification to your dosing will be required at that point.

 

[plantnoobdude]

Abundance is above the plants needs and below toxic for anything in the tank. The term 'ferts in excess' is avoided as this may also imply toxic
However this abundance concentration range will vary on many factors waters pH when/if CO2 injected, dKH -which is resting tanks noninjected pH in reality, which chelate is used for certain trace elements may render a abundant [Fe] as not available. Plus low flow can render a shortage locally esp in the case of CO2
If using intense lighting the abundance lower level will increase also as demand will increase.
So the term abundance 'may' sound a little vague, however it covers many variations in other parameters. So in my book ''Ferts in abundance' encompasses everything.

so then every single dosing regime is EI? Im sorry I don't quite understand. if you don't have all nutrients above the plants needs then plants would not grow?
"If all nutrients are always in abundance then its EI dosing in my book." post #1079
I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand what you mean. cheers!

 

[MichaelJ]

#1,058 have covered most of the answers already regarding lean. My approach isn't much different except we do not need to add high gh such as 5, this is reasonable if one want to add bit more extra Fe and traces, in some cases people who keep shrimps.

My approach is similar to tropica or Marchner as already mentioned before. Weekly target of:
N 3 (containing 50-75% urea/nh4 components)
P 0.3
K 2-3
Fe 0.1
Traces similar to tropica or somewhere between tropica and tenso cocktail, mainly maintaining Fe:Mn ratio at 2:1

Gh 2-3, kh 0-1 is sufficient, adding higher GH 5 or so with 0-1 kh give you better option of adding more Fe and Micros. Higher GH also create an mechanism that protect plants from being harmed in case of overdosing of micros.

Adding more K 5-10 under higher GH will also work fine, it might not be needed in such quantities. Refer to tropica specialised or Marchner for reference.

Also do consider that you cannot maintain the exact ratio for all elements in the tap water if one is trying to create the same scenario as Marchner. The goal here isn't or dose Exactly like Marschner or Tropica but use them as a guide to understand why they have such ratio, why they choose to use mix of nh4 with no3 etc.

Also consider the way nutrients interact and prectipate with each other in the water and the soil. Your Tap water will certainly interfere with some of these elements and the modification to your dosing will be required at that point.

Hi @Happi I am glad I got it almost right. Yesterday I did a WC in my lean tank and tested the water; it's now ~4 GH / 0.5 KH range / ~6.2 pH. The TDS (90 ppm) is still a bit high due to residual fertilizers from my previous semi-level EI dosing presumably, but other than that I believe other parameters that I dose are there now as well with the exception of for K - due to my usage of K2CO3 to raise my RO water to ~0.5 KH.

I have made all these changes fairly slowly and plants and fish are still doing great! - after weeding out (as in removing... ) the floating plants the light levels reaching the bottom of the tank is significantly higher - still no sign of algae or anything concerning - even my crypts seems to be doing fine with the (gradual) changes. The stem's are still floating, but I will put those in later today and take a picture - in the meantime the tetras are enjoying the additional swimming space

Cheers,
Michael

 

[JoshP12]

so then every single dosing regime is EI? Im sorry I don't quite understand. if you don't have all nutrients above the plants needs then plants would not grow?
"If all nutrients are always in abundance then its EI dosing in my book." post #1079
I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand what you mean. cheers!

Consider a pulse.

At each pulse, the plant is performing a "grow".

At each "grow", nutrients needed to "grow" are thrown into the "grow site" (just picture it as a box and everything gets thrown into it).

The nutrients are thrown in from the water column and the substrate in ANY combination that the plant can/wants/needs.

So you have this chamber that is being fueled and yielding a result. Stuff goes in. Something happens. Stuff comes out. This is a "grow".

All of the nutrients had to be there before the "grow" (to move into the chamber) and after the "grow" (to move into the chamber for the next pulse).

In essence, if things are growing, the nutrients are always in excess or the "grow site" lacks a nutrient and growth is jammed.

So it's always "EI".

 

[aquanoobie]

So it's always "EI".

Are you going to tell that to Takashi Amano?