• 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

aquanoobie

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2022
Messages
71
Location
Canada
For those of you wondering whether you can keep your Urea in solution, <This paper> measures Urea's degradation rate in Ph 6-8 solution as approximately 3x10E-6/h depending on temperature and concentration. So by my bad maths that means you're good for several months.
Hi all
Don't know what this rate constant is about but this scientific notation says coefficient 3, base 10 and exponent -6. Exponent is minus six not plus six.

3x10E-6 = 0.000 003 hour = 0.00018 minute = 0.0108 of a second

How do you see it?
 

Hufsa

Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
1,344
Location
Norway
For those of you wondering whether you can keep your Urea in solution, <This paper> measures Urea's degradation rate in Ph 6-8 solution as approximately 3x10E-6/h depending on temperature and concentration. So by my bad maths that means you're good for several months.
Hi all
Don't know what this rate constant is about but this scientific notation says coefficient 3, base 10 and exponent -6. Exponent is minus six not plus six.

3x10E-6 = 0.000 003 hour = 0.00018 minute = 0.0108 of a second

How do you see it?

It would be great if someone fluent in science could do a bit of a "for dummies" take-away of this paper for the rest of us.
I took a look at it and it is highly relevant and interesting to me, if only I knew what it said 😅
 

Karmicnull

Member
Joined
6 Sep 2020
Messages
620
Location
Cambridge
Hi all
Don't know what this rate constant is about but this scientific notation says coefficient 3, base 10 and exponent -6. Exponent is minus six not plus six.

3x10E-6 = 0.000 003 hour = 0.00018 minute = 0.0108 of a second

How do you see it?
The way I read the paper it was degrading by 3 times ten to the -6 per hour. Ie after one hour 99.9997% of the Urea is still in solution. But I may have misunderstood.
 

Alexv95

New Member
Joined
11 Sep 2020
Messages
16
Location
France
Thank you all for this great thread, I've been wanting to participate for a while but couldn't catch up on my reading :).
I wanted to discuss several points with you, the first of which concerns the amazing @Sudipta setup. I would like to quote a thread from MichaelJ (from another topic) which summarises the key elements :

Hi @GreggZ,

I am trying to see if I can sum some of this up for my understanding. This is my key takeaways from the @Sudipta setup:

  • No CO2 injection
  • RO-DI water Remineralized to 0-1 KH and about 6 GH,
  • pH approx. 5.75.
  • low 70'ties temperature (I suppose this could be 73F ?)
  • Very low water column nutrients <5 ppm nitrate, phosphate <1 ppm.
  • Rich ADA Amazonia approx. 3 inch. deep
  • Ammonia containing root tabs ever 1-2 months. (no word on specific product or amount/sq area)
  • Nilocg ThriveS ("very small amounts of N and P, but decent K, Fe etc.") - (no exact info on dosing schedule, but can be deduced from the <5 ppm of nitrate I suppose)
  • Light: Chihiros wrgb2 120-150+ PAR at the substrate level!
  • Weekly 40% WC with gentle substrate cleaning
  • No/infrequent uprooting
  • Somewhat oversized filtration (HOB) (supposedly to provide adequate flow of co2/nutrient distribution.)

I hope I am representing the conditions correctly, but please let me know otherwise. That doesn't really sound too terribly hard to me. What's your thoughts on this @GreggZ ?

Do you know which root tabs he is using btw.?

Cheers,
Michael

With a similar configuration, I had found a few months ago the youtube channel of Yulia aquascape : https://www.youtube.com/c/YuliaAquascape





After reading the comments on his channel and watching the videos, here are the key points (I'm summarising) :
  • No CO2 injection :
The author's assumptions : source of CO2 1. From fish inhalation 2. When the lights are off (Dark) the plants emit CO2 3. Skimmers also suck up CO2 elements from the outside air 4. When changing water (Water Change), new water contains CO2 (pearling plants for 2-3 days)?
  • KH and GH : unfortunately unknown here, Yulia indicates that he uses well water, from the ground, rich in minerals but does not know the parameters
  • pH : also unknown
  • temperature : big difference here, he mentionned a water temperature of 25-30 °C
  • Very low water column nutrients : same assumption here, he uses a liquid fertiliser which seems to be lean and doses once a week.
  • Rich dirt DIY substrate and gravel here
  • No mention of root tabs
  • Merk Bio KCL fertilizer - (content?)
  • No PAR data but 1. LED SAKKAI Pro 26W (Blue & White) 2. PHILIP LED 8W x 2Pcs (Warm) 3. DAY 47 Philip LED up to 12W x 2Pcs for a 60cm x 30cm x 40cm. So approx 1W LED/L. Even with a low PAR/W efficiency, I think strong lighting can be expected with such values. Given the density of the plants and colours also.
  • 100% WC ! 3-4 days, sometimes 5 days & 7 days (pearling plants for 2-3 days)
  • No/infrequent uprooting : same here
  • No filtration !
So I see 3 big differences with Sudipta's tank: no filter here, relatively high temperatures and big water changes (for CO2 inputs). The plants are dense, the biomass should be high.
What do you think? I wanted to discuss other points but I will do so in another post.
 

Kelvin12

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2020
Messages
170
Location
NSW Australia
Came across this U tube video myself and will be following his methods later. Sure is impressive growth and a pretty well relaxed approach.

Dirk
 

Wookii

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
3,167
Location
Nottingham
Thank you all for this great thread, I've been wanting to participate for a while but couldn't catch up on my reading :).
I wanted to discuss several points with you, the first of which concerns the amazing @Sudipta setup. I would like to quote a thread from MichaelJ (from another topic) which summarises the key elements :



With a similar configuration, I had found a few months ago the youtube channel of Yulia aquascape : https://www.youtube.com/c/YuliaAquascape





After reading the comments on his channel and watching the videos, here are the key points (I'm summarising) :
  • No CO2 injection :
The author's assumptions : source of CO2 1. From fish inhalation 2. When the lights are off (Dark) the plants emit CO2 3. Skimmers also suck up CO2 elements from the outside air 4. When changing water (Water Change), new water contains CO2 (pearling plants for 2-3 days)?
  • KH and GH : unfortunately unknown here, Yulia indicates that he uses well water, from the ground, rich in minerals but does not know the parameters
  • pH : also unknown
  • temperature : big difference here, he mentionned a water temperature of 25-30 °C
  • Very low water column nutrients : same assumption here, he uses a liquid fertiliser which seems to be lean and doses once a week.
  • Rich dirt DIY substrate and gravel here
  • No mention of root tabs
  • Merk Bio KCL fertilizer - (content?)
  • No PAR data but 1. LED SAKKAI Pro 26W (Blue & White) 2. PHILIP LED 8W x 2Pcs (Warm) 3. DAY 47 Philip LED up to 12W x 2Pcs for a 60cm x 30cm x 40cm. So approx 1W LED/L. Even with a low PAR/W efficiency, I think strong lighting can be expected with such values. Given the density of the plants and colours also.
  • 100% WC ! 3-4 days, sometimes 5 days & 7 days (pearling plants for 2-3 days)
  • No/infrequent uprooting : same here
  • No filtration !
So I see 3 big differences with Sudipta's tank: no filter here, relatively high temperatures and big water changes (for CO2 inputs). The plants are dense, the biomass should be high.
What do you think? I wanted to discuss other points but I will do so in another post.


Really interesting videos there, though I'm not sure it's relevant to this thread as we don't know anything about his dosing regime - though it does appear to be a complete NPK + Micros liquid fert.

I think there are a few key takeaways for me that I think aid his success;
  1. He uses a very bacterially mature substrate, and plenty of it and so largely avoids any new tank syndrome. It seems to have a quite a mix of stuff in it, potentially some organic substances too, so possibly a fair bit of CO2 produced by the substrate for the plant roots, plus the obvious nutrient store. He appears to be a bit secretive about the substrate, but I'd wager he takes it straight from his outdoor growing tubs, and maybe mixes a bit of peat or other compost to it - it is clearly very well aged.
  2. He does two very large water changes (>80% by the looks of it) per week, and so adds a good amount of dissolved CO2 to the system at those points, and removes any excess organics and ammonia from the water column at that point. The fact that he has no surface movement also ensures that dissolved CO2 remains in the water column for an extended period.
  3. He runs relatively low light (I don't agree with your assessment that he has strong lighting - 24-26W of lighting on a 72 litre tank is really quite low), and runs an extended 12 hour photo period to maximise photosynthesis and DO production.
  4. He is clearly meticulous with his maintenance. You can see the care he takes over trimming individual stems, and repositioning individual stems with teasers, which likely suggests a great deal of time is dedicated to maintaining that tank that a quick YouTube video can't really show.
It's certainly a stunning result, and something I may have a stab at myself at some point - though I'd be reluctant to add livestock to such a system.
 

JoshP12

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
736
Location
Canada
I think it is important to say that the 80% water change exposes the plants to atmospheric gas and the plants then store those gases.

If repeated regularly and consitently, I don't think it is too farfetched to think the plant would respond by planning its consumption ... especially within reason (manipulating local environments of rhizosphere, plant surface, etc).
 

Alexv95

New Member
Joined
11 Sep 2020
Messages
16
Location
France
Thank you for your comments.

Really interesting videos there, though I'm not sure it's relevant to this thread as we don't know anything about his dosing regime - though it does appear to be a complete NPK + Micros liquid fert.

I think there are a few key takeaways for me that I think aid his success;
  1. He uses a very bacterially mature substrate, and plenty of it and so largely avoids any new tank syndrome. It seems to have a quite a mix of stuff in it, potentially some organic substances too, so possibly a fair bit of CO2 produced by the substrate for the plant roots, plus the obvious nutrient store. He appears to be a bit secretive about the substrate, but I'd wager he takes it straight from his outdoor growing tubs, and maybe mixes a bit of peat or other compost to it - it is clearly very well aged.
  2. He does two very large water changes (>80% by the looks of it) per week, and so adds a good amount of dissolved CO2 to the system at those points, and removes any excess organics and ammonia from the water column at that point. The fact that he has no surface movement also ensures that dissolved CO2 remains in the water column for an extended period.
  3. He runs relatively low light (I don't agree with your assessment that he has strong lighting - 24-26W of lighting on a 72 litre tank is really quite low), and runs an extended 12 hour photo period to maximise photosynthesis and DO production.
  4. He is clearly meticulous with his maintenance. You can see the care he takes over trimming individual stems, and repositioning individual stems with teasers, which likely suggests a great deal of time is dedicated to maintaining that tank that a quick YouTube video can't really show.
It's certainly a stunning result, and something I may have a stab at myself at some point - though I'd be reluctant to add livestock to such a system.
Yes, I agree that it is a bit annoying for the analysis not to know the exact fertilisation.
For the light, where do you see that he uses only 26W? On this video : he mentions 3 lights with a total of 66 W. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll be surprised if we can get such colours (rotala, alternanthera...) with low lighting, without CO2 injection.

The other aspect I wanted to talk about was CO2 (thx to mention it) : if we consider dissolved CO2, in @Sudipta's tank, there are many gas exchanges with the surface, which I guess tended to level out the CO2 level: the CO2 produced was removed at night to the equilibrium concentration with atmosphere. And conversely, during photosynthesis when the plants consumed all the CO2, the exchanges offers the opportunity to reintroduce some. The CO2 avaliable is always low butwith a relatively constant rate.

Here, with your hypotheses (which I also agree with) and with limited gas exchanges, I expect the rate to be maximum when the lighting are turned on and very low few hours later. We are typically in the fluctuating CO2 situations described by T. Barr, D. Wong and others, with great risk of unhealthy plants and algae +++. But nothing like that.
What is your opinion ?
My other hypothesis would be that ultimately without rich fertilization, plant growth is slowed down and the demand for CO2 is lower. But the substrate is still rich. And D. Walstad talks about this case of CO2 that can go down to 0 in her method, she recommends siesta to regenerate it. But this does not prevent fluctuations.
I'm confused on this point.
 

Wookii

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
3,167
Location
Nottingham
For the light, where do you see that he uses only 26W? On this video :
I thought in your analysis you were saying which lights he was using in videos 1, 2 and 3:

No PAR data but 1. LED SAKKAI Pro 26W (Blue & White) 2. PHILIP LED 8W x 2Pcs (Warm) 3. DAY 47 Philip LED up to 12W x 2Pcs for a 60cm x 30cm x 40cm.

So are you saying he’s using all those at once?

If so, that is a fair bit more - that’d put him at about Chihiros WRGB II level.

I'm confused on this point.

Yes, me too. Even if most of the CO2 is coming from water changes, it’s very boom and bust - such inconsistency should be a nightmare for algae management.

His videos show the plants pearling, so there must be CO2 present, but that could well be filmed immediately after a water change.
 

Sudipta

Member
Joined
3 Mar 2022
Messages
55
Location
Minnesota
Thank you all for this great thread, I've been wanting to participate for a while but couldn't catch up on my reading :).
I wanted to discuss several points with you, the first of which concerns the amazing @Sudipta setup. I would like to quote a thread from MichaelJ (from another topic) which summarises the key elements :



With a similar configuration, I had found a few months ago the youtube channel of Yulia aquascape : https://www.youtube.com/c/YuliaAquascape





After reading the comments on his channel and watching the videos, here are the key points (I'm summarising) :
  • No CO2 injection :
The author's assumptions : source of CO2 1. From fish inhalation 2. When the lights are off (Dark) the plants emit CO2 3. Skimmers also suck up CO2 elements from the outside air 4. When changing water (Water Change), new water contains CO2 (pearling plants for 2-3 days)?
  • KH and GH : unfortunately unknown here, Yulia indicates that he uses well water, from the ground, rich in minerals but does not know the parameters
  • pH : also unknown
  • temperature : big difference here, he mentionned a water temperature of 25-30 °C
  • Very low water column nutrients : same assumption here, he uses a liquid fertiliser which seems to be lean and doses once a week.
  • Rich dirt DIY substrate and gravel here
  • No mention of root tabs
  • Merk Bio KCL fertilizer - (content?)
  • No PAR data but 1. LED SAKKAI Pro 26W (Blue & White) 2. PHILIP LED 8W x 2Pcs (Warm) 3. DAY 47 Philip LED up to 12W x 2Pcs for a 60cm x 30cm x 40cm. So approx 1W LED/L. Even with a low PAR/W efficiency, I think strong lighting can be expected with such values. Given the density of the plants and colours also.
  • 100% WC ! 3-4 days, sometimes 5 days & 7 days (pearling plants for 2-3 days)
  • No/infrequent uprooting : same here
  • No filtration !
So I see 3 big differences with Sudipta's tank: no filter here, relatively high temperatures and big water changes (for CO2 inputs). The plants are dense, the biomass should be high.
What do you think? I wanted to discuss other points but I will do so in another post.

wow.. these are really beautiful. Plants look really vibrant and healthy, significantly better than any of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks. However, I am little bit confused as I see Amazon link for CO2 kit in most of his video descriptions. Are you absolutely sure that these are non-CO2 setups?
 

Hanuman

Member
Joined
4 Jan 2019
Messages
1,361
Location
Thailand
wow.. these are really beautiful. Plants look really vibrant and healthy, significantly better than any of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks. However, I am little bit confused as I see Amazon link for CO2 kit in most of his video descriptions. Are you absolutely sure that these are non-CO2 setups?
In all his videos:
Screen Shot 2022-06-08 at 07.48.09.jpg

Screen Shot 2022-06-08 at 07.49.48.jpg

The above pretty much answers the pearling. Changing water so regularly you are bringing in CO2 nearly daily.
Here, with your hypotheses (which I also agree with) and with limited gas exchanges, I expect the rate to be maximum when the lighting are turned on and very low few hours later. We are typically in the fluctuating CO2 situations described by T. Barr, D. Wong and others, with great risk of unhealthy plants and algae +++. But nothing like that.
What is your opinion ?
My other hypothesis would be that ultimately without rich fertilization, plant growth is slowed down and the demand for CO2 is lower. But the substrate is still rich. And D. Walstad talks about this case of CO2 that can go down to 0 in her method, she recommends siesta to regenerate it. But this does not prevent fluctuations.
I'm confused on this point.
1. CO2 fluctuates as much in his tanks than in any CO2 injected tank (day/night). The idea of CO2 fluctuation is misunderstood IMO. It's not whether it fluctuates as much intra day (although that can have consequences under certain conditions), but whether it is erratic and inconsistence week after week. One also needs to consider lighting vs CO2 consumption. In the case of his tanks, CO2 is consistent in the way he does WC regularly and often pretty much maintais CO2 levels week after week. Plants will adapt and grow accordingly. He is also not bombarding those tanks with indecent amounts of PAR. Those are low to medium lit tanks. Nowhere near what you see in high tech tanks with 200umol as a minimum in many instances. Look at one of his 60cm tank with 2 x 12W LEDs perched at ~20 cm+ from the water surface.... That is was I call very low light. There is another one with 50W which is obviously higher energy but again, look at where the lights are positionned, quite high. I am pretty sure a PAR meter would read under 100umols at substrate level specially be cause he used cheap LED bulbs.

2. Those tanks are 100% heavily planted with fast growing stem plants. Algae has little chance in these scenarios considering the very rich, fertile substrate. Plants are nowhere being limited by nutrients. Also, note this innocuous comments in bold letters in the description:

Screen Shot 2022-06-08 at 08.20.04.jpg


Overall I am not impressed considering we only see 3-4 months worth of tank life. I call that the grace period where everything is basically at its prime and little exogenous intervention and management is needed. Plants are doing all the heavily lifting here. Aquascaper is merely cuddling plants. What would be more interesting to see is those tanks under the same regime after 6 months to a year. That would really be a test. But I bet those tanks are dismantled after 6 months or so because the amount of work required to maintaining them is high. Plus the grace period is over and you need to start adjusting things like ferts, trimming, etc etc.

This is what I dislike about these youtube videos. Often time they just show the beginning and great part and omit the rest. Then people are left with a biased opinion on what to expect if they do the same.
 

Sudipta

Member
Joined
3 Mar 2022
Messages
55
Location
Minnesota
The above pretty much answers the pearling. Changing water so regularly you are bringing in CO2 nearly daily
Thanks for the information. That makes sense. I saw in one of his videos, he mentionned that sometimes he changes water 5 times a week and even every day occasionally. I am wondering if he is changing water during the light period. I have seen massive improvement in plant growth when I was doing daily water changes last summer (25% during light period) in one my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks while treating ich with high temperature (84F) and ich-X. I did that for 3 straight weeks and the plants did exceptionally well, even better than my other tanks where I was doing weekly water changes with lower temperature (75-77F).
 

Hanuman

Member
Joined
4 Jan 2019
Messages
1,361
Location
Thailand
I am wondering if he is changing water during the light period.
If I had to speculate I would say it's beneficial to do WC during the photoperiod since plants would be exposed to atmospheric CO2 which they can capture and store in their leaves. Josh made a comment in that regard and I would tend to agree.
I think it is important to say that the 80% water change exposes the plants to atmospheric gas and the plants then store those gases.
But regardless of doing it during the photoperiod or not I think it is still beneficial overall to do WC more often than not. It's not only about CO2 but also about removing organics and reseting fert levels. It would basically equate to what happens in a river where water flows and constantly brings new nutrient, CO2 etc. That's my theory at least.
 

Wookii

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
3,167
Location
Nottingham
Aquascaper is merely cuddling plants.
You take it to a new level man! I'm making that quote of the day! 😂
I saw in one of his videos, he mentioned that sometimes he changes water 5 times a week and even every day occasionally.

That would explain it a bit then, as that would mean he is in essence dosing the tank with CO2 pretty frequently.
 
Top