• 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

Lean dosing pros and cons

Are you going to tell that to Takashi Amano?
Takashi Amano already knows this and he isn't concerned with being called "EI" <-- he fundamentally knows that EI is a concept and the numbers are meaningless. EI is about more than fert targets. It's about how you run a system with datums, flow management, saving money, dry salts. ADA is about a system too. I own all of Amano's books and admire him for his work in this hobby.

People who build these systems and understand them laugh and shake their head when they read about tunnel vision on nutrients. There is so much more to this game. To be honest - there's too much to understand ... and when you realize the interconnectedness off these systems you realize that we know absolutely nothing. The only way to make any headway is to consider it a dynamic system of finterconnected stuff and see how that stuff MIGHT interact under a series of constantly changing parameters.

Tom Barr knows that plants primarily get their nutrition from roots. He built EI for fun. Look at his tanks ... they use soil. And the inert ones? That's for fun and curiousity. ANYONE who scapes inert ... does 3x weekly water changes and resets to datum and dose whatever fert is sponsoring them.

Amano was curious. He built an empire and sold a system that works so people don't have to think - they can focus on art.

Literally, we get curious and want to understand why ... most just want to grow nice plants and are cheap. No one gets into dry salts because ADA doesn't work.

The plant needs to be fed ... so feed it and focus on the big picture: this is an ecosystem.

Dennis Wong exploited the need - people struggled with EI because it is hard mode because of how hard rich water column dosing is to manage -- and ADA is expensive.

Everyone knows ADA is rich dosing - but ADA without potassium doesn't work. Buy his books ... you will see every single parameter on every single tank.
 
Last edited:
Takashi Amano already knows this and he isn't concerned with being called "EI" <-- he fundamentally knows that EI is a concept and the numbers are meaningless. EI is about more than fert targets. It's about how you run a system with datums, flow management, saving money, dry salts. ADA is about a system too. I own all of Amano's books and admire him for his work in this hobby.

People who build these systems and understand them laugh and shake their head when they read about tunnel vision on nutrients. There is so much more to this game. To be honest - there's too much to understand ... and when you realize the interconnectedness off these systems you realize that we know absolutely nothing. The only way to make any headway is to consider it a dynamic system of finterconnected stuff and see how that stuff MIGHT interact under a series of constantly changing parameters.

Tom Barr knows that plants primarily get their nutrition from roots. He built EI for fun. Look at his tanks ... they use soil. And the inert ones? That's for fun and curiousity. ANYONE who scapes inert ... does 3x weekly water changes and resets to datum and dose whatever fert is sponsoring them.

Amano was curious. He built an empire and sold a system that works so people don't have to think - they can focus on art.

Literally, we get curious and want to understand why ... most just want to grow nice plants and are cheap. No one gets into dry salts because ADA doesn't work.

The plant needs to be fed ... so feed it and focus on the big picture: this is an ecosystem.

Dennis Wong exploited the need - people struggled with EI because it is hard mode because of how hard rich water column dosing is to manage -- and ADA is expensive.

Everyone knows ADA is rich dosing - but ADA without potassium doesn't work. Buy his books ... you will see every single parameter on every single tank.

Yup 👍🏽

Wonderful, wonderful #1111 post @JoshP12

ADA, Tropica and EI systems… Lots and lots and lots of nutrients when the whole system is accounted for, differing levels of location dependency, differing methods of getting them into the plants. Why choose one method when you can utilise all the systems as specific tools at specific times?

With all the free time you have you can focus on the very behaviour of the thing that matters, the plant.

You get some control.

When to intervene, how to intervene, how to cut, how much root space it prefers, whether it can survive longer periods without its preferences attended to (water column nitrate restriction), which nutrient channels to force the plant to use, speed of uptake (K), how much light relative to available areas in the system (where to plant), how close to the source of co2 it prefers to be, how much co2 fluctuation it can tolerate, when to abandon root structures and when not to (timing).

“To know Mother Nature, is to love her smallest creations”… Gotta look after your bacterial assemblage. It’s running the show and we barely give it any credit.

It’s a beautiful hobby because there’s always so much more to learn and it’s humbling. The Art of Nature Aquarium.
 
“To know Mother Nature, is to love her smallest creations”… Gotta look after your bacterial assemblage. It’s running the show and we barely give it any credit.
Not to mention symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhiza. You’re right, we still have much to learn…
 
Not to mention symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhiza. We still have much to learn…

Of course… Mustn’t forget the fungi. Then all the other stuff we are blissfully unaware of yet.

Everyday is a school day.
 
Has anyone found that anaerobic conditions affect plants and hence the amount of dosing needed too?

We were also recently having some interesting conversations over at TPT about that until that got shut down by the moderator for 'misleading newbies'

I have been thinking of late that the interaction between substrate and water might explain some of the variations we have seen across what certain plants need
 
Last edited:
Has anyone found that anaerobic conditions affect plants and hence the amount of dosing needed too?
Hmm … my gut says It would have to. Assuming anaerobic conditions in substrate … means something will change in bacterial assembly. And necessarily any root stuff … but I think that’s the crux.

If there is a root, there should be no anaerobic conditions. A healthy root should oxygenate the substrate … fueling favourable bacterial symbiosis for nutrient acquisition and mobility.

If the root isn’t oxygenating … turn up your lights and probably your co2 (as it is the likely culprit for jamming the system) … this assumes you’ve already leaned out N and P in the column and are feeding fish well to produce good urea and ammonia …

If you have anaerobic pockets and no roots, the whole thing is probably moot … I mean it’s just a pocket of bacteria? Probably will have some pseudo allelopathic or electromagnetic effect but i bet not anything we could change with dosing regime … maybe plant choice like putting crypts instead of ludwigia … or repens instead of riccia as example.
I have been thinking of late that the interaction between substrate and water might explain some of the variations we have seen across what certain plants need
I’d agree — but it will also depend on CEC, decay, oxygen, age, surrounding roots, plant choice, water flow, light availability … affecting biodiversity …

Certainly a connection - several nodes along the way.
 
When to intervene, how to intervene, how to cut, how much root space it prefers, whether it can survive longer periods without its preferences attended to (water column nitrate restriction), which nutrient channels to force the plant to use, speed of uptake (K), how much light relative to available areas in the system (where to plant), how close to the source of co2 it prefers to be, how much co2 fluctuation it can tolerate, when to abandon root structures and when not to (timing).
Therein lies one of the biggest differences between success and failure. Horticulture and a holistic approach. I've had discussions about this recently. Of all the information available out there this is where it is lacking. Very difficult for someone to learn other than trial and error.

So many focus on nutrient tunnel vision when it's everything else they should be concentrating on.

Has anyone found that anaerobic conditions affect plants and hence the amount of dosing needed too?

We were also recently having some interesting conversations over at TPT about that until that got shut down by the moderator for 'misleading newbies'

I have been thinking of late that the interaction between substrate and water might explain some of the variations we have seen across what certain plants need
Another TPT'er! I believe this to be true. Substrate plays a bigger role long term than most think. Earlier this year I went through a period where the tank was just not right. To make a long story short I drained the tank and thoroughly cleaned the old substrate. The different was remarkable.

Another holistic not fertilizer based solution to an issue. Not as sexy to talk about as ferts, but can make a huge difference.
 
Another holistic not fertilizer based solution to an issue. Not as sexy to talk about as ferts, but can make a huge difference.
You mean the base that houses all of the microbiology and thousands of ppm of nutrition matters?! where nature has a separate physiological thing (the root) solely developed to selectively pull nutrients from is not sexy?!

I’ve been on this thread too long … I’ve become cheeky. I left for 40 pages 😂.

Hallelujah Greggz.

Christel’s book talks about substrate extensively and how the root is built for this job. It also has analysis of substrate from all of the biotopes - the tables are endless .

I hate to say but if you look through journals for over 1 year with people who don’t change the substrate, you can see the plants “change” from stunning to less stunning to really not as stunning as they were … to … time to rescape or root tab … but root tabs only go so far .. eventually you need to get those organics and that pH back to where it needs to be for optimization.

AND then by that point the substrate is so choked by roots, you have to lift the whole thing out and rinse and repeat … or call it the humic layer and pile another bag of soil on top and great as start up …
 
Last edited:
You mean the base that houses all of the microbiology and thousands of ppm of nutrition matters?! where nature has a separate physiological thing (the root) solely developed to selectively pull nutrients from is not sexy?!

I’ve been on this thread too long … I’ve become cheeky. I left for 40 pages 😂.

Hallelujah Greggz.

Christel’s book talks about substrate extensively and how the root is built for this job. It also has analysis of substrate from all of the biotopes - the tables are endless .

I hate to say but if you look through journals for over 1 year with people who don’t change the substrate, you can see the plants “change” from stunning to less stunning to really not as stunning as they were … to … time to rescape or root tab … but root tabs only go so far .. eventually you need to get those organics and that pH back to where it needs to be for optimization.
Yes in my opinion it has much to do with reduced O2 in the substrate for the reduced or anoxic bacteria. I know others who I very much respect who have seen the same thing. I wrote about this real time when I went through this in my journal, but sadly it's gone until I repost it somewhere.

As we have discussed nutrient dosing is not the cause of and the solution to all planted tank problems. Much more to it than that. If that's all someone concentrates on then they have likely have never kept a really successful tank for any period of time.
 
If the root isn’t oxygenating … turn up your lights and probably your co2 (as it is the likely culprit for jamming the system) … this assumes you’ve already leaned out N and P in the column and are feeding fish well to produce good urea and ammonia …

If you have anaerobic pockets and no roots, the whole thing is probably moot … I mean it’s just a pocket of bacteria? Probably will have some pseudo allelopathic or electromagnetic effect but i bet not anything we could change with dosing regime … maybe plant choice like putting crypts instead of ludwigia … or repens instead of riccia as example.
In my latest tank I experimented with deep substrate at least 4 inches deliberately to create anaerobic conditions and lightly planted with much of the surface uncovered. Near the glass where I do have plants the roots are deep and white but I cannot believe that this action alone would be enough to oxygenate much. dosing is very low. we know at least about bacteria and redox but I bet there is more to it than that. Can you compensate with ferts? yes of course. but where's the fun in that
Another TPT'er!
Ex TPT'er. I will no longer participate in a forum which censors people's views and allows only comments agreeing with the moderator whilst advertising itself as a public members forum.
 
Ex TPT'er. I will no longer participate in a forum which censors people's views and allows only comments agreeing with the moderator whilst advertising itself as a public members forum.
Well I have to say you summed it pretty well and I completely agree. It was not just me, but was happening over and over again.
 
In my latest tank I experimented with deep substrate at least 4 inches deliberately to create anaerobic conditions and lightly planted with much of the surface uncovered. Near the glass where I do have plants the roots are deep and white but I cannot believe that this action alone would be enough to oxygenate much. dosing is very low. we know at least about bacteria and redox but I bet there is more to it than that. Can you compensate with ferts? yes of course. but where's the fun in that


dsc00871-cinereum-jpg.jpg

My tank substrate is 4.7 inches - not deliberately but the result of an accumulating of 10 years worth of substrate. 😅 How does one check whether conditions at the bottom are anaerobic? I disturb the top half of the substrate weekly when I insert osmocote (about 2 inches into the substrate)...
 
My tank substrate is 4.7 inches - not deliberately but the result of an accumulating of 10 years worth of substrate. 😅 How does one check whether conditions at the bottom are anaerobic? I disturb the top half of the substrate weekly when I insert osmocote (about 2 inches into the substrate)...
Well if you give it enough time and don't disturb the substrate it will become anaerobic as oxygen is unable to access the lower parts due to compaction. You can then actually see black patches appear when that happens.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top