• 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

Hi all,
For someone like myself, it seems to make sense to buy a bottle of ferts off the shelf and dose the tank with it. At roughly 1 ml a day, my 500ml bottle will last me more than 1 year.
I guess that is it, if people can buy an easy to use, off the shelf solution that works they will, and why not?

Personally I'm much too mean to give my money to the participants in the <"World's most expensive water"> competition, but I'm also much too lazy to actually make up my own fertiliser any more, when there is a <"cheap, and acceptable, compromise"*>.

* I realise that it won't be an acceptable compromise for every-one.

cheers Darrel
 
I do not have a chemistry/plant biology background, so I am happy to keep it simple.

For someone like myself, it seems to make sense to buy a bottle of ferts off the shelf and dose the tank with it. At roughly 1 ml a day, my 500ml bottle will last me more than 1 year.
This is exactly why Xiaozhuang Wong sells thousands of bottles of APT Complete. The vast majority have no idea what is in it or the level of nutrients it provides. And they don't want to. Most of the world has very small tanks and it's a matter of convenience.

We have to keep in mind that nuts like us (including myself!) on forums like this are the exception not the rule.
 
I'd guess that even the people who do make their own mixes are going to use a commercial <"trace element mix">
I think it depends on whether you believe in necessity to use chelates.
The problem with these types of experiments is that it doesn’t account for the many other variables from tank to tank. Pretty much what this proves is what happened in those particular tanks, with that particular set up, and those particular plants.
The way to reveal step by step the significance of individual variables in relation to the whole is doing precisely this kind of experiments. I took care to keep as many as possible variables identical in all four tanks and make them differ in two parameters only: acidic vs. alkaline and lean vs. rich. I've demonstrated that both species are able to benefit from rich nutrition, and only one of them is well adapted to alkaline environment.
And not to be lost is that different plants have different optimal conditions.
But that was exactly what made me to make the test - to demonstrate different responses to external conditions by two species.
But even so the plants in these tanks do not look to be in peak health. Lot’s of algae on old growth and the substrate looks dirty with algae as well.
I agree. Only that what you see is mostly fungi, most likely, because they appeared during dark cycling. However, you seem to fail to understand what experiments are performed for. It is not to take some plants and gradually adjust conditions to a state when they look (unnaturally) perfect. It is to expose them to chosen conditions and then observe, describe, and discuss the results. If algae appear, then be it. If the plants outright die, then be it. That's what experiments work like.
But frankly, I've seldom seen Ludwigia glandulosa in better shape (in tank A), even in CO2 enriched tanks. Perhaps more detailed photos would show, but, interestingly, you did not show interest.
I think sometimes folks make the mistake of looking at a tank like a science experiment.
I think sometimes folks make the mistake of looking at a tank designed for simple scientific experiments by judging it by their personal approach to the hobby.
I fully understand that most hobbyists will ever be just hobbyists and never perform experiments. But to dismiss them, par example with an argument that one experiment cannot solve the whole truth in its full complexity, is just wrong. My tests are not truly "scientific", but in broader terms, this is how the science is made. Step by step, always with limited (and disputable) results, yet always pushing the limits of our knowledge a bit further.
Some invent/create new cars, and many many more just drive them. Ignorance is fully permissible, but some people still must create new, better cars.
Funny thing is that when you get to know some of the best in the hobby not once does the discussion of Marschner's ratio come up. In fact dosing is pretty low on the list of what is discussed.
Who are some of the best? I suppose they are those who are eminent in what you consider the result. Believe or not, I'm tired and actually don't like high-tech gardens which are so adored by general public. When it comes to aesthetic value, they are mostly kitch, a popular art. When it comes to learning the nature, they are outright the opposite because their methods and goals are unnatural.
I'm not about to fight a war to change this state of affairs. I'm just trying to explain that your approach is not the only possible.
That said, I'll be the first to stress over and over that care for plants does not begin with mineralization/fertilization. Does it mean we should not investigate the influence of nutrition?
 
I think it depends on whether you believe in necessity to use chelates.

The way to reveal step by step the significance of individual variables in relation to the whole is doing precisely this kind of experiments. I took care to keep as many as possible variables identical in all four tanks and make them differ in two parameters only: acidic vs. alkaline and lean vs. rich. I've demonstrated that both species are able to benefit from rich nutrition, and only one of them is well adapted to alkaline environment.

But that was exactly what made me to make the test - to demonstrate different responses to external conditions by two species.

I agree. Only that what you see is mostly fungi, most likely, because they appeared during dark cycling. However, you seem to fail to understand what experiments are performed for. It is not to take some plants and gradually adjust conditions to a state when they look (unnaturally) perfect. It is to expose them to chosen conditions and then observe, describe, and discuss the results. If algae appear, then be it. If the plants outright die, then be it. That's what experiments work like.
But frankly, I've seldom seen Ludwigia glandulosa in better shape (in tank A), even in CO2 enriched tanks. Perhaps more detailed photos would show, but, interestingly, you did not show interest.

I think sometimes folks make the mistake of looking at a tank designed for simple scientific experiments by judging it by their personal approach to the hobby.
I fully understand that most hobbyists will ever be just hobbyists and never perform experiments. But to dismiss them, par example with an argument that one experiment cannot solve the whole truth in its full complexity, is just wrong. My tests are not truly "scientific", but in broader terms, this is how the science is made. Step by step, always with limited (and disputable) results, yet always pushing the limits of our knowledge a bit further.
Some invent/create new cars, and many many more just drive them. Ignorance is fully permissible, but some people still must create new, better cars.

Who are some of the best? I suppose they are those who are eminent in what you consider the result. Believe or not, I'm tired and actually don't like high-tech gardens which are so adored by general public. When it comes to aesthetic value, they are mostly kitch, a popular art. When it comes to learning the nature, they are outright the opposite because their methods and goals are unnatural.
I'm not about to fight a war to change this state of affairs. I'm just trying to explain that your approach is not the only possible.
That said, I'll be the first to stress over and over that care for plants does not begin with mineralization/fertilization. Does it mean we should not investigate the influence of nutrition?

I’d have to say, I couldn’t agree with @_Maq_ more. Anything that has the potential to expand knowledge even a little bit and even when not fully conclusive (after all, what in this hobby is) is a worthy cause.

Tom Barr presumably ran experiments to establish the nutritional parameters around EI and whether you agree with him or not in regard to the benefits of such, he has contributed to the hobby.

Tom Barr also advises on any number of other elements of aquatic husbandry, including a holistic approach, but EI, in itself, is still a ferts regime.

As a hard water user, I certainly found Maq’s post interesting and it probably raises more questions for me than it answers, but that can only be a good thing and a motivation for further enquiry……and I’d take a guess and say I still don’t have as many questions as he’s still asking himself!
 
Ludwigias were unable to uptake micros in alkaline water. So, increased dosing of micros was of no use if the given species cannot manage. (More detailed pics and mineral composition of water can be submitted if anyone interested.)

View attachment 191296
Thanks you for sharing. I am interested in more details: how much micro (iron) do you dose? How often? What chelator was used? Wouldn't using a different chelator (with better alkaline water stability) have solved the micro absorption problem?
In relation to alkalinity, are you talking about Ca, Mg or HCO3-?
I find these experiments very interesting but like @GreggZ , I think it is important to keep in mind the limitations and not to think that the conclusions are universal and that it will be impossible to grow this plant in an alkaline environment (I'm sure you know this but not necessarily all readers do).

Although I have not done this with any of my non-CO2 supplemented softwater tanks but I have been experimenting with Ammannia pedicillata golden in a small plastic container. It has been almost 4 months since I have done any water change and I also added huge amount of ammonia containing root tab but the plants are still doing okay (top leaves are getting smaller since I posted the last update on June 20.)
We can't directly correlate this with actual planted tank but I still think it is somewhat informative.
Here is the link;
Tank you, yes I've already found and bookmark your topic, it's very useful.

Marschner is a good starting point, yet it cannot be followed in practice. Firstly, plants uptake some nutrients preferentially in relation to others. Typically, K vs. Mg & Ca, or P vs. S. Secondly, in many cases the question of availability is decisive. So it's not bad to dose Fe and Mn in 2:1 ratio, but in the end, you have to observe your plants and detect the signs of deficiency.
I'd be interested to know how you do it in practice (but it's probably too long to summarise it here). In my modest experience, I found it very difficult and I have often encountered similar problems in visual appearance but with different causes.
 
I am interested in more details: how much micro (iron) do you dose? How often? What chelator was used?
I think I'll start a new thread (or share this information in my Introduction thread). This is rather complex issue and a bit off-topic, here.
Wouldn't using a different chelator (with better alkaline water stability) have solved the micro absorption problem?
Possibly. But I rather think not. Let me believe that Ludwigia glandulosa cannot live in pH > 7.0, unless somebody proves otherwise.
In relation to alkalinity, are you talking about Ca, Mg or HCO3-?
I use the term 'hardness' when referring to Mg & Ca content.
'Alkalinity' stands for more precise acid neutralizing capacity. When I refer to pH, I use terms 'acidic' and 'basic'. But 'alkaline' is perhaps permissible, too. Yet I'll be happy if any of present native speakers corrects my terminology.
I think it is important to keep in mind the limitations and not to think that the conclusions are universal and that it will be impossible to grow this plant in an alkaline environment (I'm sure you know this but not necessarily all readers do).
I don't believe that Ludwigia glandulosa can live in basic/alkaline environment. But I'm open to demonstration that I'm wrong.
(There's a real distinction between pH over 7, and high content of bicarbonates. Both have rather distinct implications in plant metabolism. My test did not reveal whether the core of the problem is higher pH or bicarbonates. In that, I'll happily see someone to test it.)
I'd be interested to know how you do it in practice (but it's probably too long to summarise it here). In my modest experience, I found it very difficult and I have often encountered similar problems in visual appearance but with different causes.
I'm no magician. Yet I can tell you that keeping simultaneously the same species in differing physico-chemical environments helps a lot.
micurin-22a.png
 
I think I'll start a new thread (or share this information in my Introduction thread). This is rather complex issue and a bit off-topic, here.

Possibly. But I rather think not. Let me believe that Ludwigia glandulosa cannot live in pH > 7.0, unless somebody proves otherwise.

I use the term 'hardness' when referring to Mg & Ca content.
'Alkalinity' stands for more precise acid neutralizing capacity. When I refer to pH, I use terms 'acidic' and 'basic'. But 'alkaline' is perhaps permissible, too. Yet I'll be happy if any of present native speakers corrects my terminology.

I don't believe that Ludwigia glandulosa can live in basic/alkaline environment. But I'm open to demonstration that I'm wrong.
(There's a real distinction between pH over 7, and high content of bicarbonates. Both have rather distinct implications in plant metabolism. My test did not reveal whether the core of the problem is higher pH or bicarbonates. In that, I'll happily see someone to test it.)

I'm no magician. Yet I can tell you that keeping simultaneously the same species in differing physico-chemical environments helps a lot.
View attachment 191311
Ludwigia glandulosa/peruensis can definitely be grown/live in alkaline and hard conditions. I’m guessing a KH of 11 and a GH of 14 is hard and alkaline enough to demonstrate that? Those are this guy’s conditions. He grew it for an extended period of time in those parameters and pretty healthily. Tsing's 125 Hybrid - IAPLC 2020 - Rank 840.
 
Thank you. @Freshflora
I'm curious to what degree strongly chelated micronutrients can help overcome limitations given by nature. It seems this is one of such instances.
 
Would love to go back lean dosing but my tap already have average 19 ppm nitrate, i just lean dose po4 and micros.

I was told that rotala rotundifolia won't like hard water, get stunted, i tried, first under EI, it was true for me.
No matter how i injected co2, lots of stem was stunted. Once i switched to lean ( back then i had soft water) i had not a single stunted stem. But lots of no3 is not faulty because as i said my tap is full of it and rotala rotundifolia is growing just fine.
 
That's my rain water, looks how yellow it is, shrimp and snail are not dying though, but in my filterless jungle tank it need few weeks to clear it @plantnoobdude

i don't thing there is any bicarbonate or calcium in rain water so i add ca:mg 36/11 ppm, 1 ppm nitrates/ 0.1 phosphate, 0.06 iron

300518660_803605987344386_2462803069118923977_n.jpg
 
That's my rain water, looks how yellow it is, shrimp and snail are not dying though, but in my filterless jungle tank it need few weeks to clear it @plantnoobdude

View attachment 192864
Isn't the color of the water due to how you store or collect the water? Honestly I doubt the color of the water is that color falling from the sky else that would imply it is extremely heavily contaminated and I wouldn't even think about putting that in a tank.
 
Isn't the color of the water due to how you store or collect the water? Honestly I doubt the color of the water is that color falling from the sky else that would imply it is extremely heavily contaminated and I wouldn't even think about putting that in a tank.
That's why i put it in a garbage tank, but my roof need a big cleaning, even on my green house the rain water have a yellow tint, glass roof, 100% cleaned
 
That's why i put it in a garbage tank, but my roof need a big cleaning, even on my green house the rain water have a yellow tint, glass roof, 100% cleaned
Dammm, If that's the color of your rain, I'd be seriously concerned specially if it's due to the factories you referred to above. The only other reasons I see would be due to a dust storm or you have a volcano blowing dust near your place...😟
 
Dammm, If that's the color of your rain, I'd be seriously concerned specially if it's due to the factories you referred to above. The only other reasons I see would be due to a dust storm or you have a volcano blowing dust near your place...😟
There is one of the biggest european steel industry nearby, chemical industy, aluminium, gasoline there. That world is f*cked up, even the rain is not safe... that's why i need to use tap water
 
That world is f*cked up, even the rain is not safe... that's why i need to use tap water
You should not hesitate and get reverse osmosis. It's a God's gift to aquarists (and tea drinkers).
 
You should not hesitate and get reverse osmosis. It's a God's gift to aquarists (and tea drinkers).

Weird thing is that there is only walichii that i struggle to grow in my tap, of course that can't be lean dosing but i see no trouble so far, i'll wait and see the coloration of the plant under that water
 
Dammm, If that's the color of your rain, I'd be seriously concerned specially if it's due to the factories you referred to above. The only other reasons I see would be due to a dust storm or you have a volcano blowing dust near your place...😟
funny thing is that the yellow color intensity reduce by itself in a day, and when i put it in a tank, 1-2 days later the water is crystal clear even in my nofilter tank, how ?
 
funny thing is that the yellow color intensity reduce by itself in a day, and when i put it in a tank, 1-2 days later the water is crystal clear even in my nofilter tank, how ?

if you have a lot of leaves in your guttering or water butt, it could be tannins released into the water. They tend to degrade rather rapidly when exposed to light.
 
Back
Top