Lean dosing pros and cons

[erwin123]

i'll upload photo in few weeks once plant will be large enough and to tell my recipe and see how it goes , i can't change myself, i have bunch of hard plant in that tank, macandra, walichii, tuberculatum, high tech plants but i'm sure it's possible to grow them in there =)

i love plants, i want to succeed, i have a way better skill than few years ago thanks to you guys

I know there are some that only post photos when they deem their tank to be 'perfect', but we can learn a lot from the journey, so posting fortnightly or even more frequently than that will help everyone learn , even if you think your plants are not 'perfect' yet.

looking forward to the next update of your journal! - A noob vs some hardest plants

 

[MichaelJ]

I think low temperature benefits any tank, low tech or high tech. Some plants may naturally do better at let's say at 22C, some others at 24/25C or slightly more. So it's all about finding a middle point where most will grow decently. My tanks are on average at 27/28C and even 29C when I am not home and no air con is used during the day. My CO2 stream is insane. If I don't do that, it's no bueno as I will have much less CO2 in the water column. Some stems need trimming weekly, some no.

Hi @Hanuman you make a good point.

Another proposition I want to make - and please anyone, correct and educate me if you think I am wrong; I just want to expand on my ability to keep more difficult plants. Plants that are usually associated with high light and CO2 injection - basically what @Sudipta, @Happi and others have shown. I am beginning to think perhaps the dosing (be it lean or fat - ie. EI) likely plays a lesser role - not unimportant, but lesser - than I initially thought, and the main operational parameters are really low/no KH, low pH, low(er) temperature and rich/mature substrate. Thats the theory I might be testing out.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Hanuman]

Another proposition I want to make - and please anyone, take issue and educate me if you think I am wrong; I just want to expand on my ability to keep more difficult plants, plants that are usually associated with CO2 injection - basically what @Sudipta, @Happi and others have shown. I am beginning to think perhaps the dosing (be it lean or fat) likely plays a lesser role - not unimportant, but lesser - than I initially thought, and the main operational parameters are really low/no KH, low pH, low(er) temperature and rich/mature substrate. Thats the theory I might be testing out.

Yes, the point of EI was simply to be sure their ain't any deficient nutrient. That's about it. Now it's not really pratical to know the exact consumption of each plant sp hence also why some more ferts is preferable to a certain degree. It is possible that plants need way less but if you have a bunch of plants coming from all around the world they will all have different requirements. And that is the whole problem nowdays. Most people (me included) are making tanks with plants that would never be close to each other in the wild and that have very different requirements, yet we expect them to be at their fullest in our tank. 🧐 That's what makes these discussions never ending because the combination of parameters + plants makes it extremely hard if not impossible to find a perfect middle ground. You will always find someone saying this or that because the plants is behaving like this or like that.

Each plant has its prefered parameters. Most plants will do fine in higher KH levels but they will also do better in lower KH as well. Some plants will simply not thrive and die above KH 3, like certain Eriocaulon or Centrolepis drummondiana (blood vomit). But in general I would say a large majority of plants we grow in the hobby will do fine with a KH ~ 3-4 and above. The higher you go and the more the plants will struggle. There a few exception where some plants require a good amount of KH to thrive. So I will say this again, ferts are overblown, yes, but the reason we add more rather than less is to prevent those "possible" deficiencies, nothing more, nothing less and it certainly is not because the plants need all that excess nutrient as prescribed by EI.

 

[Sudipta]

Yes, the point of EI was simply to be sure their ain't any deficient nutrient. That's about it. Now it's not really pratical to know the exact consumption of each plant sp hence also why some more ferts is preferable to a certain degree. It is possible that plants need way less but if you have a bunch of plants coming from all around the world they will all have different requirements. And that is the whole problem nowdays. Most people (me included) are making tanks with plants that would never be close to each other in the wild and that have very different requirements, yet we expect them to be at their fullest in our tank. 🧐 That's what makes these discussions never ending because the combination of parameters + plants makes it extremely hard if not impossible to find a perfect middle ground. You will always find someone saying this or that because the plants is behaving like this or like that.

Each plant has its prefered parameters. Most plants will do fine in higher KH levels but they will also do better in lower KH as well. Some plants will simply not thrive and die above KH 3, like certain Eriocaulon or Centrolepis drummondiana (blood vomit). But in general I would say a large majority of plants we grow in the hobby will do fine with a KH ~ 3-4 and above. The higher you go and the more the plants will struggle. There a few exception where some plants require a good amount of KH to thrive. So I will say this again, ferts are overblown, yes, but the reason we add more rather than less is to prevent those "possible" deficiencies, nothing more, nothing less and it certainly is not because the plants need all that excess nutrient as prescribed by EI.

I absolutely agree with you regarding what you said about different species preferring different water parameters.
However I am not so sure about what you said regarding some plants preferring higher KH. Are you suggesting some plants prefer bicarbonates even in the presence of saturating CO2 or you are referring to their preference for higher pH (higher KH)?

 

[Hanuman]

However I am not so sure about what you said regarding some plants preferring higher KH.

Some plants can still grow at higher KH (>10) such as vals, anubias and a few others. Some soft plants will have already died long ago.

Are you suggesting some plants prefer bicarbonates even in the presence of saturating CO2

There a few exception where some plants require a good amount of KH to thrive.

I see where you are getting that. I might not have expressed myself appropriately. English is only my third language. What I want to say is that a certain category of plants can still grow perfectly fine at higher KH. Will they do better if KH is lower with more dissolved CO2? Maybe. Why exactly is that the case? I can't tell you. I am no botanist but I suspect it has to do with the fact that not all plants need all the same things at the same level and so that's where some plants don't require the PH to be as low as others.

EDIT: actually it would be a good question to ask to a botanist. Are there any plant sp that would prefer a higher bicarbonate content than others in the presence of CO2? It could be but I think the exceedingly large majority will prefer CO2 and a slightly acidic environment.

 

[swyftfeet]

I think I get the lower KH requirement. Could someone with scientific knowledge rate the following with True/False/ Unknown

1. CO2 can be generated from fish & also from bacteria that live in the substrate
2. If the CO2 is being generated by the substrate bacteria and fish, unused CO2 changes to Carbonic Acid
3. A minor change in in the unused dissolved CO2 drops the PH easier because there is no buffer (low KH)
4. The lower pH allows all the ferts to be more readily available to the plants. they're less likely to precipitate
   1. maybe they move easier in the plant structure
5. Nitrification(autotrophic) bacteria grow better in pH of 7.5-8.0 , it will not grow sub 6pH. it will start to die around 4 pH.
6. Inhibiting growth of nitrification bacteria which eats CO2 makes CO2 more available (this I think is my weak point, I think @dw1305 has found more evidence that nitrification bacteria consume oxygen , but if they use both O2 and CO2 then this position is still ok)
7. If you have less nitrification bacteria you have more ammonia
8. at lower PH alot of the ammonia is in the from of ammonium NH4
9. inhibited growth of autotrophic bacteria increases availability of raw materials (NH3 and NH4) for plants which are autotrophic
10. Plants love ammonium and its non toxic to fish, plants will flourish
11. flourishing plants will also take up remaining NH3
12. Lower temp is key to allowing the CO2 to not off-gas

The system cannot work if you have any of

1. high KH - cant swing the pH to keep ammonia as NH4 and keep the ferts mobile
2. higher temp - cant hold the CO2 which keeps encourages the pH to be low
3. not enough heterotrophic bacteria (needs mature soil) - our CO2 factory which lowers the pH -> inhibits the growth of nitrification bacteria

 

[eminor]

i managed to grow 95% of plant in water with KH > 12 but plant like rotala get stunted quickly if the co2 is not perfect, i haven't seen stunted plant since i use soft water

the 5% left are indian plants, thing that surprised me is cabomba furcata was growing better in hard water than soft

lots of my problem was not hard water back then but co2 stability, i still think that it's way easier to grow plants in soft water

 

[erwin123]

 

[eminor]

So here's my tiny 1.5 gallons tank, running since a week or so, there is wallichii, tuberculatum, tripartita, ludwigia sp red, macandra and myrriophyllum red stem in there. keep in mind that i used bleach before adding them in the tank because of algae in backup tank.

The light is 10 hours long, led bulb, rgb, up to 806lm, high light right now.
There is snails in there, I don't know how they live without water movement, but they do...

So far almost no algae at all, it's impressive how roots grow fast in coco. the water is trouble because tetra compost have white clay in it

there's the fertilization routine, once a week :

0.5 ppm N divided between (urea, ammonia)
5 ppm K
0.12 ppm P2O5
0.06 ppm DTPA iron

Here's the soil which is a bit weird i must agree, there is tetra pond aquatic compost in the bottom, then coconut hush then qwartz

funny thing is that i have hard time growing triparta in co2 tank and never had issue in low tech...

rotala macandra is okay, i don't know which type of macandra it is; walichii start to grow new leaves, the stem you see was in a bad health in the other tank that's why it looks weird

tripartita have fun in there, ludwigia is doing fine, it's an easy plant, but hard to keep it red all along

here's the video, you can see some pearling stuff, don't know if it's a bad sign, there's also some new tuberculatum shoots but i don't think you can see it right now

video here

 

[GreggZ]

i managed to grow 95% of plant in water with KH > 12 but plant like rotala get stunted quickly if the co2 is not perfect, i haven't seen stunted plant since i use soft water

the 5% left are indian plants, thing that surprised me is cabomba furcata was growing better in hard water than soft

See this is where it gets tricky to assign causal effect. Was it harder water or something else that made Cabomba Furcata do better for you?

Here's mine with pure RO no carbonates added.....very, very low to zero dKH so about as soft as it gets.

 

[eminor]

See this is where it gets tricky to assign causal effect. Was it harder water or something else that made Cabomba Furcata do better for you?

Here's mine with pure RO no carbonates added.....very, very low to zero dKH so about as soft as it gets.

View attachment 184307

yes, i think there will never get an answer to it, because there are so many variables, ought, cabomba natural habitat is really soft water

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,
@swyftfeet I think that is about right, there are a few things that might need some clarification.

If the CO2 is being generated by the substrate bacteria and fish, unused CO2 changes to Carbonic Acid

Only 0.15% of the CO2 turns into carbonic acid (H2CO3), the rest will remain in solution as CO2, and if the amount in solution rises above the equilibrium value with the atmosphere (dependent upon atmospheric pressure, atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature) it will out-gas. The rate that this happens will depend upon the gas exchange surface area to volume ratio.

Nitrification(autotrophic) bacteria grow better in pH of 7.5-8.0 , it will not grow sub 6pH. it will start to die around 4 pH.

I think you can ignore that, nitrification may be slightly compromised, but the microbes that perform nitrification <"are much more diverse than was thought"> and aren't anything like as limited by <"low pH and carbonate hardness">.

Inhibiting growth of nitrification bacteria which eats CO2 makes CO2 more available (this I think is my weak point, I think @dw1305 has found more evidence that nitrification bacteria consume oxygen , but if they use both O2 and CO2 then this position is still ok)

I'd guess that oxygen is much more important than CO2, because nitrification is an oxygen intensive process (you've gone from NH3/NH4+ to NO3-). You get a large amount of CO2 evolved during waste water treatment, but you have a <"huge Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) to start with">.

cheers Darrel

 

[Conort2]

I lost all my crypt flamingo when I had super soft water. A lot of my other crypts just about hung in there and are doing much better now I add sufficient gh booster.

 

[erwin123]

yes, i think there will never get an answer to it, because there are so many variables, ought, cabomba natural habitat is really soft water

looking forward to updated photos of your Furcata and Tuberculatum! Are they both ok with lean dosing?

 

[eminor]

looking forward to updated photos of your Furcata and Tuberculatum! Are they both ok with lean dosing?

no difference with furcata, lots with tuberculatum

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I lost all my crypt flamingo when I had super soft water.

If I walk around the housing estate, where I live I'm going to see plenty of shrubs of Forsythia spp, Syringa spp., Philadelphus spp., Ribes sanguineum & Cistus spp. etc, what I'm not going to see are bushes of Rhododendron spp. , Camellia spp. & Pieris spp. and if I do see one? It is in a tub. We have limy ground and Rhododendrons etc won't grow in it.

Aquatic plants are going to be exactly the same as terrestrial plants. Some will naturally occur in base rich conditions, and some will naturally <"occur in base poor conditions"> and some <"aren't going to be bothered"> by the base status of the water. These plants grow along a continuum from base poor (plants Like Brasenia schreberi and Tonina spp.) to <"base rich"> (plants like Ceratophyllum demersum).

cheers Darrel

 

[John q]

@Happi
Quick question if you don't mind. You've often mentioned csm+b trace mix as not being ideal. I've stumbled across a slightly different mix (thats if we believe the advertised %) and was wondering if you thought this mix was any better, worse or indifferent. Here's the breakdowns.
Current mix:
Analysis:
Fe 8.2% (EDTA Chelated)
Mn 1.82% (EDTA Chelated)
Zn 1.16% (EDTA Chelated)
B 1.05%
Cu 0.23% (EDTA Chelated)
Mo 0.15%

Alternative mix:
Fe – 7,80%, Mn- 2,00%, B – 1,40%,
Zn- 0,40%, Cu – 0,10%, Mo – 0,06%
E 202 & E 300, EDTA Chelated

Thoughts?

 

[Wookii]

@Happi
Quick question if you don't mind. You've often mentioned csm+b trace mix as not being ideal. I've stumbled across a slightly different mix (thats if we believe the advertised %) and was wondering if you thought this mix was any better, worse or indifferent. Here's the breakdowns.
Current mix:
Analysis:
Fe 8.2% (EDTA Chelated)
Mn 1.82% (EDTA Chelated)
Zn 1.16% (EDTA Chelated)
B 1.05%
Cu 0.23% (EDTA Chelated)
Mo 0.15%

Alternative mix:
Fe – 7,80%, Mn- 2,00%, B – 1,40%,
Zn- 0,40%, Cu – 0,10%, Mo – 0,06%
E 202 & E 300, EDTA Chelated

Thoughts?

I’d like to know this as well, as I need to buy some more micros as my APFUK pack is about to run out after 2 years.

 

[Hanuman]

If I was you guys I would buy each individual salt. Will cost you more initially but you'll have enough for the rest of your natural life and you'll be able to play the alchemist. Not chelated preferably.
For the Fe, preferably buy higher %, such as 10%, 11% or 13.2%.

 

[KirstyF]

If I was you guys and I would buy each individual salt. Will cost you more initially but you'll have enough for the rest of your natural life and you'll be able to play the alchemist. Not chelated preferably.
For the Fe, preferably buy higher %, such as 10%, 11% or 13.2%.

What is the reason for non chelated? Curious as I use DTPA chelated FE due to high KH.