• 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 Happi,
I just want to make sure this is what you dose per week?
This is what I now dose per week via macro & micro dosing. 2.27 Ca and 1.85 Mg goes in with weekly water change.
Ca 2.27 (added with water change)
Mg 1.85 (added with water change)
No3 8.7ppm
P04 2.18ppm
K 6.39ppm
Mg 0.74ppm
Fe 0.25ppm (from csm+b)
Fe 0.09ppm Dtpa

and use 100% RO water here?
No very soft tap water.
Out of my tap.
Ca 6.6ppm
Mg 1.18ppm

so what happened with this one below??
N03 8.8ppm
N 0.65ppm (from urea)
P04 1.19ppm
K 6ppm
Mg 0.4ppm
Fe Edta 0.4ppm & Fe dtpa 0.05

Post in thread 'Lean dosing pros and cons' Lean dosing pros and cons
 
Last edited:
Just like to add an update as to where I'm at after 3 weeks.
The tank seems to have turned the corner and is back on track. I've been doing multiple smaller water changes and extra filter cleans which seems to have helped. Lights also dimmed 9%.
Fertilizer wise I stopped dosing Urea and thought I was adding this level of nutrients to the tank.

Came to make a new mix up tonight and realised I've only been adding 75ml of macro solution instead of 100ml p/w and 75ml of micro instead of 90ml. So I've actually been adding.

No3 8.7ppm
P04 2.18ppm
K 6.39ppm
Mg 0.74ppm
Fe 0.25ppm (from csm+b)
Fe 0.09ppm Dtpa
That's pretty close to what I'm dosing with APT EI though I supplement Mg and Fe. Like I've posted before, weekly I add:
NO3 5.8ppm
PO4 1.9ppm
K 7.8ppm
Mg 0.71ppm + (3ppm Mg via Epsom salts - for the shrimp)
Fe 0.22ppm + (0.1ppm EDDHA-Fe Ice cubes in substrate)
 
Just like to add an update as to where I'm at after 3 weeks.
The tank seems to have turned the corner and is back on track. I've been doing multiple smaller water changes and extra filter cleans which seems to have helped. Lights also dimmed 9%.
Fertilizer wise I stopped dosing Urea and thought I was adding this level of nutrients to the tank.
I think I get it now (had to look back through the thread). Please correct me.
1) Tank was healthy (under EI)
2) You dosed this:
This is what I was dosing when it went Pete tong.

N03 8.8ppm
N 0.65ppm (from urea)
P04 1.19ppm
K 6ppm
Mg 0.4ppm
Fe Edta 0.4ppm & Fe dtpa 0.05

3) Then you dose this:
Came to make a new mix up tonight and realised I've only been adding 75ml of macro solution instead of 100ml p/w and 75ml of micro instead of 90ml. So I've actually been adding.
No3 8.7ppm
P04 2.18ppm
K 6.39ppm
Mg 0.74ppm
Fe 0.25ppm (from csm+b)
Fe 0.09ppm Dtpa

Not exactly lean dosing but thought it might be of interest.
And dimmed the lights down. + small water change + small cleans on filter

4) Largest changes:
Biggest changes from 3 weeks ago are no Urea and the P04 increase and overall Mg increase. N, Fe and traces have actually reduced.

5) Tank gets better

*** Looks like gravel with root tabs? Can I assume you have active substrate. And of course, CO2 injection.

We want to know why.


Contingent on my assumptions above, let's try to figure it out!

This is not so simple. LOL.

Let's put some thoughts to get the juices flowing;
1) Urea is not magic. It provides Ammonia and CO2. But the plant does need some nitrate and if we force the plant to take too much urea and don't provide the nitrate the plant needs to convert it and spend CO2. Deficiency. Ok. Bacteria can take the excess urea and convert to nitrate for us. This can be bottlenecked by oxygen and/or abundance of species. Time will fix abundance, when oxygen is abundant. If you had abundant, rich substrate at the time, I reckon increasing your light and potentially CO2 in conjunction - while maintaining appropriate flow - would actually have saved your system due to increase O2 evolution and excess energy availability for the plant to promote nutrient motion from the roots to the shoots! Alternatively, nitrate in the column MAY have helped while leaving light alone.

2) Your tank went south after that Urea dosing stuff up top. You had higher micro and less PO4. It is possible that increasing PO4 may have helped your tank in situation above. I can't remember: Did you see brownish/black algae or did you see green algae when it went south. If blackish/brown, then intuition suggests leaning towards biological immaturity to handle the change in nutrients. If greenish, leaning towards NO3 and PO4 to "fix" the issue. You see, PO4 is important for energy as well -- ATP -- so if we had any new tissue and any shortfall OR we needed to synthesize more ATP for the roots to be able to pull up nutrients, then it needs to be there, AND PO4 very important for root developement so if the plant is trying to respond to get more of something from substrate and/or create more roots it needs PO4 to grow those roots.

3) If you have rich substrate, you need light since - don't remember but can gather - some nutrient movement requires energy so we need to give the plant as much energy as it needs via light. Or you need to feed it in the column and force feed it without the cost of energy. BUT I know that nutrient transport through Xylem does NOT require energy (when there is water and in terrestrial plants) -- I think @dw1305 will know if nutrient motion from roots to shoots in aquatic plants requires energy or not. I'd be shocked if it was entirely free, but not sure. If the plant wants more roots, it will have to build the tissue though and I think that's where 2) comes in.

4) So you increase PO4, pull off the urea, rest is kind of the same. Small frequent water changes. Light dim. Not sure we need to dim the light. Small frequent water changes means you are constantly resetting the balance to facilitate consistent nutrient acquisition --> gives plants time to adapt to stability. Less urea = less demand on nitrate (which we explain above how we can get it from roots or leaves) and also bacteria (which we explain above) sending the system out foi whack.

So the fix entailed
1) more energy potential (or root dev. to facilitate substrate acquisition) via PO4 +
2) less demand on systemic N via less urea +
3) more WC keeping it in the same "state" to allow predictable adaptibility for the plant and more cleaning of filtration for distribution/less ammonia strain and oxygen demand from clogging etc and bacterial use +
4) a very minor decrease in light (put it back up let's see what happens) -- could play into 7) below bringing it back to reducing demand CONTINGENT on the water column giving it what it needs instead of pulling it from substrate +
5) time for bacteria to grow +
6) less micros ... a potential to make them not the thing that drives the demand via leidbig and also make the water chemistry "less crazay"
7) You inreased Mg a potential to increase GH -- despite a small increase, your water is so soft that it is relatively large -- this could reduce the amount of nitrogen/phosphate in the column that gets "force fed" into the plant leaves -- reducing the demand on everything * ...

Hope that helps get us thinking. If more comes, I'll post.

I mean all of the fixes helped hone in the demand to achievable amounts ... I think? It seems clearer now: All of my “thinking this would have saved the system” are actually what you ended up doing whether directly or indirectly.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply @JoshP12

Obviously need to read through this post in detail but to quickly answer initial questions.
I think I get it now (had to look back through the thread). Please correct me.
1) Tank was healthy (under EI)
2) You dosed this:
This is what I was dosing when it went Pete tong
Yes all that's correct.
Looks like gravel with root tabs? Can I assume you have active substrate. And of course, CO2 injection.
I have about 25kg of gravel and added about 2L of cheap clay to it (Tetra ActiveSubstrate). There are some osmocote tabs in the tank, maybe added 4 over the Christmas holidays.
Definitely wouldn't class this as active substrate.
Yes co2 is added.

Edit: main types of algae were bba, plus a bit of gsa.
 
Last edited:
Do none at all. Water in water out. And just watch. All new growth should be algae free. Leave old growth to grow minute algae is ok.
I have noticed similar stunting after water changes, and I use a turkey baster to stir up sediment to vacuum it out. Going to try this approach for the next few weeks.
How does it go long term though, don’t you end up with a build up of sediment?
 
Thanks for the reply @JoshP12

Obviously need to read through this post in detail but to quickly answer initial questions.

Yes all that's correct.

I have about 25kg of gravel and added about 2L of cheap clay to it (Tetra ActiveSubstrate). There are some osmocote tabs in the tank, maybe added 4 over the Christmas holidays.
Definitely wouldn't class this as active substrate.
Yes co2 is added.

Edit: main types of algae were bba, plus a bit of gsa.
There you go buddy :).

It's all up there. If there is anything unclear just ask so I can flesh it out (I might have skipped over or misspoke slightly so just ask).

I have noticed similar stunting after water changes, and I use a turkey baster to stir up sediment to vacuum it out. Going to try this approach for the next few weeks.
How does it go long term though, don’t you end up with a build up of sediment?
What's wrong with a build up in the sediment? Any exposed dirt should have either carpet or plants and hence roots. Roots will oxygenate the demand on bacterial assemblage that the build up causes and naturally you will have a massive culture of bacteria. At some point, you may want to - you know - give it a little hoover but treat it gently ... you don't want a typhoon disrupt all of life and then have to let life resettle. It is undergoing enough chaos in the micro world as it is, doesn't need you to do that to it as well.

Now, we are the puppeter. If you do blow it all up, then turn up your CO2 for a day to meet the demand of the excess N you just lifted into the water ... the moment that stuff is in the column, the moment it gets into your plant and at that moment it starts to drive growth and at that moment it needs more CO2 if the reserves can't keep up. This is increasingly challenging if you do not run CO2 with lights on. If you ramp your CO2, you will now kill all your fish. It is much simpler to run CO2 and lights on the same timer otherwise you cannot respond quick enough to the system.

The plant doesn't say oh you are going to water change, let me just NOT take in all this ammonia that you lifted. I am going to take it in because I have no choice (because of the nutrient pathways) and I will start to grow because I have no choice because despite what I want, I have to get rid of this N ... or it will build up and become toxic inside of me ... ammonia burn ... and kill me. It doesn't choose. Unless you put a pump right over top of the carefuly and suck absolutely everything up, then any little bit that gets blown around and settled will cause this influx in demand. If people are more meticulous, then they will see less stunting. If you are willy nilly, you will see more stunting. UNLESS you turn up CO2.

If you have exposed dirt and you aren't planting in it and it is acting as negative space (for aesthetics), then it should be sand. As a result, you need to pick suitable livestock to move that sand OR (if you don't want those fish) you need to change the sand out during monthly maintenance or what have you!
 
3) If you have rich substrate, you need light since - don't remember but can gather - some nutrient movement requires energy so we need to give the plant as much energy as it needs via light. Or you need to feed it in the column and force feed it without the cost of energy. BUT I know that nutrient transport through Xylem does NOT require energy (when there is water and in terrestrial plants) -- I think @dw1305 will know if nutrient motion from roots to shoots in aquatic plants requires energy or not. I'd be shocked if it was entirely free, but not sure. If the plant wants more roots, it will have to build the tissue though and I think that's where 2) comes in.

Potassium is responsible for the flow of nutrients.
 
Potassium is responsible for the flow of nutrients.
Beauty -- thank you.

And that is the final piece of the puzzle to support the efficiency of having Potassium and CO2 in the driving seat. And the predictions about what will happen when the substrate is depleted of it.

Potassium is responsible for regulating photosynthis and nutrient mobility <-- 😍



Lean dosing pros and cons

Gonna do some further reading on potassium specifics in the plant but I reckon it is simply used to aid in the motion with concentration gradient. Not entirely sure how it would choose to move it around and the associated energy cost with that -- really don't think it is free free free to make the nutrients move up but it's gotta be cheap.
 
@macek.g ... thank you!


Did some reading: Regulation of K+ Nutrition in Plants

And some others. Cracked open the ol'
1645645656590.png


It's pretty clear that potassium does nutrient transport in terrestrial plants. And I really can't imagine that being surrounded by water changes the Xylem/Phloem interactions that much. I can't find something explicitly says "in aquatic plants it does the same thing" but not sure I "need to".

Not sure if dry-matter analysis of plants is "missing something" ... so despite K<N in dry-weight ... I am not sure if there is a "ghost" potassium somewhere that is not accounted for in dry matter.

For the record all of you are much better at documenting things than I ... is why I never became a scientist ... pure maths all the way!
 
@plantnoobdude and @John q

Now what you need to do is compare the differences between both of your guys dosing, type of fertilizer used and when and where things went good and bad.

@John q
This bent leaves were possibly caused by too much Nitrogen at once and same thing would occur with sudden water changes as well. I think @plantnoobdude was seeing something similar.

Your current dosing is no longer a EI dosing, it's only few inches away from being somewhere in the middle of lean and excess. But I still feel that it could be improved.

If you compare your results with @plantnoobdude and you will see that his plant growth has improved since he made the changes. One major change he made along with other changes are his Fe/Micro which I already told you that you won't able to accomplish if you were to use csm and the outcome won't be the same.

My first impression from those pics are that plant appear to lack some colors, weather it's from the lights or something else. On the contrary @plantnoobdude have rich colors and he is dosing far less Fe and micros. In comparison you need to look at why urea and Micro/ Fe is doing much better for him. He also doesn't even add that much po4 either in comparison.
 
Quick reply guys, I've spent much of tonight trying to digest the excellent post by @JoshP12 think it's sinking in (had a few light bulb moments) but need to thrash it out a bit more.

@Happi comments add more fuel to my current mindset.
But the plant does need some nitrate and if we force the plant to take too much urea and don't provide the nitrate the plant needs to convert it and spend CO2

This bent leaves were possibly caused by too much Nitrogen

Now what you need to do is compare the differences between both of your guys dosing

The biggest difference between my tank and @plantnoobdude is fish load. I have a large fish load, lots of nh4, by contrast plantnoobs tank is lightly stocked (please correct me if I'm wrong.) So my working theory, and I'd like you guys to thrash this one out ~ makes for good reading ~ Is it possible that I had to much nh4 in the tank, hence stunted growth and eventual algae?

Just throwing that out there, as always I'd welcome any feed back.
 
So my working theory, and I'd like you guys to thrash this one out ~ makes for good reading ~ Is it possible that I had to much nh4 in the tank, hence stunted growth and eventual algae?
That’s exactly what happened :). You can qualify this with all the details in my post above but yes. Too much ammonia for the tank to handle and correct without intervention!

And I am glad you are enjoying the reading. Like I said, I hope it’s clear and just ask away.

Edit: is important to say you dosed it in the column. That’s the key difference. The nutrient pathway in a leaf in water is different than a root and soil.
 
Last edited:
The biggest difference between my tank and @plantnoobdude is fish load. I have a large fish load, lots of nh4, by contrast plantnoobs tank is lightly stocked (please correct me if I'm wrong.) So my working theory, and I'd like you guys to thrash this one out ~ makes for good reading ~ Is it possible that I had to much nh4 in the tank, hence stunted growth and eventual algae?
I have soil, that is ~6weeks old. (had it soaking). should be plenty of Nh4 from soil as well. I believe Happi has also dosed Nh4 from ammonium nitrate and had very good results. but perhaps it is different with higher ph. biggest difference is the amount of light I think. I have a chihiros which puts out around 350 par at full power. mine is at 70-80%. I also use much less K even with additional N from soil. 2ppm weekly for K and 1.2ppm for Po4. not exactly lean but still "reduced" from EI dosing. I also use all Urea for N. might experiment with nh4no3 and maybe mgno3. but like I said because we have very different amounts of light, the ppm number is not very relevant, the ratio is though. micros are at 0.1ppm fe as proxy weekly. all plants growing well except macrandra, It is growing well but with lots of side shoots, which indicates it's not completely happy. it'll be hacked back to stumps at the weekend. I do water changes every two weeks, tds is from 90-130 i think.
 
@John q

Other possibility slightly safer would be to have increased K and facilitated the nutrient transfer up from the roots to top up anything. Instead of N and P like I suggested and what you did what ended up working.

Kinda neat actually. The channels can moderate K better than N and P.

Will it get NO3 from substrate instead of ammonia -> dunno but I am sure it could figure it out with K.
 
There you go buddy :).

It's all up there. If there is anything unclear just ask so I can flesh it out (I might have skipped over or misspoke slightly so just ask).


What's wrong with a build up in the sediment? Any exposed dirt should have either carpet or plants and hence roots. Roots will oxygenate the demand on bacterial assemblage that the build up causes and naturally you will have a massive culture of bacteria. At some point, you may want to - you know - give it a little hoover but treat it gently ... you don't want a typhoon disrupt all of life and then have to let life resettle. It is undergoing enough chaos in the micro world as it is, doesn't need you to do that to it as well.

Now, we are the puppeter. If you do blow it all up, then turn up your CO2 for a day to meet the demand of the excess N you just lifted into the water ... the moment that stuff is in the column, the moment it gets into your plant and at that moment it starts to drive growth and at that moment it needs more CO2 if the reserves can't keep up. This is increasingly challenging if you do not run CO2 with lights on. If you ramp your CO2, you will now kill all your fish. It is much simpler to run CO2 and lights on the same timer otherwise you cannot respond quick enough to the system.

The plant doesn't say oh you are going to water change, let me just NOT take in all this ammonia that you lifted. I am going to take it in because I have no choice (because of the nutrient pathways) and I will start to grow because I have no choice because despite what I want, I have to get rid of this N ... or it will build up and become toxic inside of me ... ammonia burn ... and kill me. It doesn't choose. Unless you put a pump right over top of the carefuly and suck absolutely everything up, then any little bit that gets blown around and settled will cause this influx in demand. If people are more meticulous, then they will see less stunting. If you are willy nilly, you will see more stunting. UNLESS you turn up CO2.

If you have exposed dirt and you aren't planting in it and it is acting as negative space (for aesthetics), then it should be sand. As a result, you need to pick suitable livestock to move that sand OR (if you don't want those fish) you need to change the sand out during monthly maintenance or what have you!
Thanks for the detailed explanation!
 
would like to also add that urea+nh4 is giving me the fastest plant growth i've ever had.
IMG_3316.jpg
IMG_3318.jpg

above is 3 days growth.
very happy with rotala Indica. used to be super stunted but it;s growing the biggest flat leaves I;ve ever seen! cuba is growing nice and flat leaves. cuphea looking pretty good. some algae but nothing major. staghorn is going out. co2 has been reduced from 4-5 bps to 1~2. tank still looks good and I'll save some money.
 
would like to also add that urea+nh4 is giving me the fastest plant growth i've ever had.
I think there is a lot more to this. You've made the nutrient acquisition mechanism more efficient ... so it can grow faster. Under EI sometimes we get slow growth and are confused why when we lift to a cleaner column it grows faster. It reveals that there is something that we miss: it's not what goes in, it's what is absorbed. Or we wonder why with low KH we grow faster with less CO2 than high KH. It's not about we put in or what we think we put in ..

Same goes for our bodies ...
 
Other possibility slightly safer would be to have increased K
I'm slightly confused about this one mate, do you mean having more k in the water column would have helped when I was dosing Urea or just in general? Appreciate your input.
 
Your current dosing is no longer a EI dosing, it's only few inches away from being somewhere in the middle of lean and excess. But I still feel that it could be improved.
Yeah I'm sure there are improvements to be made. I'm going on vacation in 5 weeks so going to try and keep some kind of stability in the tank until I return, that's not to say a won't be making minor tweaks to current dosing regime. Will no doubt carry on after the holiday and maybe try a different trace mix that you originally suggested some time back.

Contrary to what I said last night I don't think we can compare my tank to the tank run by @plantnoobdude
These are 2 entirely different set ups, different systems. I don't have high light, rich aquasoil or difficult plants. I think reading anything into having similar water column dosing isn't practical in this instance.

@plantnoobdude looking good, dosing strategy is clearly working from that picture 👍
 
Back
Top