# ADA Power Sand Question



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

It'll lower pH a little, the ADA aqua soil will do most of the work nutrient and pH wise though.

Both have peat moss, which lowers pH and gives off a yellowish tiny, just follow the typical protocols for the ADA and you will be fine.

I'd wait 2 months before adding CRS shrimp, not 1 month.

Water changes 2-3x a week for the 1st month.


----------



## blixy (Jul 25, 2011)

Hello , thanks for the reply Tom

Since my tap water ph is 6.5 already i did not buy amazonia since i think it only lowers the ph , so after much searching i opted to go with red bee sand since it can lower the h or increase it depending on the ph of your tap water and keep it stable around 6.5

The red bee sand doesn't have any kind of nutrients i believe

Either way i will only be growing java ferns trident fern , moss so starting to think the power sand would be a bad idea

Thanks


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I'd not bother with power sand in that case.

Just use the sand you planned on using and stay away from CO2/Excel dosing.

A good non CO2 method will enhance the set up, this can and likely should include some sort of Soil, ADA AS etc, or your own MTS type soil, or worm casting etc.

Tannins and the CEC in clays will enhance the health of shrimp.
So a little peat, or driftwood, etc, also would not be bad either.


----------



## lbacha (Apr 13, 2011)

Power sand is for plants with large root bases like crypts and swords most other plants wouldn't benefit from it.

Len


----------



## blixy (Jul 25, 2011)

Ok thanks a lot for your help , i will stay away from it then

Cheers


----------



## Francis Xavier (Oct 8, 2008)

It's best to think of Power Sand's function as essentially a tool to make the substrate into a more ideal biological filter that plant roots have direct access to - Amano's big on using bacteria to combat system health issues. 

It's a very porous material that provides more surface area for these bacteria to thrive in, and is typically seeded with Bacter 100 (bacteria) and Clear Super ("food," for the bacteria). Of course, larger plants will wrap their roots directly around power sand, as well as large clusters of plants will do the same.

In larger aquariums, it prevents anaerobic spots (from water pressure compacting aqua soil) by keeping the water unrestricted at the lower levels of the aquarium via means of being a larger material. 

Penac W tends to help buffer the water, and is another additive that can be used with Power Sand - Amano basically uses it to buffer carbonate hardness in his very soft water.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Francis Xavier said:


> It's best to think of Power Sand's function as essentially a tool to make the substrate into a more ideal biological filter that plant roots have direct access to - Amano's big on using bacteria to combat system health issues.
> 
> It's a very porous material that provides more surface area for these bacteria to thrive in, and is typically seeded with Bacter 100 (bacteria) and Clear Super ("food," for the bacteria). Of course, larger plants will wrap their roots directly around power sand, as well as large clusters of plants will do the same.
> 
> ...


The Marketing schpeel? Anyone can parrot that. That's "not the best way to think". Maybe for you it is...not for me. 

So why not use lava rock in that case? Why not simply use more plants with roots? Or a larger filter? They have bacteria. 

Penac: dolomite sand can make the same claim. Water "pressure" has little to do with any diffusion through a sediment in any aquarium. Pressure only applies once you get near the depth limits of vascular plants, eg, about 25-40ft. This is due to the Xylem being unable to support against the water depth pressure. Not to do with anything relating to the diffusion in/out of aquatic sediments. Eg Mosses and liverworts can live at 300-400ft easily and do.......same for algae.......as long as the there is enough light, eg, Lake Tahoe and Crater lake. 

Fick's 1st law of diffusion clearly illustrates the problem with the diffusion claim. Plant roots act like lots of tubes to exchange from the water column into the sediment. This speeds up the process greatly. If you have barrier at the top of the soil, then it* does not matter what is below*, the top barrier limits any and all flow in/out of the system, this is common sense.

What would you measure and test to determine whether flow is enhanced?
What would you want to measure to determine if plant growth was increased with enhanced flow rates? How would to determine it was from diffusion versus plant roots? What rate of flow is optimal for root growth?

Can you or anyone at ADA answer these questions?
I wonder, I've been asking a very long time including Amano directly in person.


----------



## shrimpnmoss (Apr 8, 2011)

Here we go again. *grabs popcorn and soda*


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

I got talked into powersand when I was conversing with Jeff about my 60-p. I dont find that it does anything especially useful but when I was setting up the tank it sure did make me feel good to put it in the substrate!


----------



## jhunt (May 7, 2010)

Makes a mess when you uproot and replant.


----------



## Francis Xavier (Oct 8, 2008)

plantbrain said:


> The Marketing schpeel? Anyone can parrot that. That's "not the best way to think". Maybe for you it is...not for me.
> 
> So why not use lava rock in that case? Why not simply use more plants with roots? Or a larger filter? They have bacteria.


You could certainly use lava rock. Or Bio Rio, though this wouldn't be quite as good due to Bio Rio's size being overly small, lends itself more to flow being run through it. But really, any highly porous material would serve as a good base for the beneficial bacteria in the substrate.




> Penac: dolomite sand can make the same claim.


You could probably use dolomite, sure. Although I don't believe dolomite serves to oxygenate the water, which is really what Penac W does in addition to serving as a buffer. Whenever you use Penac W in the substrate, it serves to rapidly oxygenate, which enhances beneficial bacteria growth. 

Also, should you ever over-dose the aquarium with co2, a spoonful of penac w is an immediate cure to the problem due to this trait. I'm not sure precisely what causes it, but when it's dosed into an aquarium directly, the next morning the water is completely crystal clear.



> Water "pressure" has little to do with any diffusion through a sediment in any aquarium. Pressure only applies once you get near the depth limits of vascular plants, eg, about 25-40ft. This is due to the Xylem being unable to support against the water depth pressure. Not to do with anything relating to the diffusion in/out of aquatic sediments. Eg Mosses and liverworts can live at 300-400ft easily and do.......same for algae.......as long as the there is enough light, eg, Lake Tahoe and Crater lake.


It's not about pressure on plants.

It's about very fine granule substrate being compacted at lower depths in larger aquariums leading to anaerobic bacteria spots. I've seen it happen in many aquariums that weren't gravel-vac'd (non-planted) on a regular basis, or in the end they simply could not handle fine granule substrate. This is one reason on our primary hardscape-only display tank that we do not use a fine grain sand.

Anaerobic spots are inherently disastrous on the ecosystem in an aquarium for obvious reasons.



> Fick's 1st law of diffusion clearly illustrates the problem with the diffusion claim. Plant roots act like lots of tubes to exchange from the water column into the sediment. This speeds up the process greatly. If you have barrier at the top of the soil, then it* does not matter what is below*, the top barrier limits any and all flow in/out of the system, this is common sense.
> 
> What would you measure and test to determine whether flow is enhanced?
> What would you want to measure to determine if plant growth was increased with enhanced flow rates? How would to determine it was from diffusion versus plant roots? What rate of flow is optimal for root growth?
> ...


I never mentioned anything about the presence or lack there of of flow.

Remove plants from the equation - you're thinking too much within the limited scope of just aquatic plants, which is really not the primary goal of power sand, bacter 100, clear super, tourmaline bc & penac p. 

It doesn't grow plants. It doesn't help one bit with growing a plant faster in the slightest. Never has, and never will. That's what aqua soil is for. There's no need to double dip.

It's precisely about water quality, it's about cultivating healthy beneficial bacteria to keep the aquarium more stable without the fluctuating reliance on the beneficial bacteria in the filter (which goes through the equivalent of microscopic armageddon whenever you do a water change with the filter off for more than 30 minutes or has a fluctuating capacity if you change media).

If you don't believe you need to worry about the whole ecosystem within the aquarium, and all that matters is the rate in which a plant grows, then all I can say is don't buy the product, it just isn't for you. 

But really, it's all just a diabolical scheme by the evil marketers to make more ADA money so we can take over the world on the backs of plant hobbyists while kicking dirt in their face and laughing our way to the bank. On the way out we'll probably put down a down payment on a ferrari while stealing candy from babies.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Francis Xavier said:


> ...But really, it's all just a diabolical scheme by the evil marketers to make more ADA money so we can take over the world on the backs of plant hobbyists while kicking dirt in their face and laughing our way to the bank. On the way out we'll probably put down a down payment on a ferrari while stealing candy from babies.


Touche! :biggrin:


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Francis Xavier said:


> You could certainly use lava rock. Or Bio Rio, though this wouldn't be quite as good due to Bio Rio's size being overly small, lends itself more to flow being run through it. But really, any highly porous material would serve as a good base for the beneficial bacteria in the substrate.


Bio Rio would be a better solution and offers some better ideas/benefits I think.



> You could probably use dolomite, sure. Although I don't believe dolomite serves to oxygenate the water, which is really what Penac W does in addition to serving as a buffer. Whenever you use Penac W in the substrate, it serves to rapidly oxygenate, which enhances beneficial bacteria growth.


So how much O2 does it add then? Give me a ppm range with and without Penac. I want some real data, you brought up this claim, now it's yours to defend.



> Also, should you ever over-dose the aquarium with co2, a spoonful of penac w is an immediate cure to the problem due to this trait. I'm not sure precisely what causes it, but when it's dosed into an aquarium directly, the next morning the water is completely crystal clear.


So does Aluminum sulfate, 3.99 for 5 lbs at the local nursery.
I simply add more surface agitation if the CO2 is too high and then turn the CO2 down a touch. 



> It's not about pressure on plants.


Then it does not matter regarding the soil pressure:icon_idea



> It's about very fine granule substrate being compacted at lower depths in larger aquariums leading to anaerobic bacteria spots. I've seen it happen in many aquariums that weren't gravel-vac'd (non-planted) on a regular basis, or in the end they simply could not handle fine granule substrate. This is one reason on our primary hardscape-only display tank that we do not use a fine grain sand.


Wait a minute, you guys suggest capping ADA As with the powder type, but you see not conflict in this advice versus what you are telling me now?

:tongue:

Where do you think diffusion is taking place? From what location to the other location? Water column to the bottom of the sediment no?

If the most confining layer is the power types, it does not matter what is below that, the most confining layer is the primary factor that prevents diffusion from taking place, regardless of the sediment below.

Once roots are grown in, which is pretty fast (plants/monocots put down root growth 1st, not stem growth), this barrier is no longer applicable.
The roots are hollow pipes and pump O2 down there. This is what all Wetland plant roots do, they must or they would die.



> Anaerobic spots are inherently disastrous on the ecosystem in an aquarium for obvious reasons.


Really?
So I guess all the MTS soil tanks are disasters then eh???
My tanks are all disasters.......mummm okay.

Bad assumption.



> I never mentioned anything about the presence or lack there of of flow.
> Remove plants from the equation - you're thinking too much within the limited scope of just aquatic plants, which is really not the primary goal of power sand, bacter 100, clear super, tourmaline bc & penac p.


Limited scope eh?
Really???



> It doesn't grow plants. It doesn't help one bit with growing a plant faster in the slightest. Never has, and never will. That's what aqua soil is for. There's no need to double dip.


We agree there.
So why add it to a planted tank then?
You cannot have it both ways there.



> It's precisely about water quality, it's about cultivating healthy beneficial bacteria to keep the aquarium more stable without the fluctuating reliance on the beneficial bacteria in the filter (which goes through the equivalent of microscopic armageddon whenever you do a water change with the filter off for more than 30 minutes or has a fluctuating capacity if you change media).


Okay, basic question: what specifically about water quality are you speaking of???

We add these things to the* sediment, NOT the filter*, I fail to see your rational here. It does not support what was stated. 



> If you don't believe you need to worry about the whole ecosystem within the aquarium, and all that matters is the rate in which a plant grows, then all I can say is don't buy the product, it just isn't for you.


Belief has nothing to do with this:hihi:

I think I have the basic understanding of the ecosystem down. I'm not easily fooled, and I ask questions and expect some decent answers.
If someone does not know, that's fine.
But then you do not get to defend it, you need to show you are correct and make some sense. This does not include mere belief.



> But really, it's all just a diabolical scheme by the evil marketers to make more ADA money so we can take over the world on the backs of plant hobbyists while kicking dirt in their face and laughing our way to the bank. On the way out we'll probably put down a down payment on a ferrari while stealing candy from babies.


Hyperbole is not going to make your points either:icon_idea
You still have not offered any evidence. That's the bottom line.

This why testing things and seeing why they work and if it's treatment A, B, C or D, or both A and C is far more useful and provides much more knowledge than mere belief alone. We gain no knowledge from belief.

We can add bacteria cultures(how many companies sell bacteria in a bottle??), Penac, Tourmaline, all this stuff is is not ADA, companies have long sold this snake oil, not just ADA. They are innocuous, but offer no real utility/results.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Jeff5614 said:


> Touche! :biggrin:


Hyperbole never proved anyone correct.


----------



## shrimpnmoss (Apr 8, 2011)

Awesome debate. I love it every time this topic comes up...gonna need more popcorn...


----------



## Francis Xavier (Oct 8, 2008)

Tom, I will never give you an answer that you are going to be satisfied with, because I'm never going to test any of it. I have absolutely zero interest in doing so. I'm not saying that this particular method is vastly superior to anyone else's, but it is a method that works, and there's more planted aquarium content that can back that up than there is content for anything else. I'd love to debate science with you, but it simply isn't my strength and I'm not going to dedicate the time to it.

If you want to prove it ineffective, then that's your burden to carry. 

The functions have always been simple and they work. This doesn't mean that there's no replacement for beneficial bacteria, that doesn't mean there's no substitute for power sand. None of it means you have to buy into the ADA philosophy and way of doing things. 

My evidence of it working is 4 complete volumes of works by Takashi Amano - the rest is what you would just call anecdotal. So yes, when someone asks what does Power Sand do, and what is it's function, I'm going to continue answering what it does, which I've repeated at this point more than enough times.

So, like I said, if you want to prove it useless, that's your burden to carry.


----------



## Francis Xavier (Oct 8, 2008)

And the hyperbole was purely for humor, since everytime I turn around it seems like Amano's being accused of being a dastardly fiend of marketing!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Francis Xavier said:


> Tom, I will never give you an answer that you are going to be satisfied with, because I'm never going to test any of it. I have absolutely zero interest in doing so.


Wait a minute here, you are trying to support and defend this, but now..........you are saying you have no interest??

So which is it?



> I'd love to debate science with you, but it simply isn't my strength and I'm not going to dedicate the time to it.


Not much of a debate thus far. 



> If you want to prove it ineffective, then that's your burden to carry.


*The burden is not upon me, the burden is upon those making the initial claims about the product*. I called into question the claims, and there has been no support for them. Others have used with and without and found no support for the claims as well. Trying to parlay the "burden" on me a weak tactic. This is not a debate, this is a mercy killing.



> The functions have always been simple and they work. This doesn't mean that there's no replacement for beneficial bacteria, that doesn't mean there's no substitute for power sand. None of it means you have to buy into the ADA philosophy and way of doing things.


Simple and it works?
Not for the reasons they are claiming, I've read nothing nor seen anything that is supportive of that vs a control, eg no powersand. Honestly, I am looking, but I am skeptical, and even more so after reading the claims.
I've done the test and one without the powersand.

I've done this 4X, I also measured the plant nutrients in the PS as well. 



> My evidence of it working is 4 complete volumes of works by Takashi Amano


*Pictures do not support or refute that it is powersand that has led to the success or failures.* We have plenty of nice examples of aquariums that lack powersand as well, does that falsify that powersand is without any merit?

No.

Only testing it with and without(eg a treatment and control).
run a few replications and then ask what other folks found, eg no differences..........then I have ask why add it to begin with?

Basic stuff really, common sense. This is not tough Science or some in depth controlled experiment, it does not need to be either. Most anyone can do this, several have posted here to that effect. Talk is not going convince those that have actually done this test.

Cat's out of the bag.
Folks have done with and without PS.



> - the rest is what you would just call anecdotal. So yes, when someone asks what does Power Sand do, and what is it's function, I'm going to continue answering what it does, which I've repeated at this point more than enough times.


Keep repeating a myth? Not caring if you might be right or wrong?
Really? Even though others have called into question the facts of the claims based on both results and the common sense? 

That's what you are arguing in favor of?



> So, like I said, if you want to prove it useless, that's your burden to carry.


I have no burden to carry, I'm not making the myths or the claims.
ADA made them, you are repeating them, I am questioning them and my results as well as others brought into question the truthfulness of such claims. If you have some evidence that supports specifically the claims made by ADA about PS, then you have not done so thus far. 

So it's not much of debate really.


----------



## Francis Xavier (Oct 8, 2008)

Yep, you're right. You've made up your mind Tom. And I have no interest in spending the time to change it. There isn't a test in the world done by the hands of anyone else that you'd acknowledge on the matter.

Just remember that Penac energizes the water on an atomic level and imbues it with the memory of clean water to make the water pure.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

plantbrain said:


> Hyperbole never proved anyone correct.


Nope, but it does add to the entertainment of it all.


----------



## gringostar9 (Oct 11, 2010)

I'm more confused now.


----------



## shrimpnmoss (Apr 8, 2011)

As a spectator I think this is a tie. Neither position can really be proven with out a true lab study. Who the hell wants to do that anyways? It s a hobby. That doesn't stop me from enjoying this same debate over and over again. 

I do think if anyone that has purchased anything is a "victim" of marketing. There is marketing everywhere. Does what marketeers claim really work? Sometimes maybe a little but usually not to the point that marketeers claim. Ever buy a car? House? Gas? Detergents in gasoline are required by law, however each gas company makes little claims about their detergent....Techron...whatever...it's all the same.

For me it is as simple as this. I'm buying a luxury item when I buy ADA. Not the $1 per gallon sale at Petco/mart. I choose to buy the entire system as the designer intended. Why cheap out on such a small portion of the system? This hobby will cost way more money than a bag of powersand. 

It is kind of like one of my past experiences. I used to export a few luxury cars on the side. Someone would pay me cash for say a Porsche Cayenne, however they did not want to spend the extra $400-$500 for Porsche floormats. !?!?! You just spent $50K on a car and they cheap out on something as simple as the floor mat that gets used everyday. Congrats on a Porsche with Walmart floormats! Do the Walmart mats work? Sure they do....but it's not Porsche original equipment.

For the record. I use both on different tanks. Lava rocks and Powersand no difference in the water quality.


----------



## HolyAngel (Oct 18, 2010)

Now stop the pillow talk you two, this aint no ice cream social!  (youtube RedvsBlue)


Seriously though.. It made common sense to me that bacteria will colonize power sand and in doing so it will serve as an extra filter for the tank that doesn't get disturbed by water changes/maintenance. I believe thats the point of the product. But also, since its in the substrate, some of those bacteria may find themselves useful to plants. I don't know for sure, I haven't tested anything or even tried my power sand yet, but it just makes sense after looking at the product page and reading about it thats the only real purpose for it..

Now obviously its not necessary or everyone would need it or have something like it, You can obviously totally do fine without any powersand or anything like it, BUT that doesn't mean that the system wouldn't BENEFIT in someway from having it or something like it in the substrate.. It's definitely not taking away anything thats for sure..


----------



## Francis Xavier (Oct 8, 2008)

HolyAngel said:


> Now obviously its not necessary or everyone would need it or have something like it, You can obviously totally do fine without any powersand or anything like it, BUT that doesn't mean that the system wouldn't BENEFIT in someway from having it or something like it in the substrate.. It's definitely not taking away anything thats for sure..


Exactly. Even Amano doesn't claim it's absolutely necessary. It's just a component of the philosophy. He likens the additives to "vitamin supplements," that one might take with their diet.

But, I did find this document explaining some of the plocher system and penac (not posting this as a proof, but that's basically the non-Japanese "well it helps water, well it helps plants" description). And another with more pretty graphs and stuff.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

I understand questioning the validity of a product or the claims they make but at the same time it is your choice if you purchase said product. Now with that being said I would like to quote something ... "All you wear and see and hear on TV is a product begging for your fata** dirty dollar"...


----------



## freph (Apr 4, 2011)

All things considered I'd probably buy the entire substrate system if it wasn't so expensive....penac is great since it's sold in bulk essentially (something like 100 uses per bottle)...but I'm never going to use that much. I wish they sold it in smaller, more cost effective sizes.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Like I stayed earlier, it did make me feel better when I set up the tank. I wouldn't say the tank it's in is doing any better then my other tanks with AS only substrates. Also I don't find that it's a PITA when it comes to uprooting plants. It stays put pretty good. Now substate ferts that are in capsule form that have little fert balls inside if them, that's a PITA when uprooting plants!!!


----------



## lbacha (Apr 13, 2011)

I went with Aqua Sand special because it had slot of the supplements in it already it wasn't that big of a cost for a 2l bag, so far my tank is doing amazing and alot of the crypts roots are already into the power sand so something must be working if it's not the sand yen oh well, I'll still use it again just in case..


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

I'm a little late to the conversation, but I would like to add my experience with ADA powersand. I had set up two tanks with the same type of substrate, only difference being one has the powersand in it. The other tank had to be torn down because of roots rotting and anaerobic issues. The one with powersand is doing fabulous, and other than the occasional ugly piece (I wish it wasn't a light color) popping up when uprooting, I've only seen benefits. 

If I had the money, I'd buy the whole setup, but I can't. However, I will admit Amano is the reason many of us are fascinated by this hobby and several of us long for the simplicity yet elegance of their displays in our own homes. It's funny how when I look at all the methods out there, ADA is on top and there are always those ready to knock it down. To bad that a discussion couldn't take place without the constant bickering.


----------



## OverStocked (May 26, 2007)

sewingalot said:


> I'm a little late to the conversation, but I would like to add my experience with ADA powersand. I had set up two tanks with the same type of substrate, only difference being one has the powersand in it. The other tank had to be torn down because of roots rotting and anaerobic issues. The one with powersand is doing fabulous, and other than the occasional ugly piece (I wish it wasn't a light color) popping up when uprooting, I've only seen benefits.
> 
> If I had the money, I'd buy the whole setup, but I can't. However, I will admit Amano is the reason many of us are fascinated by this hobby and several of us long for the simplicity yet elegance of their displays in our own homes. It's funny how when I look at all the methods out there, ADA is on top and there are always those ready to knock it down. To bad that a discussion couldn't take place without the constant bickering.


I agree. ADA makes great products. Some of their products might not be "mainstream" but that doesn't always knock them out of useful. 

I wouldn't be in business if it wasn't for ADA. I have no denials there. Even my "cheaper" products get expensive fast. Their is a DIY solution for just about every fertilizer product out there, if you're willing to put the work in. From Powersand to RootMedic complete+ or Iron+, if you really want, you can make a similar product. It might not be 100% the same(you can't buy ferts exactly like Complete. The membrane is slightly thicker) but it'll be pretty darn close. 

Like RootMedic, ADA is partly about the convenience of a product ready to go. Part of it is philosophy and almost a way of life. 

Not everything in life has to be about cold hard facts. If we want to attack things that don't make sense, there are a tons of things people do that fall into that. Sometimes it is best to just let people do things if that is what they want. 

I offer some products I know Tom doesn't think do anything. I offer them because people asked for them though. I use them, and see what I think are positive results. But I'd be a horrible businessman if people asked me to make something and I refused.


----------



## snausage (Mar 8, 2010)

I've used straight aquasoil or aquasoil plus an underlayer of flourite for about a year. This has worked extremely well for me, but I set up a tank with aquasoil + powersand special a few months ago and it's the most productive tank I've ever had. 

However, I'm certain that the addition of powersand has almost nothing to do with this. Other members on this forum tell me that if aquarium plants have enough co2 and NPK, then even H20 is unnecessary, so something as trivial as the composition of the growing couldn't possibly effect plant growth.

Now that I think about it, maybe ADA owns all of the potable water in America and their aquarium business is simply a means to increase our water bills.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Francis Xavier said:


> Just remember that Penac energizes the water on an atomic level and imbues it with the memory of clean water to make the water pure.


But, is it good for lumbago?

I'm pretty sure that was intended as a joke. In any case it amused me.


----------



## Francis Xavier (Oct 8, 2008)

Yeah it was intended as a joke. That was actually on some of the 'explanation,' of the product some years ago. Unfortunately, products like this suffer from english translation that's "technically," correct, but has an entirely different cultural meaning and ends up meaning something completely different in reality.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

OverStocked said:


> Not everything in life has to be about cold hard facts. If we want to attack things that don't make sense, there are a tons of things people do that fall into that. Sometimes it is best to just let people do things if that is what they want.
> 
> I offer some products I know Tom doesn't think do anything. I offer them because people asked for them though. I use them, and see what I think are positive results. But I'd be a horrible businessman if people asked me to make something and I refused.


I still like you, Frank and Amano:redface:

haha

This is not about cold hard facts, it's about common sense, I add it, I see no differences, many other also have long noted this for a few years now.
Basic stuff.

We measured the nutrients and other relevant plant growth factors in PS, again, nothing surprising, high in most ferts other than NH4, had much higher NO3 than AS however, but NO3 does not bind, it quickly leaches out.

I'd argue that the tabs you sell offer more to plants than PS and are much cheaper.

I've long had an anti snake oil attitude in this hobby, but I've seen MANY for the last 30+ years and it bugs me when folks keep falling for the same rubbish over and over and say the EXACT same things to justify the snake oil.

It gets old and I'd hope folks could learn from the past, but it really appears that simply will never be the case sadly. And truthfully, it is sad......

PS: as far anaerobic vs aerobic.....heat cables are very easy to adjust the flow characters in any sediment, and we certainly found there was no effect for a long time and on many tanks, so...........this leaves just the nutrients in PS left, and we KNOW what is in those.

So this is not some unknown abstract thing........ 
But if I put Amano's face on the bag and his pretty pics..........
Folks will buy it *regardless of the facts.*

This is really what the other sides debate boils and distills down to, I do not care, I chose to ignore the facts and want to believe.

Folks with that type of thinking worry me, because they are not thinking.

But then wanna haggle with me about it and defend it.

Okay:icon_roll

I've still not seen any evidence of support or anything about plants, nothing about Redox, nothing about % OM, nothing about root transport of O2, nothing about the flow rates and flux in/out of the sediment. No trials with/without the product etc.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

shrimpnmoss said:


> As a spectator I think this is a tie. Neither position can really be proven with out a true lab study. Who the hell wants to do that anyways? It s a hobby. That doesn't stop me from enjoying this same debate over and over again.


I strongly disagree, this is a classic fall back defense in a debate for the true lab study.

If aquarist cannot comparatively see a noted difference, eg something significant that they are able to fairly confidently attribute to the product, why use it?

Somethings are aesthetic, say nice pretty rimless ADA tank, most are cool with that rational. Some might be minor, adding traces to the water column etc........

Ex 1# 
PO4 use to be blamed for algae blooms, aquarist showed this was NOT the case without a lab study.

Ex 2# Same deal for NO3, Fe

Ex #3 Heater cables, again, no effect, some folks had correlation and though this means causes, again........as enough folks do and use it and without, we get a decent idea whether it works.

Ex 4 A lab study was done on ADA PS plant relevant nutrients and physical characters, done at th e Daner Lab at the USDA's UC Davis facility, along with AS and old "spent" 18 month old AS.

Pot test are fairly easy to do.

For simple garden experiments, we do not need to defer to peer reviewed research studies. That's basically say the question will never be answered or giving up entirely, and we cannot learn more without that. Many aquarist simply will not test much of anything.........they will not know, some simply do not care either. 

So no new information will ever be learned of gained if everyone had that attitude.* Let's turn this around, where's ADA's peer reviewed support for their claims??*

Never seen one. I'm not making the claims, I'm bring into question their validity and testing it to see if they have any merit. Something many here do not seem to appreciate but curiously cannot defend it without the same tired snake oil arguments from every thing from diet pill babbling to Hydrilla virility pills.

There's never been any study on aquatics plants and human nutrient for Hydrilla........maybe it's true? We do not know since it might be true, right???
Does not hurt, and placebo is a well known effect.

Not seen anything new here. Same stuff, rehashed from 20 years ago with Dupla and now ADA, same arguments and lack of any real testing.
Maybe PO4 causes algae blooms in planted tanks too.

There's no study after all.


----------



## Francis Xavier (Oct 8, 2008)

Tom, I'm curious: is there any device or test that can compare the activity / growth of bacteria?

I mean it would be interesting to see, say, the levels of bacteria in substrate with ps and without, and the level of activity with and without. So if we can at least determine bacteria levels, then we can move on to effectiveness.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

snausage said:


> I've used straight aquasoil or aquasoil plus an underlayer of flourite for about a year. This has worked extremely well for me, but I set up a tank with aquasoil + powersand special a few months ago and it's the most productive tank I've ever had.
> 
> However, I'm certain that the addition of powersand has almost nothing to do with this. Other members on this forum tell me that if aquarium plants have enough co2 and NPK, then even H20 is unnecessary, so something as trivial as the composition of the growing couldn't possibly effect plant growth.
> 
> Now that I think about it, maybe ADA owns all of the potable water in America and their aquarium business is simply a means to increase our water bills.


Yep, I'm setting up my first waterless tank today, just still trying to figure out what to do about the fish.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Jeff5614 said:


> Yep, I'm setting up my first waterless tank today, just still trying to figure out what to do about the fish.


I'm sure you can find someone willing to sell you reverse-snorkle outfits for each fish. And, fill the little tanks with Penac activated water for you. :icon_mrgr


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

This debate is snake oil vs holistic medicine. 
In my opinion no one will prove plants cant grow just as well without aqua soil.
It seems to me that Tom is just saying that since it doesn't make plants grow better we don't need it.
But we don't need any of this stuff, the fish, the tank, the plants, the water, the lights, at all do we? 

Powersand might not make plants grow any better, and we may never prove that it is making plants any healthier, but if there's a possibility then why not?
After all the reason I spend extra money on something like Aquariums is because the things I buy satisfy me in one way or another. 
I enjoy setting everything up, and I feel good about what I've done when I see good results. 
Sometimes the products have visual appeal, such as ADA tanks, powersand has mental appeal.
If you feel good using it, then you just have to ask yourself, what amount of money would you pay to feel good? 
For many people buying an entire unified system of products that carry a brand name makes them feel good, even if the products don't do anything special. 
Apple, Lexus, ADA, Prada. 

But in my opinion it boils down to one thing. 
If it makes you feel better then why not? 
What is the point in a hobby if you aren't in it to enjoy it? 

My apologies for not answering the OP's question.


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

Francis Xavier said:


> Tom, I'm curious: is there any device or test that can compare the activity / growth of bacteria?
> 
> I mean it would be interesting to see, say, the levels of bacteria in substrate with ps and without, and the level of activity with and without. So if we can at least determine bacteria levels, then we can move on to effectiveness.



Culturing and sampling is what would be done to measure bacterial density. Species ID is done with blotting and with a microscope. All in all if ADA was up to it they have the money and I'm 100% sure someone has the knowledge. IMO it's not worth it unless you're really into proving people wrong/right. 


I'm thinking hypothetically a simple test would be to add food coloring to a filled tank one with only AS and another one with AS and power sand and see how long it takes the food coloring water to diffuse down into the substrate. Then add another food coloring say red after using blue and see how long it takes that settle. One would indicate more flow than the other that way....Too much trouble and it's not really definitive. It's more of one of those TV-infomercial tests.


----------



## sampster5000 (Oct 30, 2010)

Until someone disproves what Frank is saying, he is not wrong. Tom wants everyone to see that ADA is wrong and is a scam because they cannot prove what they are saying is true, but he has no proof of what he is saying either. Until someone disproves the theories by showing the data taken from their tests, they are not wrong. 

I believe that both Frank and Tom are very intelligent and know their stuff when it comes to planted tanks, but neither have proof to what they are saying. So why argue? It is still interesting to see the debate as these questions should really be put to the test.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

sampster5000 said:


> Until someone disproves what Frank is saying, he is not wrong. Tom wants everyone to see that ADA is wrong and is a scam because they cannot prove what they are saying is true, but he has no proof of what he is saying either. Until someone disproves the theories by showing the data taken from their tests, they are not wrong.
> 
> I believe that both Frank and Tom are very intelligent and know their stuff when it comes to planted tanks, but neither have proof to what they are saying. So why argue? It is still interesting to see the debate as these questions should really be put to the test.


Tom is quite experienced, and I know, does quite a few tests himself. 
However his typical argument is "can you prove it" "wheres the data" "folks this folks that... no one tests"
which is great in academia but not really all that relevant to 70 percent of hobbyists. I love data, and I love tests, and given that, I've read the things he says about quite a few tests he's performed and most would be laughed at by my horticulture/botany teachers. They definitely prove a point and are slightly more definitive than most anecdotal reports most of us give. But he is also the main person I see bashing others semi controlled experiments. 
Not that I care, just because you don't hold yourself to the same standards you hold other people to doesn't mean that your advice is wrong. The things he points out in other peoples tests as flaws are definitely flaws.
But it is genuinely difficult to do testing on aquatic plants in their aquatic forms because it is so hard to isolate substrate parameters from water column parameters. When you start to try to test things with bacteria and their effects on the health of plants it gets even harder. 
If allelopathy has anything to do with the reduced algae healthy plants cause then the holistic approach that includes things like powersand might actually have benefits, although they might not create greater plant growth. 
After all, the theory of plants out competing algae for nutrients makes no sense to the average person, if they were truly out competing for nutrients then we would test nutrient levels at 0, which would be saying that plants were absorbing all nutrients the algae needed.


----------



## mulm (Jun 3, 2010)

Chlorophile said:


> Tom is quite experienced, and I know, does quite a few tests himself.
> However his typical argument is "can you prove it" "wheres the data" "folks this folks that... no one tests"
> which is great in academia but not really all that relevant to 70 percent of hobbyists. I love data, and I love tests, and given that, I've read the things he says about quite a few tests he's performed and most would be laughed at by my horticulture/botany teachers. They definitely prove a point and are slightly more definitive than most anecdotal reports most of us give. But he is also the main person I see bashing others semi controlled experiments.
> Not that I care, just because you don't hold yourself to the same standards you hold other people to doesn't mean that your advice is wrong. The things he points out in other peoples tests as flaws are definitely flaws.
> ...


This is very well put. And I do scratch my head over your last point. It presents a significant contradiction. That said I trust in the methods Tom purports despite his ability (maybe its desire) to communicate them fully. That is, for the purposes of finding answers (or asking better questions) some measured approach beyond correlation is required. Having said all of this... I use PS because I want my tanks to be beautiful...and if a few dollars might help me get that..in the long run it's worth it to me. This (aquaria) is not a scientific (nor cost saving) endeavor for me...as foreign as that sounds to some....maybe Tom.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

mulm said:


> it's worth it to me.


In my opinion that is the only thing that warrants purchasing a product. Information, such as what Tom gives, might change your opinion on if it is worth it or not, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't still buy it if I had the money for it. 



mulm said:


> This is very well put. And I do scratch my head over your last point. It presents a significant contradiction. That said I trust in the methods Tom purports despite his ability (maybe its desire) to communicate them fully. That is, for the purposes of finding answers (or asking better questions) some measured approach beyond correlation is required. Having said all of this... I use PS because I want my tanks to be beautiful...and if a few dollars might help me get that..in the long run it's worth it to me. This (aquaria) is not a scientific (nor cost saving) endeavor for me...as foreign as that sounds to some....maybe Tom.


I assume by "your last point," you mean about plants not actually out competing for algae. 
I believe that Tom is aware that its not actually "out competing" for nutrients, but it is the easiest way to word it for the most part. 
Healthy plants, for whatever reason, have a way of keeping algae at bay. 
Algae is opportunistic and may have ways to detect certain plant chemicals.
In densely planted tanks with healthy plants these chemical concentrations may be so high that the Algae does not want to waste energy going from a spore stage to an attached colony stage, because it may be assuming that nutrients would quickly be exhausted. 
Alternatively, plants may be allelopathic, meaning they secrete chemicals that act as algaecides. 
I am really not sure, but I'm positive that plants aren't reducing nutrient levels to 0, thus preventing algae from having nutrients, this is something anyone can test, even with low quality test kits, and the accuracy of the test kit is irrelevant as long as the readings are above 0. That would be the true definition of out competing algae. 
If allelopathy does play a role then power sand could have benefits, its impossible to say that because two plants are growing at the same rate, they are equally healthy. 
In tanks that are kept by people with less experience or skill than Tom, power sand could have growth benefits. In his tanks it may not be able to make plants grow faster than he can get them to grow without it, its really not for one man to say if a product is bunk or not.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Francis Xavier said:


> Tom, I'm curious: is there any device or test that can compare the activity / growth of bacteria?


Petri dish and steak for culture on selective media. Place in incubator.
Remove and count the CFU's.
Compare with and without PS treatment over 1 month intervals for 6-12 months.

Not tough stuff, same can be done for Fungi also.

The petri's are cheap, the incubator is not really.
You'd want to run a few rep's
Say 3-4 tanks each with and without ideally, but even 1-2 should tell you a little.



> I mean it would be interesting to see, say, the levels of bacteria in substrate with ps and without, and the level of activity with and without. So if we can at least determine bacteria levels, then we can move on to effectiveness.


Well, more bacteria might suggest activity, but is that beneficial to plants?
I think that is the really the bottom line, show more/less growth rates with a control.

Then the other question is what type of bacteria is it? Bergy's Manual has a simple flow chart for various test in Microbiology. Another good text is Sigee, Freshwater Microbiology.

Might be plenty of bacteria, but do no good for plants, or the fish, or N transformation from Organic N=> NH4=> NO2-> NO3=> plant uptake

This is a good reference folks interested in microbiology in FW systems.

Then you can look into it more.

I did DIY (and I have done similar things with PS) with heater cables, made 4 of them myself, had 2 duplas and then 1 sandpoint. 

They only ran about 20$, vs 300-400$ for sandpoint and 400-700$ for Dupla.
The heat increases bacterial activity and cycling rates also, so a tank at 20C vs 30C will have a very different level of activity, cycling and growth.

Why not use those? Many thought they worked and it made them feel better too, no one disproved it really. Folks saw nice tanks without them, that was enough. .........they do not hurt, but neither did cables. 

How about if ADA started carrying Ecoaqualizer?

http://www.3reef.com/forums/filters-pumps-etc/eco-aqualizer-review-86174.html

Hey, it does not hurt either.........Penac is in this group as Ecoaqulizer. 

If you want to learn more about the bacteria, pick up the Sigee and also Reddy's and DeLaune's Biogeochemistry of wetland soils. Reddy was my past prof at UF

I think the bottom line is really trying it with and without over time. 
Do you notice any real improvements etc that you can say fairly well, without the placebo effect? I cannot see it.

Hey if so, I'd suggest it to folks, I do with ADA AS, and I do strongly and heavily suggest that even though I know DIY soil can achieve the same effect, but lacks some aesthetic characters I prefer as well as a few other folks. ADA AS also will never scratch the glass tanks, PS can, I really like that aspect about ADA AS, a lot. I just have not seen it or evidence to support it. Sorry.....

Get those 2 text, they are particularly useful and good references and reading for learning more. Good questions BTW.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

I highly doubt powersand plays any role on bacteria, if that powdered Bacter stuff actually somehow supports live bacteria then maybe it would accelerate cycling by giving in-soil bacteria a good place to grow, but I really doubt that.
Tetra Safe Start is the only product I've used that has actually done anything for cycling, and I used a large bottle on a 20 gallon which is way under dosing.
The food source for the bacteria is going to be the limit on their eventual population size. 
It is possible that its texture could enable higher populations to live in less space, but that seems like a theoretical benefit, one that wouldn't take place very often if at all.
The only benefits I can imagine powersand having would be preventing aquasoil from compacting, but aquasoil may very well fill in the cracks between the powersand negating this benefit.
This leaves one other benefit - you can get a deeper slope in your aquarium without using as much aquasoil.
That and it is apparently fertilized.


----------



## Francis Xavier (Oct 8, 2008)

Now that Aqua Journal is available in English, I think we will be able to learn a whole lot more about the Nature Aquarium philosophy / Amano's input. 

The issues seem to be direct copies of the Japanese one (this first issue was the print Japanese version back in like May), and there's always wonderful trimming techniques and Q&A with Amano that I've always wanted to read, (but lack the knowledge of Kanji to do so). 

Not that this precisely answers this question at this time, but it does offer constant good insights on pretty much everything planted aquarium related.


----------



## kalawai2000 (Jan 15, 2011)

This has been an awesome thread to read...what really goes on in our tanks in micro level.
I'm using Power Sand under Eco-Complete...its to early to tell how the plants will do. 
I'm very excited to see..the results.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

kalawai2000 said:


> This has been an awesome thread to read...what really goes on in our tanks in micro level.
> I'm using Power Sand under Eco-Complete...its to early to tell how the plants will do.
> I'm very excited to see..the results.


I'd opt to spend money on aquasoil rather than powersand. 
Maybe use eco-complete under the aquasoil.


----------



## Crimbshaw188 (Aug 10, 2011)

Well anyway I will chime in. I am a new member first and foremost and especially do I NOT make any claims as to being knowledgable in planted tanks. However what I can say is I have admired planted tanks for years, and it wasn't until recently that I decided to take the plunge and get into the hobby. That being said, what I can tell you is that many of these aspects to planted aquariums are very confusing. Not to mention either the amount of choices on the market and also the choices associated with DIY. Also this is normally a pretty expensive hobby (some may argue that it doesn't have to be but let's face it there are a lit of other things that I could be doing that will cost me way less money). So if there is someone out there that has devoted a large part of their life to this hobby, and not to mention has created some on the most beautiful aquascapes in the world, and has trained people who using his method create beautiful works of art themselves. If that person has created a system, and or methods to sell to people like me that have some spare cash and it makes it way less confusing to get jumpstarted into the hobby. Then why not allow the people that use it to use it? And also to promote it? It works doesn't it? As I read nobody said that it was the only way to go. If the person uses the system and is obviously well educated enough to deliver a thoughtful post containing the reasons why they believe to use it then why are you jumping his butt about it?


----------



## kalawai2000 (Jan 15, 2011)

Chlorophile said:


> I'd opt to spend money on aquasoil rather than powersand.
> Maybe use eco-complete under the aquasoil.


Why would you use eco under the aquasoil?


----------



## Jeffww (Aug 6, 2010)

kalawai2000 said:


> Why would you use eco under the aquasoil?


If powersand's qualities are true, then eco complete would serve precisely the same purpose for significantly less cash.


----------



## kalawai2000 (Jan 15, 2011)

Jeffww said:


> If powersand's qualities are true, then eco complete would serve precisely the same purpose for significantly less cash.


I like eco complete...I have it in a nanocube planted tank and those plants are doing just fine, I bought a bag of powersand to place it as a bottom layer because I just wanted those other additives that eco might not offer. 
Of course the eco is much more less expensive than the other ADA products..I just wanted to give one of their products a try.


----------



## John Simpson (Mar 14, 2013)

sampster5000 said:


> Until someone disproves what Frank is saying, he is not wrong. Tom wants everyone to see that ADA is wrong and is a scam because they cannot prove what they are saying is true, but he has no proof of what he is saying either. Until someone disproves the theories by showing the data taken from their tests, they are not wrong.
> 
> I believe that both Frank and Tom are very intelligent and know their stuff when it comes to planted tanks, but neither have proof to what they are saying. So why argue? It is still interesting to see the debate as these questions should really be put to the test.


I agree with this statement, also I think that Tom, not being a professional doesn't understand that people who choose to use the ADA system and can afford it should use the power sand, people with enough money aren't going to try to save 10-20$ by looking for some generic pumice as a substitute, and I think by Tom telling people they don't need power sand leads some people to skip the step all-together even though they can afford it. 

I've criticized Tom before, I'm not trying to be unfair or mean but I think his vendetta against power sand and ADA marketing in general is detrimental to the hobby. Not everyone has the DIY skills and understanding and that Tom has and using the full system will help people avoid mistakes and get better results.

ADA has done wonderful things for this hobby in the US creating new hobbyists and showing people this awesome type of aquarium, the marketing is intended to help users to understand the hobby, I don't think its a trick. I think Tom owe's Frank more respect.


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

This is a two year old thread, BTW.

And if anyone on TPT is a pro, Tom Barr is - he has been making a living off this hobby for a couple of decades now. If he is not good, his family does not eat.

via Droid DNA Tapatalk 2


----------

