# Amano Tanks very low in nutrients - Discussion requested.



## unirdna (Jan 22, 2004)

Hey folks,

I searched this topic extensively, both through google and on TPT. I found nothing. Hopefully, some of the long-time veterans of Amano philosophy/strategy (eg. Barr, Senske) can help clear up my confusion.

If you've been in this hobby for more than 24 hours, you know about Takashi Amano's contributions. But, as I read through my archived TAG magazines, I see that all of his tanks are VERY low in nutrients. 

For example (one of many): TAG volume 16, number 2, page 8: description of a 120cm, branchy-wood, open-top aquarium, with 160w lighting - NH4 (ammonium) = 0mg/l , NO2 (nitrite) less than .02mg/l , NO3 (nitrate) = 1mg/l , PO4 (phosphate) = 0mg/l. , COD = 6mg/l. 

Plants for this tank include many crypts, lilaeopsis sp, eleocharis sp, sagittaria sp, polygonum sp, and microsorum sp. The only "additive" mentioned is ADA Brighty K.

In my experience, these nutrient levels would be catastropic. My plants suffer miserably when nutrient concentrations are this low level for more than a few days. 

I have theories on how Amano accomplishes healthy tanks with such low nutrient levels, and I'm sure you do, too. But, I want to hear something from the horse's mouth. So, please, if you have first hand knowledge of how/why Amano keeps his tanks with said nutrient levels, share.

Thanks


----------



## mrbelvedere (Nov 15, 2005)

Perhaps with the Aquasoil he has managed to maintain a continuous nutrient cycle. 

Every minute of every day, small quantities of nutrients are leached into the water column, providing low, but constant levels of nutrients. Perhaps just enough to prevent algae.


----------



## eklikewhoa (Aug 29, 2006)

In most of the pictures I always see Brighty K and Green Brighty step2


----------



## Blackthumbwoes (Feb 27, 2007)

i'm reasonably new to the planted tank idea but i wonder if its from the uptake of the plants, and what he's listing is the running average. It would seem to me that it would spike up when added then drop off as the plants utilize them. I'm just not sure how fast the uptake is. From what i've seen on stem plants it looks to be pretty fast with good light and CO2.

Just my thoughts on the idea, interesting question though, i've only recently started reading the small print on his tanks and understand what it all leads too .

jason


----------



## A Hill (Jul 25, 2005)

Hey Ted, I have lots of personal opinions on this topic but no first hand experience on Amano's reasoning.

I remember seeing a topic, say last summer or so possibly earlier about this. It ended up having to do with the plants he used and the substrate.

He used mainly root feeders (ADA AS is good for nutrients)
And moss and anubis (Small nutrients Req.)

So I think he thinks his plant selection very thoroughly...

So what threads have you found? I think the thread I was thinking of came about just when ADA stuff was really getting ready to come over here in the USA

-Andrew


----------



## Nightshop (May 12, 2006)

I think a large part of the success in those tanks is due to the substrate additives and just the quality of the water.


----------



## Jdinh04 (Mar 15, 2004)

I just think its very shady in general about the way Amano keeps his tank. I'd like to get some more info on this too ... hopefully we can crack something out of him.


----------



## PineyMike (Mar 22, 2006)

I don't think Amano's tanks actually grow for as long as people think. I think his tanks are put together using plants that already are of a good size. IMO his growout period is probably about a month max. I doubt he is starting with small trimmings like you and I do. When it comes to publishing mags and books it's all about the photo. Most of those tanks are probably torn down right after the photo shoot. Of course this wouldn't apply to tanks that are mostly groundcover based. That does take awhile to grow.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I question the methods used to obtain such test data.
They are not testing where the nutrients are either.
What the heck.

Temporal and spatial issues are confusing many hobbyists that are simply unaware that you can have several locations for nutrients in an aquatic system, they all work and the rate of growth is also a defining factor as well.

In a nut shell, plants will and do grow well with nutrients, they need to a sufficent supply based on the driving growth rate, this starts with light, then CO2 and NO3/K and so ion down the line.

You can deliver them via roots and/or leaves or both locations. 
There is no conflict with any growth model by having them in one location or the other, just that they are present.

At higher light(such as natural systems), you will place more demand for this and adding the nutrients to both locations should yield the highest growth as shown in terrestrial systems as well as aquatic ones.

Amano and Dupla and many others have made claims that anything other than low water column nutrients for N and P = algae blooms when it excess.
Perhaps this is a hold over from fish only aquarium keeping.

Clearly they never tested their own hypothesis on this, adding these accordingly should induce algae, but that has not been observed in well over 15 years. Yet they continue to make such claims while quietly adding NO3/PO4 for some cases in recent years.........

Test methods are very poor, I see no methods list.
Sounds like they had some conclusions and then went about looking for data to support them rather than testing them. 

They also did not test the nutrients where they count in these methods: in the sediments. C Kasslemann gave a long presentation about the water column nutrient levels/parameters for swords plants in natural systems.

She suggested that these plants do not prefer water column nutrients and that they live in oligotrophic environments. I asked her if she had measured any pore water of sediments in all of her studies and field trips as is basic protocol for wetland ecology. Her answer: "no".
Asked what was in powersand Amano said "power".

This means they do not know or have and are not telling anyone about it.
In both cases, that leads me not to trust them. 

Neither have done any algal studies.
So I'm not sure what their logic is for low water column nutrients as being some sort of advantage nor have they offered any explanations to date that remotely match observations.

There are several methods available for sediment measurements for wetland soils for N and P.

My main issue is seeing how well the plants grow in a soil vs ADA AS condition and with respect to the water column.

How can we fairly judge the water column under a wide range of limiting conditions? I do not think you can. I think that we have to have a standard
control here for the water column.

CO2
K+
Ca
Mg
B
etc

Are all water column nutrients, folks add Traces all the time as well.
The resolution to show limitation of algae is beyond the best hobbyists kit for N and P. The nutrients are taken up so fast that testing the water column will tell you nothing. Yet the water column often is only determinant basis for dosing programs for many aquarists ironically.

ADA does not suggest extensive measurements in their routines, "watch the plants and add just enough". 


Using acid extraction to measure plant bioavailable P and N are commonly used in horticulture of sediments to determine relative fertility.

ADA's data numbers also just do not add up using things like the KH and pH and CO2.

I can see an over estimation of CO2 occurring, but not under estimations.
That's so improbable I have to serious question such data and when such measures where taken.

I started off doing very well in this hobby with the water column without knowing "why". I could have stayed on that path and spent my time scaping more. Jeff really does not care nor Amano nears as I can tell about why, just that what they do works and allows them to scape and do a nice tank.
Jeff freely fesses to that and Amano sure gave that impression both times he was here in the USA
I'm concerned about a larger management issues in aquatic horticulture.
The why is very important in understanding and development of even better methods to grow plants, how to address a much wider ranges of issues.

Unlike many, I have many methods that I use to grow plants, and this allows me to compare each methods' trade off/s and focus on the best management for a particular goal.

There are many folks in this hobby with many goals, trying to bully folks into one method is ethically bad and wrong. Further, no single method will be right for everyone's goal. I commonly suggest and support non CO2 methods, Excel methods, marine systems, EI methods, test method suggestions, substrate water column issues etc, algae control, tap vs RO etc. 

Some clowns have accused me of bullying folks into a single method etc, but if they look at the management issues, what's the best cheapest and gives the best results, I fully support my contentions there. If the clowns cannot, then they shall remain clowns. 

Clown theory:tongue: 

I've changed my advice as I learn more. Many never do sadly.
They go back and instead of rejecting their old falsified hypothesis, they run around looking for data to support their conclusion.

Ted showed some serious doubts about the gas in a CO2 reactor that I had made a hypothesis about, I still do not know what it is, but I'll be finding out soon (Gas analysis here is now available in a friend's lab, but I'll have to break out the Reactors and collectors again, but I have growth chambers at the lab now, so that will be a lot easier).

But it's not about pride, it's about figuring out what is going on and why.
Make lots of hypothesis and then try and prove them wrong. If they are, let them go and move on to the next and try and get to the bottom of the issue.
Do not hold on to them so personally and be ego driven.

Be curious as heck and doubtful of yourself.

Regards, 
Tom Barr











Regards, 
Tom Barr 























Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## unirdna (Jan 22, 2004)

plantbrain said:


> Ted showed some serious doubts about the gas in a CO2 reactor that I had made a hypothesis about, I still do not know what it is, but I'll be finding out soon (Gas analysis here is now available in a friend's lab, but I'll have to break out the Reactors and collectors again, but I have growth chambers at the lab now, so that will be a lot easier).



I look forward to reading your analysis. I brainstormed possible methods to do a gas analysis myself, but when all was said and done, I simply didn't have the proper tools. 

Thanks to everyone for your insight.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

unirdna said:


> I look forward to reading your analysis. I brainstormed possible methods to do a gas analysis myself, but when all was said and done, I simply didn't have the proper tools.
> 
> Thanks to everyone for your insight.


None of us really do the tools and clever ways around it are not going to be a happening anytime soon. Given the solubility of CO2, I doubt the hypothesis myself, but I have to try and test it anyway to rule it out before moving on.

So I will use an IR gas analyzer at the lab once I get a set up there that I can use for this and then customize the CO2 reactor to withdraw gas to the analyzer.

We all see the gas pocket build and shrink daily, but we still do not know what the gas is.

As far as CO2 mist theory, well, I have proven that one using O2 meters and good accurate CO2 ppm measurement methods.

O2 is a good _in situ _measure of plant production/growth/pearling.
I had about 21-44% higher O2 difference than with 31ppm CO2 alone in 4 tanks.

That rules out CO2 liquid phase.
Bubbles might be breaking the diffusion layers around leaves etc also but as far as increasing growth is concerned, I know that it does do that vs plain CO2.

These tanks had the CO2 mist+ aqueous phase done 1st, then after had the CO2 aqueous only added to the same tanks to account for variations in species, water/current etc, you use blocks and test that way rather than having to do two identical replicates at the same time(pretty much impossible). That way the error in O2 production due to increased biomass will be slanted to the tank with a little bit more plant biomass(the CO2 aqueous phase treatment only). 

The same can be done with the aqueous phase of CO2, skew the CO2ppm higher than the mist.

Simple test really and one that addresses assumptions and has consistent results. 

For O2 comparisons, I used a YSI data logging DO meter.
This measured the DO every 20 minutes. I took the differences of a bell shape curves between treatment to determine the DO change.

This integrates the entire day's worth of O2 production for the control vs the treatement. It would nice to do a similar method for the CO2 reactor gas build up so I'd like to add that as well.

I have not really done much with the CO2 reactors lately though.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## ianmoede (Oct 1, 2004)

This is totally taking the topic off course, but Tom, what is your experience with dual phase CO2 use? Misting as well as aqueous dissolution. I would tend to think overkill, and i have far from a controlled environment, but i would like to try it.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

It's worked very well for many.
Lacking much knowledge about other systems than my own, I'm content to work with my own and chip away at each component. 

So when someone asks if excess PO4 causes algae, I know that it cannot be that at least.

When you add dual phases, you cannot tell how much of the CO2 enters as gas or a liquid. All you can do is measure indirectly with O2 evolution and measure the aqueous CO2ppms. You assume that the rest of the increase in pearling/growth is due to the gas phase. 

That does not tell you what about the gas phase causes the growth increase though.

It could be the breaking up of the boundary layers better etc, or more CO2 gets to the plant faster, more is transferred via the gas phase across a diffusion layer etc.

But as to the effectiveness, it seems pretty clear to me that 20-40% more growth is certainly a good thing. It also can solve some nagging issues for folks with chronic algae or other CO2 related problems.

Many that have assumed their CO2 was okay are surprised to see the difference.

If you where not limiting CO2 and had good nutrients, then you would not see nearly the same impact, but still some.

The current in the tank and plant species can be variable etc, but the bottom line is that it does work and improves growth.
And not just for a day or two, it keeps the growth high.

Once CO2 is good and stable, then the plants really get cooking and the uptake of NO3 etc gets going.

Paul Krombholz did a study back in 1966 where he found that plant growth dry weight was maximized at 20-80ppm of NO3 for several species of aquatic weeds. 20-30ppm is what I suggest also.

At 5ppm, there was 4.2 less growth, at 10ppm, there was 2.2 times less growth than at 20ppm. This was in Limnological Botany 1975.

There is a lot of support for nutrient rich streams in Europe and in many lakes in the USA that have a high % of plant biomass surface cover.

It's just many folks did not look for such information 30-20 years ago and the books that are out are outdated and quite old, many with misapplied references and not good understanding of the primary research and how to synthesize it to the present issues in this hobby.


Regards, 
Tom Barr




Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## unirdna (Jan 22, 2004)

*New findings*

Well, I obsessed and obsessed....

....and went and bought Nature Aquarium World - Book 1, 2, and 3.

Here's what I found:

Book one: Descriptions of tank nutrients: most state "less than *10* mg/L NO3. Not 1 mg/L, like all the AGA booklets state. Book 1 was first published in 1992 - possibly before that in Japanese, before ADA started to rock and roll. The substrates and fertilizers mentioned are NOT ADA products. 

By the time book two comes out, Amano is no longer giving NO3 informtion in PPM. He is simply stating how much of his products he uses each week/day. 

My speculative conclusions. Amano started off with a passion for the hobby only. He later saw dollar (yen) signs. Books 2 and 3, while being awesome inspiration material, are also glorified ADA catalogs. They give little hard data, only details of ADA products.

I'm basing my dosing on the tank parameters mentioned in book 1, before business got in the way; before it became necessary to keep secrets.

Less than 10 mg/L is very very very different from less than 1 mg/L!

If the "less than 1 mg/L" information was the result of a translation error, it should be corrected. If not, it should be explained or decloaked. If fertilizer methods changed over time, it should be given reasons. If I owned the company, I would be eager to explain myself, and make sure it did not appear that I deliberately misguided. 

There is a obvious disparity that requires explanation. Until I get it, I will limit my Amano information gathering to aquascaping ONLY.

Those are personal conclusions. I offer no apologies. If you don't like mine, research the topic for yourself. I eagerly invite alternative explanations (based on your own research!).


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

I have been doing some extensive experimenting with this. Granted I am not a scientist and my testing supplies are hardly super accurate. With all this stated my findings are sound for me and enough for me to express what i have seen.

Currently I am running 2 tanks with less then 5ppm of N in the water(probly closer to 2ppm...judging by my calculated dosing). My P is less then .5pmm also.

I started this experimenting with the same question as unirda. Another question i always had about amano's stated levels was his co2. Using KH/PH his co2 was always so so low. So i set out to see what i could accomplish with these levels.

Tank specs:

75 gallon with 220watt PC lighting for 10 hours.
KH 3
GH 10ppm
the tank uses flourite so i was able to use a controller without KH interference.
I ran my co2 at about 8-10ppms
dosing left me at a consistent >5ppm of N and >.5ppm of P at the end of each week. I ran this setup for 6 weeks. All plants grew full and healthy. 
I also found that i had crystal clear water.....and *ZERO GSA*. VERY SLOW GROWTH, but very healthy.

50 gallon with lower light 110 PC lighting for 10 hours
kh 3
gh 10ppm
aquasoil for substrate. I estimate my co2 to be around 10-12ppm
dosing is even less in this tank. I dose about .5ppm of P a week and 5ppm of N a week. 

This tank is growing even better. N in the water column is almost unreadable.

So it is absolutely possible to grow beautiful plants in very limited conditions. IME, i prefer the slow growth. I am a scaper, not a farmer. The slower the better IMO. 

Over the next 6 months i will continue to tweak the system to see the effects. Recently, I planted the 75 with root tabs in three sections. Interestingly, a huge amount of NPK leeched into the water column. The fish seemed fine, but the 30-50+ppm of N in the water stunted almost every single plant and killed about 25% (some rare stuff unfortunately....sorry max) in my finely growing tank. I know I know.....more co2. Honestly, i am not playing that game. 

Inspired by kekon, amano, cp1007, and edwards co2 myth thread, I am attempting to grow plants slowly and healthy while providing a low co2 environment for my critters.

The only draw backs have been some very slight algae issue......until i added amano shrimp. That ended that very quickly. And also very slow growth.

Sorry that my post was less the scientific.......but this is what i am finding and i am more then confident in my eyes

Let me know if you have any comments.

jB


----------



## unirdna (Jan 22, 2004)

That was a great post, Jason!

If you start your own thread re: this experiement (and I strongly suggest you do), please PM me so I don't miss it. I have dropped a tank from 15 to 5, and plan to maintain it there and see how things go. IMO, 5 is still a loooong way away from "less than 1 mg/L".


----------



## Betowess (Dec 9, 2004)

Very interesting Jason. I must breakout my test tubes. Are you primarily using AP tests? Are you drawing on KH/pH for the CO2 calc? Must be. I thought many have assumed it isn't all that accurate. But I agree with trusting your instincts and eyes/ experience level. One can guage a little even by bubble speed on CO2.

On a recent re-start, I have been trying to use the JB go slow methodology. So far, so good. Crystal clear water myself.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Mar 3, 2005)

unirdna said:


> That was a great post, Jason!
> 
> If you start your own thread re: this experiement (and I strongly suggest you do), please PM me so I don't miss it. I have dropped a tank from 15 to 5, and plan to maintain it there and see how things go. IMO, 5 is still a loooong way away from "less than 1 mg/L".


At the end of the testing, I intend to do a more formal writeup with some pictures. I will certainly keep you posted.

I think the key is lower co2. In a lot of ways it was frustrating.....very slow growth and the unknown....i felt like a newb again.

I think we all agree that plants need NPK....or they wouldnt be called macros I think what is confusing is that amano believes in substrate ferts more then column dosing. AS has a pretty good amount of macros in it, so i would think that 1ppm of N is really pretty close to what he has rolling. Also, his co2 is very low by american standards. And his lighting is lower as well. I know everyone will say "What about those 150MH pendants!!"......well if we look, they are all over 12" away from the water surface

In the end I will attempt to find a happy medium....somewhere around 5-10ppm of N and 15ppm of co2. I think amano is still afraid of P, and it has been proven by others and driven home by Tom that P does not cause all out algae like previously believed. I think that amano has some GSA issues because he is afraid of P. I would like to dose a little more then amano and way less then the current US standard.

Betowess - I am using Hagen kits. I have some lamotte kits that I am calibrating them with(thanks Erin) and a triple beam scale to be balls on with my dosing (assuming the fertilator is correct).

And you are right about the KH thing....but then again....nothing is accurate in this ridiculous hobby. So as you say, i am just estimating.

There is a small cult of us that are moving the pendulum back towards lower levels of nutrients. Its easier to control IME.

jB


----------



## Yzmxer99 (Aug 7, 2006)

I hate to add to this because what I have to offer it is unfounded, unscientific observations. But....

I have been running my Nitrates at 20ppm, Co2 at 30 to 40 ppm (Kh/Ph method) at P accordingly. With ADA aquasoil and powersand in my Mini-s (2.5g) with the 27w Mini S light at 8 hours. 

I would clean the GSA and BBA bi-weekly and couldn't get the tank to settle. 

2 weeks ago I did a good cleaning, dropped my Nitrates to less then 10ppm (tap measured at 10ppm with AP test), dropped my Co2 to 1/2 the bubble count and stayed constant with fleet, Brighty K, and Step 1 dosing. The thing is running so much clearer now. I just have a tiny smidge of gsa and the BBA is receeding. Plus, as Jason noticed, growth has slowed a bit but it's pretty dang good looking.

Now, I'm not offering up these numbers as proof of anything. All I'm saying is that in my instance running lean, alla Amano, worked in my tank with my water. I'm curious to see Jason's write up on his findings. Plus, as Jason said, I'm finding it easier to balance.


----------



## unirdna (Jan 22, 2004)

Yzmxer99 said:


> I hate to add to this because what I have to offer it is unfounded, unscientific observations. But....


Your observations may not be scientifically experimental, but they _are_ derived from first-hand experience with ADA products. That's all I ever requested, and all we can really hope for at this stage. Thanks for sharing! 

Again, another case of nutrients maintained on the low end, but still not in the realm of "less than 1 mg/L". Still, the conversation _is_ moving forward.


----------



## Betowess (Dec 9, 2004)

Now running higher ferts with AS is an algae invitation, right? I thought most folks tried to dose very few if any macros with AS and maybe just a little bit of trace. Sorry, not meaning to turn this into another Aqua Soil thread.


----------



## Just40Fun (Jul 15, 2005)

Jason Baliban said:


> Over the next 6 months i will continue to tweak the system to see the effects. Recently, I planted the 75 with root tabs in three sections. Interestingly, *a huge amount of NPK leeched into the water column. The fish seemed fine, but the 30-50+ppm of N in the water stunted almost every single plant and killed about 25% (some rare stuff unfortunately....sorry max) in my finely growing tank. * I know I know.....more co2. Honestly, i am not playing that game.


This is very interesting, and it may just answered why sword plants were dying after they were added to my friend's fish only tank. (http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/general-planted-tank-discussion/43717-imbalance.html )


> A friend has a 125g fish only tank that he keeps mainly cichlids. His nitrate level has always been high in 80-100ppm range and gh/kg both in the 180-200ppm range. After he saw my planted tank, he also planted some a-swords and java ferns to enhance the looks and to reduce nitrate. He has 1.5w/g of lighting, no CO2 and wc every 2-3 weeks.
> 
> His swords and java ferns are doing very poorly, yellow leaves wilting away. His nitrate is still in the 80-100 range.


Why can't the plants use the N in the water column? Not enough CO2? Sorry for not staying on this thread.


----------



## Hypancistrus (Oct 28, 2004)

unirdna said:


> I have theories on how Amano accomplishes healthy tanks with such low nutrient levels, and I'm sure you do, too. But, I want to hear something from the horse's mouth. So, please, if you have first hand knowledge of how/why Amano keeps his tanks with said nutrient levels, share.


It's not just Amano, it's just the general European and Asian way of doing planted tanks. They've been doing it that way for decades now, and it works great. It was the Americans who suggested dumping in loads of nitrates and phosphates. If you actually look at any of the big aquascaping contests, you'll see that the Europeans and Asians always cream the Americans. It's because they know that you are not going to achieve professional and artistic results with rare, delicate, and/or difficult plants by dumping in loads of nitrates and phosphates.


----------



## slickwillislim (Nov 9, 2005)

They don't usually win with rare crazy plants. Its mostly the tried and true plants... no eriocaulon and tonina plants near the top. Best aquascapers don't always mean best plant farmers, but they are by no means poor, obviously. 

I think we need to all choose whether we are pursueing the fastest healthy algae free growth or the most stable healthy algae free growth. I like many people pursued the hardcore I can grow faster than you methodology, I have come around, through a little maturing and greater understanding of the hobby, but i still can't help but be amazed by what a bunch of Co2, and macros can do.

I am trying an ADA Mini M set up right now. I had a little to much light in the beggining and I got Crazy stem growth, but a little gsa on one side of glass. I am trying to dose just Flourish, Flourish excel, Diy co2, and kso4. I am basically trying to replicate the low fertilizer low co2 you are describing. Slow growth would be great in such a small tank. I haven't been at it that long but it is growing the plants well. 

Do you guys have any problems keeping plants red. I can't seem to find the right ballance to keep my red stems red so I hope this low fert solution will help balance it correctly and help me get some popping reds.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Betowess said:


> Now running higher ferts with AS is an algae invitation, right? I thought most folks tried to dose very few if any macros with AS and maybe just a little bit of trace. Sorry, not meaning to turn this into another Aqua Soil thread.


I do not get algae with higher levels of nutrients.
I like to ask where's my algae issues?

I can easily slow plant growth down using light.
Why would I do it with low nutrients which makes measuring and dosing far more difficult?

Less light= less algae, less CO2 demand and less nutrient demand.
This is a *very simple concept*.

But the lower you go, the harder it becomes to measure and determine what and why things are working in the water column.............

Things get recycled more rapidly and to the point where measuring the water column becomes meaningless.............

Non CO2 methods are good example...........and if you lower the CO2..........as long as it's stable...........

But the question is is it really the nutrients?
Or is it the CO2 and/or lighting?

I'd say it's the lighting/CO2.
Those drive growth..........not the bottom up(nutrients) method.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

If you want to moan and whine about adding too much/loads, excess amounts of anything, moan and whine about adding too much lighting................

Or go non CO2.............the Dutch have many old contest exmapkles of low light very well scaped non CO2 tanks............

So should folks advocate no CO2 as adding "pollution" or dumping lethal gas in as fertilizer?

Why is it PO4?
PO4 does no harm to fish or plants.
Neither does NO3 over a huge range.

CO2 is more toxic than either..............but no one questions adding that currrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriously...........

I wonder why:flick: 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Jason Baliban said:


> I have been doing some extensive experimenting with this. Granted I am not a scientist and my testing supplies are hardly super accurate. With all this stated my findings are sound for me and enough for me to express what i have seen.
> 
> Currently I am running 2 tanks with less then 5ppm of N in the water(probly closer to 2ppm...judging by my calculated dosing). My P is less then .5pmm also.
> 
> ...


jB, 

Look at the APD's older post, many of us, myself included maintained very low levels of NO3 for many years, throttling between 2-10ppm. It can be done and you may have some very nice results.

Measurements of accurate CO2 are another matter.

you need to measure the CO2 over the course of a day when the plants use the CO2.

One point in time is really not going to tell you much.
ADA's values are not possible via any known CO2 determination method that I or anyone else is aware of.

They are not likely to be averages either over a week, over a day or over a month etc.

One point in time does not show nor correlate with plant growth/health etc either. I can do a 50% water change and change that level in 10 minutes.
Plants will adapt to various routines given enough time.

Same with CO2, but the main thing is stability of the routine.
Many found trying the low NO3 cause them issues when the bottomed it out.
Adding another source to the sediment, somewhere you folks have not really considered measuring allows lower water column levels if that is your bag.

But I think many assume that these low levels in the water column are holding the algae back and that is just not true.

I think less light is one of the easiest methods and the key to maintaining and slowing growth. You may still have high light for a little while 2-4 hours etc, but not all day and slow growth dramatically.
Aquascaping, algae control and plant growth are different foci, many confuse these.

Likewise, non CO2 approaches have been looked down upon for many years.

Yet based on your and many folk's arguments, that is what you should be using.

Less light, no CO2 and hardly any work, but still nice growth.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I think you folks might be asking a different question here............horticulture and management vs plant growth preferences.............

Plants do grow better with more CO2, more light, more nutrients, and nutrients in both(WC and the S), not one or the other location.

Management is an entirely different issues.

Growers focus on growing species etc, a scaper or a horticulturalist tend to focus more on a specific plant that fits their needs and looks aesthetic/easy to care for etc.

In that case, the non CO2 approach, something that pre dates everyone here and ADA by decades as far as time in this hobby, wins and beats every method in terms of cost, simplicity and management.

Perhaps you are just learning the virtues of slowing growth for management, but that is hardly exclusive to ADA. 

You can slow growth with nutrients, with CO2 or light.
Given light is the main driver and the point where photosynthesis starts off at, it makes the most sense to limit that one first.

From there, less light = less CO2 demand.
No surprise there.

Why would it be?

That affords you all sorts of wiggle room in any method.
Not just ADA's.

Tropica tried to make this clear.
Low light(which cost less over time/initial cost) and good CO2.
So did George Booth, so have I.
So has ADA, but most do not listen..........

But many think more light and CO2 and then limiting nutrients is smarter for some reason that escapes me.

ADA does not suggest that, nor do most European growers either.
They might remove the N and P and put it in the substrate, but that's due to the belief, not the reality, that it limits algae.

That notion is easily disproven time and time again.
Simply because you can grow plants well at lower nutrient levels with CO2/light etc does not mean higher levels of nutrients are bad or anything, that's the assumption..........and it's dead wrong.

But the idea that plants can adapt to less and they most certainly can and do, it is *not invalid*. I'm not sure, but some seem to believe I suggest that is not the case, which is total crap.

I just know that it does not offer an advantage(lean NO3/PO4 in the water column) for algae control and I have proven it so many times as others have for a very long time now.

What do folks really expect here?
Less nutrients = less growth/slower growth.
Less CO2=> obviously less growth.
Less light = less growth.

Have issues with pruning etc?

Switch the plant species, add rocks, driftwood, etc, anything that removes fast growers and swaps them with less troublesome species.

These are not so much a method or anyones, these are more broad and common sense things.

You can limit PO4 and slow CO2 uptake, and NO3 uptake. Try it and see.
You can limit NO3 and slow CO2 uptake and PO4 uptake as well.

You can limit things in the water column and not in the substrate......or you can limit things in the substrate and not in the water column.

Merely because one works, does not imply that the other does not or is better really............even if you have personally have trouble with it............
*It just means you have not mastered that balance yet and there may be many reasons for that.*

I'd suggest you try to master several methods and watch how one things influences the other. Learn each method well and make sure you start out with a healthy tank or are able to induce specific species of algae that gave you trouble, remove then, then induce them back again.

I see many folks discovering another method they happen to strike a decent balance with. They think it it's superior and it is.........for them at that moment with what they happen to be doing............but there's a lot more room for improvement and many reason they where not successful with the other method.

You really should try and figure out why if you feel that urge to understand and learn more. If all you care about is nice tank, less work, decent scape etc, go non CO2, use easier plants, nice bioload, lots of herbivores, no water changes etc.

I think otherwise most run a risk of thinking/assuming correlation =-> causation.

Then someone reads it and thinks that must be the case and another round goes through the hobby............try confirming your hypothesis and falsifying it.............yes, try to disprove the idea you made..........

Folks have said and claims all sorts of poppycock for many years about how NO3, Fe, PO4, etc..........all cause algae.............at excess levels but I do not have algae, so it cannot be right..........

It might be something else, but it cannot be due to that or a combo of them.
Just try out a slow growth low light tank and see.
Then try a non CO2 tank.
Then and PO4 limited tank.
Then a NO3 limited tank.
Then a soil and inert sediment tank etc.

And for heaven's sake, use a real test kit and make sure those readings are accurate.........

This takes work, time, money and resources, I generally have no motivation to do such test for more than a few weeks.....after that I get my question answered and I go back to less test labor intensive methods. Others have done these same exact test many years before most of you started keeping plants, and such info is available...........

Do some background checking and read what has been done before you.
It'll save a lot of time for you and see what others have thought about and expected/results etc.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Jens (Apr 21, 2006)

plantbrain said:


> I do not get algae with higher levels of nutrients.
> I like to ask where's my algae issues?


Tom, are you claiming that you don't have any GSA in your tanks at all time?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Jens said:


> Tom, are you claiming that you don't have any GSA in your tanks at all time?


Yes, for many years now.
It's inducible using CO2 and with PO4 though.
This is old news, going back ton the APD many years. 
Rather high levels of PO4(2-3ppm) with decent CO2.

I might need to wipe glass once every few weeks.
Same deal in a non CO2 tank, even when I add KNO3 and KH2PO4.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Betowess (Dec 9, 2004)

Are you claiming you run full EI dose with AS? Or just a relatively high fert level?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Full EI and high light, the max combo.
Have for sometime.




Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Badcopnofishtank (Jan 20, 2004)

How soon do you start with the full EI dosing with a newly planted amazonia tank? 

I have heard that you should wait a week and do at least 2 W/C before starting your ferts.??

BTW Tom- I really like using the EI, it has been a huge help for me, thank you.


----------



## SuRje1976 (Feb 2, 2006)

plantbrain said:


> It's inducible using CO2 and with PO4 though.
> This is old news, going back ton the APD many years.
> Rather high levels of PO4(2-3ppm) with decent CO2.
> 
> ...


Ok - now I'm REALLY confused. I may need to go back and review some past threads, but I thought that one of the primary premises of EI is that you canNOT induce algae with high nutrient levels? AND that high CO2 levels were ideal for preventing algae. Am I reading this wrong, or is it EXACTLY the opposite of what's previously been stated?


----------



## Momotaro (Feb 21, 2003)

> Ok - now I'm REALLY confused. I may need to go back and review some past threads, but I thought that one of the primary premises of EI is that you canNOT induce algae with high nutrient levels? AND that high CO2 levels were ideal for preventing algae. Am I reading this wrong, or is it EXACTLY the opposite of what's previously been stated?


I kinda thought the same thing as well.

Mike


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Badcopnofishtank said:


> How soon do you start with the full EI dosing with a newly planted amazonia tank?
> 
> I have heard that you should wait a week and do at least 2 W/C before starting your ferts.??
> 
> BTW Tom- I really like using the EI, it has been a huge help for me, thank you.


I do not wait, why should I?
Does that help?
Not that I've seen nor noted.

I've done many tanks thus far using this combo and quickly switched over to it after noting the differences.

I do water changes 2-3x a week in the start up phase, so that means after the 3-4 day

If you folks listen to the details with Amano, he and Jeff Senske also do lots of water changes in the start uphase, 1-2 months and then down to once a week.

We all did this routine independently. 

My argument is this: why not stop dosing after you trim plants after the start up phase?

Why not wait a week after a trim?
If you add enough plant biomass from day one and do water changes, there's no issues.

You provide enough nutrients for both the water column and the sediment that way. 

Can you do it fairly well without dosing the water column other than traces + K+? Sure.

You can even delete those dosings for the first few months even if you use the lighting correctly and CO2. But will the plants grow in better with dosing?
Yes and yes.

You folks have to try *both sides of things*, most just assume one method, and do not try to disprove or show a reason not to do the water column dosing.

Then they tell others that they do not need to add ferts to the water column or that it might be "bad", without even having tried it.

I suppose ignorance is a method also:flick: 

I'm not saying you cannot do it without any ferts...........maybe some traces..........

This is nothing new either.
Soil substrates and older methods are born out here using ADA substrate methods, essentially using soil, Amano even tells you this, that the ADA As is clay + soil etc.

So are soil substrate methods many folks that use ADA AS have done?
Not hardly..............very few ADA converts would stoop so low as to use soil and sand methods

ADA As is less mess and better(grains still retain the NH4 inside them vs a large layered effect), but both have the same things in them and ago along similar time frames.

Takes some time due to NH4(and why ADA uses lots of media and carbon etc and water changes till the NH4 is well oxidized after about 1 month or so) 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

SuRje1976 said:


> Ok - now I'm REALLY confused. I may need to go back and review some past threads, but I thought that one of the primary premises of EI is that you canNOT induce algae with high nutrient levels? AND that high CO2 levels were ideal for preventing algae. Am I reading this wrong, or is it EXACTLY the opposite of what's previously been stated?


No, I'm saying that you need high levels of PO4 and CO2 to prevent GSA, an alga I've commonly seen in ADA tanks, we have plenty in the Bay area and the guys at AF have algae issues in numerous tanks, they tend their tanks more than most aquarist. They had to tear down a number of tanks due to algae, they set up a new 180 gal tank and it's been cloudy for sometime. Some of the plants have GSA, that's a minor algae for most. I guess Penac and all that other stuff is not able to guarantee issue free tanks.

You are not going to fix every issue with something in a bottle or with nutrient limitation. You need to have a much better understanding about the algae and it's ecology to predict it and why it's there.

ADA has focused on the plants which is super, but they have not done much with algae specific inducement. I can tell if you have or not, because I've spent a long time working with that paradigm. There are clear cut things, even a newbie with 8 months of experience can tell if they had...............I think that's sad.

If you add lots of NH4(via the ADA AS leeching) and leave it there, then an ADA tank easily gets algae, same deal with poor CO2 etc. ADA offers no advantages there. 


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

So far with my setup, I've found great growth in all my plants (healthy and fast) with 0 algae (except a little bit of GSA on the glass), 0 NH4, and 0 NO2.

It's really been simple so far:
4wpg of Metal Halide
30-40ppm CO2
Aqua Soil of course
6-8mL of Potassium and Trace everyday in the form of Brighty K and Green Brighty Step 1
_Absolutely no dosing of N or P_
and 20% WC every other day from a well with a pH of 6.8 (*first month, everyday)

I've found no need at all to dose N or P, and I have a strong feeling that the Aquasoil takes care of it for me. All I need to dose is K and Trace.

For me, I think the largest contributor to my extremely low algae is the water changes. For the first month I did 20% WC's EVERYDAY and never saw a hint of algae during the _almost non-existent_ Nitrogen cycle. My NH4 never went past 3ppm's and my NO2 never went past 1ppm. Never saw a hint of Diatoms, BBA, BGA ect ect. The water changes were always done right before or after the photoperiod, with dosings of K and Trace following directly after.

Keep in mind, 4wpg in a 40g 75p is a lot of light, and this is also my first tank... Maybe I got lucky, but I'm not really one to believe or rely on luck, I think this method has some validity to it when compared to Amano's low water column nutrients that were evident in his previous and current scapes. I hope this helps some, IME, a little bit of work goes a long way in this hobby. WC'S!!



Chris Laracy


----------



## Momotaro (Feb 21, 2003)

The lack of need to dose macros with the exception of K as well as very frequent water changes is not a new development, Chris.

Those of us who have used Aqua Soil in the past have all experienced the same set of circumstances and it has been mentioned on this the forum in several different threads. We have conversed about this pretty extensively over on the NJAGC member's forum as well. In fact, during aquascaping demonstrations utilizing the ADA brand substrate system, Jeff Senske will often inform the observers of those very points. 

Your observations and experiences confirm what many of us have been through in the past.

Trick for you now is going to be when to start fertilizing and how much!


Mike


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

CmLaracy said:


> So far with my setup, I've found great growth in all my plants (healthy and fast) with 0 algae (except a little bit of GSA on the glass), 0 NH4, and 0 NO2.
> 
> It's really been simple so far:
> 4wpg of Metal Halide
> ...


Very interesting....thanks for sharing. I set up a 15 gallon high Aquasoil II based expeimental tanks with plants that were in the most pathetic condition to begin with.

30-40 ppm c02
EI dosing(I reduced to 1/2 as per Tom Barr's recommendation but had no issues with full dosing of EI). I am using Yamato Green fertilizer for Trace Element dosing. And not to pi*s anyone off, but I just started dosing 1/8 teaspoon Seachem Equilibrium after weekly 50% water changes, just to take to the next level.
40 watt compact fluorescent lighting supplied by 2 20 watt coralmax corallife bulbs in a canopy sloppily padded with mylar sheeting.
50% weekly water changes

While too early to say as the tank has only been up since Dec 26 2007 and I know what I am doing goes against ADA recommendations and probably considered blamphesy by all you ADA Aquasoil hardcore loyalists, plant growth has tripled in that time, the floating cardamine, and riccia are pearling like there is no tomorrow, and I have yet to see any algae in any form: no diatoms, no blue green algae, no string or thread algae, no clado, no brush or beard algae.

Wood had one of the most beautiful 10 gallon tanks set up using the original Aquasoil. While he did not dose EI, he did dose phosphates, iron, and Kent Pro Plant(which I believes contains nitrates) with no issues. You can see his setup and judge for yourself. It was neglect that finally did his tank in. And neglect will do anyone in regardless of substrate and water column fertilization used.
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/aquascaping/35202-cherry-tree-10-gallon-planted.html

While I am not disputing the fact that you may not need to go with EI fertilization in a ADA Aquasoil based tank to see results, my issues are more with folks saying that you shouldn't do it as it will cause issues. Sorry, unless I do it and see issues for myself, I am not a believer that is why I am a tester.


----------



## Momotaro (Feb 21, 2003)

You have listed two plants that are notorious nitrate sponges. Riccia in particular. I had trouble maintaining nitrate levels in the old incarnation of my 75G when I had that great mass of Riccia.

What else do you have growing? You plants could be gobbling nutrients.

Aqua Soil II vs. Aqua Soil v. 1.0. I am wondering how much that issue that is coming into play? 

I think that may be an issue for you and CL, Homer. We all need to remember (me in particular) that we are dealing with a new product, so results mat start to vary. I wouldn't go so far as to say you are blaspheming the ADA favoring crowd, as much as possibly experiencing a new product and it's results! :icon_wink 

Wood did not dose N, but dosed iron, which I would and micros too, which I would as well. Without checking, I think I'd dismiss the macros in the Kent product. I think you'd have to dose a heck of a lot in order to make a dent. 

Wood dosing P? I can see the P. Phosphates can act to reduce algae. To what level was Wood dosing I wonder? 


Mike


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

Momotaro said:


> You have listed two plants that are notorious nitrate sponges. Riccia in particular. I had trouble maintaining nitrate levels in the old incarnation of my 75G when I had that great mass of Riccia.
> 
> What else do you have growing? You plants could be gobbling nutrients.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I was stuck having to use a ton of plants in my tank that are heavy nitrate sponge as there is not much of a plant selection to choose from where I live(I had to work with what was/is available) and I am sure that the 50% weekly water changes probably remove a lot of excess nitrates as well. Perhaps someone from ADA can chime in here. My understanding is that ADA reduced the blacksoil component with Aquasoil II, so I if this is true, I guess it would make it less nutient rich than the original Aquasoil.

Wood was dosing 1/4 teaspoon phosphate, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with a weekly 30% water change. Using the fertilator and using the 10 gallons as the actual volume(which would not be totally accurate), it would give 25.81 ppm phosphate and 10.63 potassium with every dose, keeping in mind that the actual tank volume would be less so thee numbers would likely be greater.

Wood was also dosing 1/4 tsp fluorish iron Mon, Wed, and Fri which equals .07 iron using fertilator for the same volume tank. He was also dosing 1/4 tsp Kent Pro Plant Mon, Wed, and Fri. The kent Pro-Plant only provides the following information but does not indicate how may mls supply this:
Total Nitrogen: 1%
Boron: .0002%
Magnesium(Mg):.05%
Sulfur:.06%
Other ingredients: Deionized water, humic extract, and kelp extract.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Homer_Simpson said:


> ...He was also dosing 1/4 tsp Kent Pro Plant Mon, Wed, and Fri. The Kent Pro-Plant only provides the following information but does not indicate how may mls supply this:
> Total Nitrogen: 1%
> Boron: .0002%
> Magnesium(Mg):.05%
> ...


Hi Homer

Maybe the fertfriend calculator may help with the Kent Pro Plant:
http://www.fishfriend.com/fertfriend.html

Left C


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

Momotaro said:


> The lack of need to dose macros with the exception of K as well as very frequent water changes is not a new development, Chris.
> 
> Those of us who have used Aqua Soil in the past have all experienced the same set of circumstances and it has been mentioned on this the forum in several different threads. We have conversed about this pretty extensively over on the NJAGC member's forum as well. In fact, during aquascaping demonstrations utilizing the ADA brand substrate system, Jeff Senske will often inform the observers of those very points.
> 
> ...


Oh yeah I know it's not anything new, but I'm just reassuring people how easy it is, and how successful it is. I really just watch the plants and dose accordingly with lots of WC's, high light, matching CO2 (Barr stated that CO2 limits are directly related to amount of light plants can use), ADA AS II, and strong filtration. Very simple, very effective, and most importantly no algae and dosing of N or P! 

the only thing that might turn people off is that you do need some diligence to do large water changes everyday/every other day.

I'll keep everyone updated on it in this thread! :icon_smil


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

Left C said:


> Hi Homer
> 
> Maybe the fertfriend calculator may help with the Kent Pro Plant:
> http://www.fishfriend.com/fertfriend.html
> ...


Thanks Left C  So plugging in the following numbers in fertfriend for Kent Pro Plant.

10 US gallons = *37.854118 litres*

1/4 tsp = *1.25 ml*

We get: 

.3302 ppm nitrogen
0 ppm Boron
.0165 ppm magnesium
.0198 ppm sulphur

I guess without knowing the amounts in the tap water being added to the tank and how much exactly the Aquasoil may be leeching into the water column, these numbers don't mean anything, but the point is that he experienced no adverse effects from dosing the phosphate, iron, and Kent Pro Plant trace.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

CmLaracy said:


> So far with my setup, I've found great growth in all my plants (healthy and fast) with 0 algae (except a little bit of GSA on the glass), 0 NH4, and 0 NO2.
> 
> It's really been simple so far:
> 4wpg of Metal Halide
> ...


Ask your self why then, why does this work and why does this + EI also work?

The only thing you are limiting is N and P.
And you are only limiting it in the water column only.

You are not limiting plant growt5h nor algae growth in either case.

You still have to dose the water column also.
You just do not need to dose N and P.

However, there's no observation that suggest that adding N and P as well harms a thing.

Also, folks that use ADA's liquid line, *you are adding N and P*.
I know because I did the full analysis and had a an independent lab verify my results.

ADA loyalists have a particularly bad habit, they do not test nor know what it is they are adding to their tanks.

All you know is what is written on the sides of a bottle or box, with some nice little poem to make you feel better. 

Much like the Dupla loyalist 20 years before them. But many did start testing, at least here in the USA and Canada, and DIY ferts and testing began much more, leading to PMDD.

And curiously, to Seachem's , Kent's, Tropica's Plant nutrition ........even ADA's addition of N and P liquid ferts.

I'm not clear why folks have so much trouble realizing that nutrients can be obtained from the sediment as well as/or the water column.

If you look at the evidence, they clearly do both.

As far as adding PO4 and NO3 to an ADA sediment tank, with high light/CO2/ADA AS, I've been doing this for well over 2 year + years and have never had any associated algae issues, same as with EI.

EI can and should be modified to suit your tank's need anyway, you can reduce or lower N and P if you wish, or if high NO3 is in the tap, or if you have a high fish load etc.

While doing this helps, adding more does not induce algae of any sort.
Same deal with adding way too much ADA ferts.

Simply because you measure something in the water column does in no way imply that it's not available to the plants, they have roots.

I've never met a single hobbyist to date that has measured their sediments other than Jamie, but he did not measure for plant nutrients, only elementals and that was over 10 years ago.

Sort of like Kasslemann showing lots of charts and data about how little nutirents are in the wilds where she found these sword plants, yet never discussed nor tested the sediments.

Sediment testing tends to be more important than water column testing in field aquatic plant research as well as dry weight tissue analysis(these are things I do/have done my research on in part). 
Clearly, the plants are getting nutrients from somewhere, not that they do not "need" much. 
Also: we do not add CO2 in natural locations, the growth rates using CO2 are 10X higher than that in the wild. Folks seem to have the temptation to equate nature with our tanks and the belief that horticulture and nature are the same, they are not. 

So if you scale things up correctly, adding 0.1 PO4 ppm from the wild vs 1 ppm in our tanks with PO4 seems logical and reasonable.
Same for Fe, NO3 etc.

And yes, those large frequent water changes do help a lot , especially when starting up the tank. So what do they export and what do they add?

Organics can be addressed via adding carbon, zeolite for NH4, what's left?
CO2 and simply fluffing the leaves up with current, removal of spores etc.



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

CmLaracy said:


> Oh yeah I know it's not anything new, but I'm just reassuring people how easy it is, and how successful it is. I really just watch the plants and dose accordingly with lots of WC's, high light, matching CO2 (Barr stated that CO2 limits are directly related to amount of light plants can use), ADA AS II, and strong filtration. Very simple, very effective, and most importantly no algae and dosing of N or P!
> 
> the only thing that might turn people off is that you do need some diligence to do large water changes everyday/every other day.
> 
> I'll keep everyone updated on it in this thread! :icon_smil


I agree with everything here, but not dosing N or P.
While not "needed", doing so does no harm.
If you use the ada brighty 2-3, shade/brights etc you are adding N and P.

Tropica also sells liquid ferts due directly to a conversation Claus had with me some 10 years ago in SF.

I really have trouble understanding why N and P are so evil in some many folk's minds.............

You still have plenty there, it's just in the sediment, but it's not limiting algae.

If you honestly believe this, turn the CO2 off.
If the algae are truly limited via the water column for N and P, then doing so will not induce any algae. CO2 should no affect anything because algae growth is determined by the most limiting nutrient.

Try it, put you money where your mouth is.


The other issue that I really do not understand is why folks think dosing K and traces daily, is somehow fun/okay, but not dosing N and P is some how a huge burden off the shoulders of dosing?

You are already dosing a couple of things, what's one more?
I do not get that part.

Not much difference.
You do frequent water changes, so nothing will build up either.

That's one reason,(dosing errors) ADA suggest folks to do this. They will care for the tanks more and have less unknowns.

Seems that many folks follow the method blindly without testing and understanding it. 

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## fishscale (May 29, 2007)

Can you really blame Amano? It would be pretty difficult for him to make a living if he knew the secrets and told everyone. Maintaining secrecy gives him an edge with his products.


----------



## cjunky (Nov 26, 2007)

I would like to throw my own observations in to this discussion.

first a side note...Its been said that i don't do hobbies, I do obsessions. Since asking a few questions about planted tanks a few months ago I now have 5. My wife is a woman of great patience 

Across my 5 tanks I have varying substrates, some I add ferts to, some I don't and they all produce different and equally interesting results. Here is some high level info and the results.

*My original 1.5 yr old laterite based planted 180L tank - *
I only add nutrafin plant gro to this tank (contains nitrogen, iron, manganese and zinc). No C02, 96W of light from T5 PowerGlo tubes.

Results: Moderate but sporadic plant growth and many issues with various algaes (due to nutrients bottoming out).

*My 65L previous hospital tank*
Laterite, Flourish Excel, Flourish, 2x11W PL Lamps, DIY CO2

Results: Strong plant growth minor BBA issues (why I started dosing excel on top of CO2) and some issues with diatom algae growth around the more dense areas of vegetation - I cant clean there without disturbing the plants. My baby plecs love it though so I'm not bothered.

*My 360L main planted project I started after reading this forum*
AS Amazonia, AS Powersand, Flourish, Seachem trace elements, canister CO2, 172W T5 lighting (an upgrade from the tanks original 92W which didnt give me good results).

Results: Excellent plant growth, no algae issues even though I'm adding ferts.

*My New 90L shrimp species tank*
AS Amazonia, DIY CO2, No additional ferts, Sponge filtration, 156W (arcadia 90cm luminaire).

Results: 3 weeks into cycling, tanins in the water make judgment difficult but foreground hairgrass is forming a nice carpet. Some early signs of diatom algae and hair algae already.

*My new 22L hospital tank*
AS amazonia, 11W light (spare left over)and water

Results: less than 1 week into cycling from day one there is a HUGE spike in nitrites and ammonia - I saw this with my other AS tanks, as cycling goes on I will see this become a huge spike in nitrates and then level off.

I didn't/don't see much in the way of additional nitrate leaching into the water column from any of my AS tanks other than this huge initial spike in nitrites and ammonia. I'm an ex biochemist so I'm vigilant and persistent when it comes to testing my water - besides it gives me a chance to play with test tubes 

Read what you will into my observations, it didn't intend to start out as an experiment into different substrates and different fertilization methods, it just sort of happened that way.

Tom & all the other "gurus": Thanks by the way for fueling my latest obsession 

Regards

Marc


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

plantbrain said:


> I agree with everything here, but not dosing N or P.
> While not "needed", doing so does no harm.
> If you use the ada brighty 2-3, shade/brights etc you are adding N and P.
> 
> ...


Well for one, I don't dose N and P because this is my first tank, and if I can, I'm going to dose what I need and then spend the money on a wider variety of ionic compounds when I see their respective deficiencies in my plants.... It's mostly an issue of wether or not it's necessary, and as soon as it becomes necessary, you'll see me dosing N and P because I let you all know. 

And I never said that I'm not providing my plants N or P, I merely stated that I was not providing it with direct water column addition via dry ferts or ionic liquids such as brighty lights and shade. AS is full of both, and it seems to be more than enough right now, giving the plants root systems N and P, and slowly leaching small amounts into the water column, enough that I have not yet found it necessary to dose straight to the water column. I also have a small school (11) of Harlequins that are evidently provided small amounts of each. 5 ottos, and 2 SAE's as well. They're my N and P dose(rs).

Well than why do I dose trace and K? They're traditionally found in pretty low quantities in the aquarium, if I'm correct, and so I provide the plants with the amounts of each that they need during the photoperiod, and then go ahead and take out any excess with my daily 20% water changes.

Also, not once did I say that N and P were evil or not needed by the plants. Of course plants need them, but as of right now, dosing them would be unnecessary as my system already provides the plants with as much as they need of both. If my tank ever stops providing my plants with enough of each, I'll start dosing which ever are needed, if not both. Why spend the money if you don't need to?

Also, I don't dose either of Lights or Shade, as I know from testings that they have decent amounts of both. I dose Brighty K and Brighty Step one. I know step 1 may have some N and P, but not enough to call it significant dosing of each, I only add 6 mL of it a day, while I dose 8mL of K.

Ok, while writing this, I've thought of one maybe vaild and important point to be made on why my system is stable and healthy without direct water column dosing of N and P. While I have a decently high biomass, not huge, about medium I'd say; I dont have one stem in the tank(unless you consider HC a stem) and they are very large users of N and P, both of which provide most of them with their best color, an obvious fact showing they not only require them, but flourish with extra additives of each. So I can't validate that the method would work with a large amount of stems such as any rotala or ludwiga genus's.


Thanks,
Chris


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

cjunky, ironically that of all your tanks, then one thats algae free and has the best growth is the one with the pressurized CO2.

In addition, your first tank spec, you claim algae growth as a result of nutrients bottoming out. This is contradictory to what Tom is stating since the lack of CO2 is your limiting factor and also your five tanks is a perfect example of his case in point. Lights drive growth, but CO2 must follow suit behind lights!



Now Tom,
Through your explanations here, I have read and cleared up in my mind alot of things I never really knew...however, question for you:

If Nutrients dosed to the water column are not "bad", then why reccomend WC's in the EI dosing method? Some methods, for exampl PPS Pro dose lean and do not reccomend WC's at all. However, even with the lean dosing, nutrients will still be in excess at some point if the plants do not uptake all that is dosed. Yet, they claim no WC's. EI enforces a strict regiment of WC's. So whats the catch here? What are you not getting accross?

This is not argumentative at all... I am merely probing your knowledge and experience to get a better handle on your logic.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## cjunky (Nov 26, 2007)

gmccreedy, in the case of that tank, dont you think that the low light and low co2 balance out? my thinking was that the algae was due to low nitrate but some phosphates (mainly from fish food) etc.

after all we dont get co2 boosts in the real world, just that which other organisms produce..

i think with my new hospital tank ill balance the nutrients but add no co2. that should if you are correct show lots of algae ?

cheers

cj


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

I am no light expert but lets see if I can rationalize it.

Well, its a 180 liter (48 gallon), whats the depth of the tank? 96 Watts can be very intense if the depth is not very high. Throw the WPG rule in the garbage and look at the facts... T5 fixture (very efficient) mixed with probably not alot of tank depth. Sounds like an efficient setup for optimal light distribution, so I could see your CO2 demands going up up up.
Just look at your 360. You have double the tank volume and double the light wattage. Their has to be some proportional exceptions here... but I would think that anything over say 40 watts on a 48 gallon is tetering on the Co2 demand.... This is assuming that your tank does not have some customized tank dimensions here.

And I never heard of phosphates causing algae (and I think Tom mentioned that here on a previous post as well). I have actually increased P for GSA at times (but still have no definitive answer if that works by my experiences at least)


----------



## cjunky (Nov 26, 2007)

The tank dimensions are odd in both cases as both my larger tanks are corner tanks, so triangular rather than rectangular.

The 180L is about 60cm deep with the light another 20cm above that. 

My reason for the thinking the BBA was a result of high phosphates came from reading the following page and a large volume of other forum threads which cited it as a source.

http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_plant_algae.htm

However ive just read toms post in the BBA thread on the 25th of jan and I cant fault his logic.

In the interest of not hijacking this thread any further ill save any further comments for a different thread or pm.

cheers

marc


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

fishscale said:


> Can you really blame Amano? It would be pretty difficult for him to make a living if he knew the secrets and told everyone. Maintaining secrecy gives him an edge with his products.


Tropica, SeaChem, Kent, pretty much everyone, except ADA..........

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

CmLaracy said:


> Well for one, I don't dose N and P because this is my first tank, and if I can, I'm going to dose what I need and then spend the money on a wider variety of ionic compounds when I see their respective deficiencies in my plants.... It's mostly an issue of wether or not it's necessary, and as soon as it becomes necessary, you'll see me dosing N and P because I let you all know.


Like I said, few newbies are going to test or know how to set up a test, heck, even seasoned folks have troubles.



> And I never said that I'm not providing my plants N or P, I merely stated that I was not providing it with direct water column addition via dry ferts or ionic liquids such as brighty lights and shade.


Well, those do have N and P in them since you did not know.
So you are adding them to the water column without even knowing it.



> AS is full of both, and it seems to be more than enough right now, giving the plants root systems N and P, and slowly leaching small amounts into the water column, enough that I have not yet found it necessary to dose straight to the water column. I also have a small school (11) of Harlequins that are evidently provided small amounts of each. 5 ottos, and 2 SAE's as well. They're my N and P dose(rs).
> 
> Well than why do I dose trace and K? They're traditionally found in pretty low quantities in the aquarium, if I'm correct, and so I provide the plants with the amounts of each that they need during the photoperiod, and then go ahead and take out any excess with my daily 20% water changes.
> 
> ...


----------



## fishscale (May 29, 2007)

plantbrain said:


> Tropica, SeaChem, Kent, pretty much everyone, except ADA..........
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Barr


But none of those products have an aquascaper to go with the name. They also don't have the magic formula (because there isn't one), so listing the ingredients is fine. ADA does have an edge on the competition, doesn't it? It certainly commands a higher price.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

gmccreedy said:


> If Nutrients dosed to the water column are not "bad", then why reccomend WC's in the EI dosing method? Some methods, for exampl PPS Pro dose lean and do not reccomend WC's at all. However, even with the lean dosing, nutrients will still be in excess at some point if the plants do not uptake all that is dosed. Yet, they claim no WC's. EI enforces a strict regiment of WC's. So whats the catch here? What are you not getting accross?
> 
> This is not argumentative at all... I am merely probing your knowledge and experience to get a better handle on your logic.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


I think you need to ask Amano then, David Oliver, and the Senske's as well then As well as the top 10 ADA winners.

We all do water changes, I'll discuss more later, gotta run.

Regards, 
tom Barr


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Don't get me wrong...I am a huge advocate of water changes. Never would not do one, but just curious as the theory of the fert dillution.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

fishscale said:


> But none of those products have an aquascaper to go with the name. They also don't have the magic formula (because there isn't one), so listing the ingredients is fine. ADA does have an edge on the competition, doesn't it? It certainly commands a higher price.


Merely having good nutrients/formula etc, does not imply a good scape.
You are making bad assumptions there.
Amano did excellent work prior to using ADA AS.

So has NBAT etc.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## fishscale (May 29, 2007)

I'm just saying, using a star to market your products works.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

gmccreedy said:


> Now Tom,
> Through your explanations here, I have read and cleared up in my mind alot of things I never really knew...however, question for you:


You are asking a very good, but sometimes complicated question.
Not everyone gets it either. And there are trade offs, thus that is what one should focus on.

Those trade offs are personal choice, thus not one that is a clear one shot formula.

What level of error, or results that you accept is also a choice etc.
Some might only want 5% error, others might have little issue with 10%.
And so on.



> If Nutrients dosed to the water column are not "bad", then why reccomend WC's in the EI dosing method?


They *are* bad if you allow them to get to toxic levels.
So the question becomes: what concentrations are "bad"? Where do you see the effects on animals or plants?

This becomes not so general a question.
We have focused the question more precisely.

So for NO3:
For example, 160 ppm of NO3 derived from KNO3 dosing killed 50% of the Amano shrimp after 3 days exposure. No FW South American wild fish where lost during this exposure treatment.

Other parameters(other than K+ which we assume is not likely to cause any issues for fish or shrimp) where tested in non limiting ranges during the 3 days. The tank was stable prior as well, thus we could call it a control (as well as after except for the shrimp_).

Note, this does not prove that 160ppm kills shrimp, but it does show that this level is perhaps toxic, and that shrimp would appear more sensitive than fish where no effects where observed(short or long term). 

This is a lot more informative that "bad".
That tells you nothing is useless information.

For all the love of test and expounding on the virtues of testing, clearly if you cannot answer or set up the most basic biological questions that define your own argument/s, what the heck?
So I tend to focus on things I can test and measure.

And then I have something other than belief and meaningless marketing style words and phrases. I'm not a salesman. I do not write nice poems. It's cute etc, but hardly the meat on the bone.

EI grew out of testing + WC's.
Same for Amano.

He chose to add heavy sediment ferts + water column ferts(light) + water changes to reduce any unknown variables.

I chose to use water changes to remove the need for testing and the assumptions that they involve(which are many and many folks hate testing, or simply do not do it even if they agree they should). 

This simply allowed me to add dry ferts easily(making solutions was an issue for folks, they thought it was complicated etc) and not need to test.

I have other reasons: ever try pruning in a full deep tank 24"?
Ever try working on the lower parts of tank when it's full of water?
It's much easier to work on tanks in various displays when you have less water.

It also keeps the muck down when replanting, gardening etc.
You cannot over do water changes, they are simply a tool that we can easily use and they are fast, involve no chemistry or unknowns, nor test kits.
For most folks, this is simply much easier and more practical.

I can automate and semi automate a water change, you cannot do this well with testing. I can also drain and refill a tank in a few minutes, and while the tank is refilling, I can clean and prune, stock ferts, change CO2 tank etc, so it's not wasted time at all.

Those are the "meat and taters" of aquatic plant gardening, not testing water parameters.

ADA As imparts a fair amount of tannins to your water, it' gives a yellow hue and this coloration is variable batch to batch. ADA suggest adding Carbon and I know Amano has used Zeolite in the past/present. 

EI need not be 50% weekly, it can be 50% 2x a week, or 80% weekly, or 30% weekly etc.

Your error term(with 50%, it's 2x whatever rate of ferts you add assuming the tap is zero), will change to larger values as you decrease the %, and increase as you increase the % WC.

If you increase the frequency, you decrease the error as well and so on.

Now if you maintain a nice stable tank(a key part of any test) and impose a treatment, say no water changes for 4 weeks, and make sure the CO2 and such are in good shape, there's no reason why you cannot go 2-4 weeks, especially if you tweak and observe plants.

You can get a feel, especially after a few years in the hobby, for this.
But.........not everyone can do this and there are times even when the bets person gets too confident.

However, few new folks are going to be able to do this well.
So EI allows a simple easy method to re set the tank without a test kit.

I use to have narrower ranges and suggested test kits about 11 years ago, you can see that article on my site or on SFBAAPS etc.

EI was just a simpler method, but had trade offs, but those are fine with most folks.

If you wanted even more accuracy or precision, there's no reason you can not put EI into a bottle of water and divide by 7.

But that's PMDD+PO4.

Which scared many folks.

And that's all PPS is, but they rationalize more use of test kits to avoid water changes, that is the only difference btw PPS and PMDD+PO4. One suggest water changes still, the other does not.

EI, ADA, Tropica, PPS etc, we all add the same ferts.
Different amounts etc, but they still provide enough nutrients.
So they really are not that different.

ADA is very lean in the water column overall.
But they make up for it using low light most of the day and rich sediments.

EI and PMDD+PO4 and PPS all came at things more from a Water column approach.

However, they do work well together.
They complement eachother, not exclude.



> Some methods, for exampl PPS Pro dose lean and do not reccomend WC's at all.


But you can still use it and do water changes.
This works fine as long as you do not go too lean, but here's the problem:

Would you if you where going to study say CO2 demand in aquatic plants, want to teeter on the min amounts and potentially have limiting conditions that would influence and confound your results? Or would you prefer to test with non limiting amounts?

You can see clearly the issue in interpreting such data and the error that it injects.

*It is better to come at this question from the other end*, go with a non limiting amount, and slowly reduce the ppm's /dosing down until you see a negative response in growth etc.

Stunted plants, whether from CO2, PO4, NO3 etc do not respond well and are poor indicators of treatments.

Ask any researcher in plants.
This is incredibly basic research methods.

So how did I come to this idea for light + these other ppm's?
I used a lot of luight, so much that it was unlikely anyone would have more.

At that intensity, the CO2, the ppms of PO4 and NO3 all would be at their max rates.

At the lower end, it's extremely light dependent, you have much less error.
And as aquarist go, we have lots of errors.
We are human.

If you reduce the EI dosing down, or rather PMDD+PO4 in this case to make things more comparable, slowly, or if you raise from an extremely lean PPS level up, they should arrive at the same points.

You could also argue that you could add lots of PPS and or extremely lean PMMD+PO4 and do the reverse treatment to get to that just "enough point".

For all the carrying on Edward did, he never acknowledge this point.
The only real thing he suggested was not doing water changes over very long time frames using test kits, which of course, if the test are correct and the methods used, should be okay.

And I've never said PPS would NOT work, however, I do have issue with the comments made about EI, I'm also not a one trick pony, I do suggest zero water changes with non CO2 methods, whether they are soil based or not.
The reason there is one based on rate. The growth rates are very slow and as such, no water changes is needed to remove unknowns or build up, nor are any limitations that intense since growth is so slow.

You can use less light and reduce the water changes and dosing for EI or PPS to next to nothing.

If you also use a nutrient rich sediment, say ADA AS or soil/clay loam etc, then you can avoid most all water column dosing, perhaps even K+ and traces.

Some folks in Brazil a few year back did just that, they had no access to KNO3 etc, so they use worm castings boiled, than a cap or sand, they added high light and traces and some K+(I think).

They had excellent results.
Many folks have used soil based tanks + CO2.

All with varying degrees of success.
But if you pre mineralize the soil, then you have far less error and much higher success.

This advice was from myself, with an understanding of N cycle and NH4 and O2.

The same can be done ahead of time with ADA AS.
Eg the Dry start method.

By the flooding time, the NH4 is already => NO2=> NO3 and you still have the NH4 inside the grains, just not in the water column.

(quote)
However, even with the lean dosing, nutrients will still be in excess at some point if the plants do not uptake all that is dosed. Yet, they claim no WC's. 
(/quote)

Yes, there's nothing wrong with that either. What levels are problematic?
At what point does K+ cause issues?
Or PO4?
Or NO3?

I know, because I've tested this, which is why I agree.
However, the PPS folks have not bothered to test this in any real study to see.
"Yes, it works and I have no issues."
That's about all they can say, they cannot say at what point and over what range it really works or not.

It does work better if you use less light BTW, every method does.
you can do fewer water changes, run les slight etc and add less CO2.

And you finally end up with a non CO2 tank method.:icon_idea 

Understand?
I appear to be the only person has been able to rationalize each method and tie them all together. But then again, I better be able to, I do study this stuff:icon_mad: 



> EI enforces a strict regiment of WC's. So whats the catch here? What are you not getting accross?
> 
> This is not argumentative at all... I am merely probing your knowledge and experience to get a better handle on your logic.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


No, I can tell honest questions, those are extremely welcomed!
But many confuse such questions, as well as my responses with personal muckery.

These are precisely the types of questions a wise aquarist would ask.

EI does not impose strict water changes, *it only provides a theory for providing a working range that the user defines, not me, not Amano etc.*
50% is a simple working example.

I clearly state and have said this for decades now, it's not written in stone, you can tweak it for various conditions and goals that you might have.

Amano's advice is no different nor is Jeff or David's nor Karen's nor Claus etc.

Anyone should be able to tell the effects of large water change afterwards on their tank. Do one early in the morning, about 1 hour after the lights come on, dose EI right after.

Later at night, check the tank.
Then check the O2 and pearling.

Next, try the same check the next day, and the day after and so on, till the next water change.

Generally it's a CO2 and removal of periphyton from the flushing.
CO2 is the largest player in most folk's tanks. 

That is where you will see the largest effect/s.
On algae, on growth, on the downstream nutrients, and so on.

Yet it's the biggest issue for most and measurement is Extremely difficult vs NO3, PO4 etc.

So if you are big on testing and stability, I'd really focus there.
Also, focus on maintaining the same plant biomass stability via pruning often, cleaning filters, same circulation patterns/flow rates etc, this will provide the stability far more than nutrients.

Why?

Plants define the system, not nutrients or algae, unless you mess up the plant growth rates.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Gatekeeper (Feb 20, 2007)

Excellent. This is exactly what I wanted to see. Thank you Tom for taking the time to explain this. I feel this is very good information and I certainly hope others got something out of this and not just me.

The "pink elephant in the room" certainly got less colorful...lol.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I think if you put on the big picture and common sense "Hat", aquatic plant methods make a heck of lot more sense.

Folks get stuck in the mud and then are left with only contradictions and belief. That does not get you anywhere except good at arguing semantics.

The data looks suspicious to me, it's very rare that you have such data all being so incredibly similar.

Large water changes certain amplify growth and stabilize nutrients, which ADA does and does a lot. So that could help but I know CO2 ppm's change quite a bit every day and they NEVER add CO2 at night.
The tannins in the ADA AS also mess with the pH/KH relationship, so you cannot use that for measuring the CO2 in his tanks.
Some seem to assume so.

What if they measure only the day after a 50% water change vs 6 days later?
How old is the tank and at what stage is the plant establishment?

These make real and important differences and you cannot compare them without addressing such things. 

I do the same large water changes for the same reasons.

Take a look at your tank after doing a 60% water change in the morning, add ferts etc right after, then look at the tank after 8 more hours of light.

Now compare that to the same tank 5 days after the water change.
Ferts are not the issue if they are the same.

CO2 and O2 are.

I think it's quite a hoot when someone claims plants do not need high nutrient levels, yet has ADA AS or soil in the sediments.

You cannot suggest that generally and not account for the sediments/soil.
Also, you can have high nutrients in the water, but none in the sediment.

You have to consider both, some knuckle heads seem to forget the other 1/2 of the sources(potentially) for nutrients.

The soil folks forget and claim the water column is bad for nutrients, the Water column side claim that sediment ferts are bad/not needed.

Both groups are wrong.

They should work synergistically together, not opposed.

Fish and plants really do not care, as long as some is there, you gain no advantage by one or the other.

But you do gain advantages by using them both together:icon_excl 
Folks space out dosing to the water time to time, so soil is a good back up.
Some seems to assume that leaner is better, so at least they have a back up.

For the general population, sediment ferts are pretty good, but so are water column ferts if they can add them consistently. Folks should dose routinely and also do water changes, that part of ADA is NO DIFFERENT.

But this way, you have a back up.
After testing ADA's line, that's what I've seen and concluded and told folks.

Many of the ADA crowd seem bent to promote Amano's word, rather than testing and "learning". Seeing if there is any interaction between powersand and AS in terms of growth. Seeing what is actually in the ADA liquid ferts. Seeing if Tourmaline, Penac, iron bottom, Bacter etc are really helpful and if so, what is it they really do and why, is there any real support that we can discern? If, not, you cannot say anything. Some of these same folks are really into supporting testing as well with NO3, PO4 test kits etc.............all to "learn". Seems a bit ironic to me.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

Tom, is using Power Sand with the Aqua Soil hokum or worthwhile?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Based on a dozen tanks?
The first choice.
Based on an analysis of the sediments as well(if anyone besides myself has ever bothered to do so, I only know of one other person that did a simple jar test and no one that's done a basic soil test at a lab other than me thjat I'm aware of).

Try it and see for yourself if you doubt it.
Put your money where your mouth is.:icon_excl 

I think powersand is a hold over prior from when Amano did not have ADA AS. Adding it will add some ferts in the start up period, but so will adding a little KNO3.....and then you do not have this nasty grey pumice all over the place.
ADA As has quite a bit of nutrient content on its own. 

Sort of funny, all the converts carry on about the need, but without a single test or a single measurement of the very thing they want to argue for/about/suggest is a cause etc.

Even simple test like W or w/o PS added and then seeing the results based on growth rates.

Add a little bit more NPK at the start and then there's no need for PS.
If I got something out of PS and if it made even 20% of the difference ADA As did, then you'd have something.

Why bother?
Because ADA says so?
Come on, you have to do better than that. 
*Don't parrot what ADA says either*, research your own conclusion and test it your yourself.

Unless you try both with and without PS using ADA AS, how on earth can you tell what is influencing the other? You cannot.
Even such simple methods anyone can understand eludes some however.
It's really mind boggling, then they get testy with me over it.
Don't be a personal jerk, show *the idea*, the hypothesis is wrong and that you do get some measurable difference from PS vs say, adding some KNO3 to the bottom during the start up.

Try ADA As alone and see.
Etc......_then_ you can discuss it.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

Thanks Tom. I haven't used either, but was planning on giving the ADA AS a try, partially influenced by your recommendation. If the Power Sand is hokum, and it seems it is from your response, I'll skip that. I was just curious as to how you felt about it, given that you'll likely have done actual testing and not just be carrying a party line.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I don't have anything scientific to contribute, but do find this a rather cool way for us to benefit from Japan's thousands of years of sustainable agriculture!


----------



## SPC (Jan 14, 2008)

lauraleellbp said:


> I don't have anything scientific to contribute, but do find this a rather cool way for us to benefit from Japan's thousands of years of sustainable agriculture!


I don't follow your logic here. Would you mind explaining a bit more what your point is?
Thanks,
Steve


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Japan does plenty of the exact same things as we do in the USA agriculturally. CA grows more rice than all of Japan, I live right in the middle of it here.

ADA does add a great deal of N and P to the aquarium, it's just mostly in the sediment in a nice form that we can work with. But folks seem to assume that because their cheap test kits that only measure the water column parameters does not detect much, that it's not there.

You have to test both locations, not just one.
Kasslemann implied this same oversight in her talk at the AGA, never tested the sediment more or even gave it passing mention. 

If you bother to go to the trouble to do research on aquatic plants, you'd darn well better measure the test the sediment.

But few do, then assume it is some mystery how the plants grow well:eek5: 
A few simple test can show how and why they grow well in several situations, all of which point to that plants are opportunistic, they take nutrients from either location readily.

But do not forget, you are adding a few months to year's worth of N and P into your tank when you add ADA sediments.

That is a large departure from the inert sediments like sand, etc.

But then they worry about KNO3 dosing...........:icon_roll 
There is a lot of low level NH4, which is far more toxic and likely to impose health concerns , especially when uprooting etc, than KNO3..........

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

Well I said I'd come back here and update on my N and P situations, and I'm staying true to my word. If you look back and read what I wrote, you'll notice that I was not dosing any Nitrogen of Phosphorus, just Potassium and Trace. I was doing this, because the addition of the two was not necessary at the time because it was being provided by my Aquasoil Amazonia II. 

Well, much time and resulting growth has passed since then. And like I and many knew would happen, and always does happen, is that the seemingly endless supply of macros provided by the soil slowed down, and has almost stopped. So what do I have to do now? I have to dose N and P. For any of you using AS you might find this information helpful. But, I'm pretty sure it hasn't run dry of it's supply, because I have been doing well with very lean dosings of the two.

For about a week, a month ago, I found that I was dosing enough Nitrates, some BGA sprouted it's ugly head. I dosed some N, and it was gone. Just recently I slacked a little bit on CO₂ and some BBA started up. I started up with the CO₂ again and it's growth stopped, and I'm now eliminating it with spot dosing and ODing of excel.

So, I leave you with one question Tom Barr, because I've been very curious as to the answer for many weeks. How does Amano keep set-ups for longer than a year (longer than mine by like 5 months) without dosing any N or P, and still get good growth and keep algae at bay. If you look at his catalogs, he only doses Brighty K and Brighty Step 2, neither of which contain N or P. His nitrates stay below .1 mg/L and yet he has no defficiancies? No BGA? I don't get it. Maybe you can explain his ways and methods?


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

anyone? bueler?


----------



## styxx (Jul 2, 2003)

Chris, et al.

As you may know I've had the same 60P for about that period of time...I'm now on to Step3 and K. I've notice that at this point, the Amazonia AS has lost much of its potency...I can't speak with specificity about the nutrient levels but I certainly have noticed a significant difference in growth rate proportional to algae proliferation. Thus, I have begun to dose N and P through Special Lights and I have seen a concomitant improvement in plant health, growth rate and reduced algae occurrence (with unchanged CO2 concentration, lighting & water parameters, etc.) since beginning that dosing regimen.

My PhD will be in American Studies, not Botany or Horticulture so I can not volunteer any scientific data to this discussion...And while my observations are anecdotal, may other ADA "Fanatics" may well read these comments and support this conclusion based on the length of time elapsed, and be in agreement.


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

styxx said:


> ..., may other ADA "Fanatics" may well read these comments and support this conclusion based on the length of time elapsed, and be in agreement.


Well I never considered myself a ADA AS Fanatic and was originally highly critical of it. Prior to trying it, I thought this stuff was more hype than anything else. When I saw first hand what this stuff was capable of, I instantly converted and am now a bonified ADA AS fanatic. I won't use anything else(not Eco-Complete, not Fluorite, not SAS, not SMS, not FloraBase), even if you gave me other substrates for free. My Motto why mess with other stuff when you know(through the work of people like Tom Barr) which is the best. I guess expense can be a limiting factor, but when you consider that ADA AS, likely has triple the life expectancy of other substrates, it is not that expensive relatively speaking. The question people have asked of me is: how can I be so sure that the substrate makes such a huge difference? I set up a tank using a template of another member who used ADA AS. I replicated everything as closely as possible including c02 injection, ferts, etc., with the only difference being that I used Schultz Aquatic Soil instead of ADA AS. Needless to say, I never came even close to replicating his success and the only variable that could account for that difference was the substrate.

I set up a 15 gallon high ADA AS II experimental tank. While it is too early to say how well it holds up as it was only set up Dec 26 2007. The plants continue to grow like weeds, there is very little and hardly noticeable green spot algae(on the Buddha ornament that gives the statue some character, surprisingly it is nowhere else to be seen - not on any plant leaves and not on the glass), water is crystal clear, the Kuhli Loaches are still alive and kicking. I am dosing Estimative Index at 1/2 the dosage as per Tom Barr's kind recommendation.

And of course I owe you, styxx, a debt of gratitude for directing me on how best to proceed when I first set up the tank with respect to water changes.


----------

