Amano Tanks very low in nutrients - Discussion requested.

[fishscale]

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

[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by gmccreedy

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.

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

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

[gmccreedy]

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]

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
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]

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

[plantbrain]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by lauraleellbp

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]

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
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...........
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]

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]

anyone? bueler?

[styxx]

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]

Originally Posted by styxx

..., 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.