The Planted Tank Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,012 Posts
The problem with that type of "testimonial" is that the author didn't do a comparison test with ordinary NPK + traces fertilizing. I can understand why he didn't, but that doesn't alter the fact that he has no way to know that the plants wouldn't have done even better if he had. We all tend to believe that anything we do, hoping to fix a problem, has been successful when the problem goes away. But, all we can really say when we do that is that the problem was not made worse by what we did. Real testing always involves comparisons with alternatives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,714 Posts
hoppy's got a good point. l'm not saying it doesn't work but comparing and testing is how you learn new things. If NPK and traces actually does work better, l think it might be cheaper during the long run as well via EI method.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,831 Posts
Green Gain costs $18 and lasts a very long time - I've had a bottle for one and a half years now and still not empty.

If that's not a value investment, I don't know what is!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,609 Posts
Green Gain costs $18 and lasts a very long time - I've had a bottle for one and a half years now and still not empty.

If that's not a value investment, I don't know what is!
49 cents for a 500ml bottle of 3% peroxide at Rite Aid???

Does ADA have anything that cheap?

I'm not impressed, but I've found few algae cure alls to be, typically for a very basic reason. Very poor testing methods, lack of any controls and references that are applicable does not help the hobby.

It just feeds the marketing and myths.

I have a tough time supporting that. We can kill algae with a wide range of products and most are extremely cheap and can be bought locally for less than 1$. It's like suggesting brand name ferts are better than say dry KNO3 bulk. I've looked at these items from many different angles for a long time and had these debates for 2 decades.

I find no use vs say cheap simple alternatives like peroxide or generic glutalderhyde etc. Glut at least has a plant growing benefit beyond the algicidal properties as a Carbon source, which is often why folks have the algae issue to begin, so it cures the problem and the root.

It's about 15-20$ a gallon.

As far as stressed plants, come on......hormones like cytokinin aere easily avauilabel from any garden center, Super thrive and dozen of others, these are maybe 2-5$ for a 2-4 ounce bottle which would last years as well, but........folks have long added hormones to planted tanks without any noted effect as far as anyone I know are aware off, as well Tom Kane at UF. Now he and everyone else has not seem much effect, does it really help or is it just the basics of good ferts, CO2 and light that aids in recovery?

This is why good controls are important.
"Feeling" ain't enough for me, I need some evidence that is applicable, wide range of observations that agree and a good method to support.
Belief does not cut it and does not help the hobby or the horticulture.

It does help the makers of such products however.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,831 Posts
...Green Gain isn't for killing algae. You don't even sort of remotely use Green Gain like you would h202 for algae removal. That would be like saying you put water in the gas tank to drive a car.

Green Gain is specifically for use after trimming stem plants to help them recover better from the trimming process and maintain health. It contains Phytohormones and Organic acids that aid primarily in promoting plant growth and reducing the stress on plants after whatever cause that led to the plant not being healthy.

For the record - we've always seen a sizeable difference in stem plant longevity in situations where green gain was used vs. situations were it was not. I've even had long conversations with Luis Navarro were he specifically pointed out the differences he's noticed over the years, specifically to say "I don't know what it is that's in there, but I do know that the plants grow differently when I use them [green brighty step 1 & green gain]."

Maybe Texas water is just completely different from the rest of the world. If you perceive $18 as outrageously expensive on something that lasts 1-2 years with fairly consistent use, then you probably shouldn't be investing in a planted aquarium.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,609 Posts
...Green Gain isn't for killing algae. You don't even sort of remotely use Green Gain like you would h202 for algae removal. That would be like saying you put water in the gas tank to drive a car.

Green Gain is specifically for use after trimming stem plants to help them recover better from the trimming process and maintain health. It contains Phytohormones and Organic acids that aid primarily in promoting plant growth and reducing the stress on plants after whatever cause that led to the plant not being healthy.
Have you done any background reading about the basics of plant Biology and hormones? You seem to assume that it is the Hormones, well, why not add just hormones then?
If I get 10x the amount for 5$ vs 18$, why would you buy it?

That's not a logical argument or a defense. Folks pick on me for 3-4$ difference in the glutaraldehyde cost, or scream I'm ripping them off over 1.13$ is ship cost differences.
18$? Maybe some are not cheap, but many are and will declare Cheap Jihad over a nickel. You can try and be a salesman all you want.

It's the SAME with ADA AS alone vs ADA AS +PS.
Unless you test each one separately, you cannot say who is doing what.
Jeff suggested the PS was part of the system, but it lacks any real nutrients other than NO3.
And few had done any substitutive test to see if there was any difference.
I followed that up with some test of each component using USDA protocol.
Now I can say what each offers.

Amano and ADA in general are very vague about what is in any of their products. Organic acids........peat can do that as well, amino acids, these get broken down fairly quick unless chelated, plants are not going to get that much out of them in small amounts like this. Minerals.......well, this could be ferts.....maybe PO4/Mg etc, which are often lean, too lean(dependent factor) in most ADA run routines. Depends on the tap, ADA's tap has about 0.5ppm of PO4. What's yours? KH? Mg?
etc..........


So adding that might be the effect you see, and why it had no effect in my cases. I hack back my tanks fairly aggressively, I sell a lot of Starougyne, I have a bottle of Super Thrive, which also has amino acids and organic acids(mostly to keep the bacteria and the solution reduced). I also have separate individual hormones, you can buy them as well.
Then you can test and see.

Instead of guessing who is doing what.
That is only mechanistic, we learn very little from that approach.

For the record - we've always seen a sizeable difference in stem plant longevity in situations where green gain was used vs. situations were it was not. I've even had long conversations with Luis Navarro were he specifically pointed out the differences he's noticed over the years, specifically to say "I don't know what it is that's in there, but I do know that the plants grow differently when I use them [green brighty step 1 & green gain]."
What do you honestly think grows plants?
Magic?

Come on......we can and many have added hormones to planted tanks with little effect going way way back 15 years worth on line. I'd like to slow plant growth down, just have it grow in nice and stay put. If you want more research type conditions, ask Tom Kane. I repeated a few of his older hormone studies on some plants, notably Crypts.

Maybe Texas water is just completely different from the rest of the world. If you perceive $18 as outrageously expensive on something that lasts 1-2 years with fairly consistent use, then you probably shouldn't be investing in a planted aquarium.
No, I should not waste $ on stuff that does not specifically grow plants.
If it is the minerals, there's a simple solution to that and it's much less than 18$, that much I think we can really clearly say.

Hormones DO NOT GROW PLANTS. They tell the plant organs what to do endogenously, but I've seen NO EVIDENCE, none, that suggest they have any effect when added to the water exogenously on growth of development in aquatic plants.

If you think I am incorrect, then you need to support it with some evidence and a well defined logically approach to illustrate it. Simply posting or talking louder or repeating yourself more than someone else is not going to work.

Nutrients, light and CO2/water. These grow plants.
Organic acids can make some nutrients a bit more available if the KH is high.
"Minerals" are nutrients, so it could very well be some PO4 or Mg etc.
It also might be something like ECA.

When we dosed PO4 years ago, we saw a strong response with respect to O2 production, an increase of 2ppm upon adding PO4 to a PO4 limited tank.
This took only 40 minutes etc. Slightly less with Mg limitation and dosing. About 4-8 hours and only 1 ppm.

When we hack the plants back, the freshly trimmed plants have more access and concentration to/of CO2(since it is rarely adjusted for between trimmings). This is due to less plant biomass, thus less demand. ADA and many other folks tend to run too lean on their nutrients to rule out limiting factors that lead to dependency. Further, few experiment of test with the individual components to know much of their effects. So most aquarist just guess, which teaches you little. After a trim, more current also occurs and more access to light on the lower stems. All these are positives for growth. These are also independent, the only dependency seems to be more the nutrients.

We can add peat and see, or amino acids and hormones(various products).
Then you have narrowed it down. Takes time and effort, not just following someone else's marketing mumbo, then you'll know, learn and be able to solve problems and create.

Cost: effort, time, value?
Priceless.

Why not send me 18$??:hihi:

I sell aquarium related stuff, wood, plants, do maintenance etc also.
Some things are worth paying for, I am questioning if this is really one of those things.
I'm not convinced and have not seen or read otherwise thus far.
What else ya got?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,831 Posts
Have you done any background reading about the basics of plant Biology and hormones? You seem to assume that it is the Hormones, well, why not add just hormones then?
If I get 10x the amount for 5$ vs 18$, why would you buy it?

That's not a logical argument or a defense. Folks pick on me for 3-4$ difference in the glutaraldehyde cost, or scream I'm ripping them off over 1.13$ is ship cost differences.
18$? Maybe some are not cheap, but many are and will declare Cheap Jihad over a nickel. You can try and be a salesman all you want.

It's the SAME with ADA AS alone vs ADA AS +PS.
Unless you test each one separately, you cannot say who is doing what.
Jeff suggested the PS was part of the system, but it lacks any real nutrients other than NO3.
And few had done any substitutive test to see if there was any difference.
I followed that up with some test of each component using USDA protocol.
Now I can say what each offers.

Amano and ADA in general are very vague about what is in any of their products. Organic acids........peat can do that as well, amino acids, these get broken down fairly quick unless chelated, plants are not going to get that much out of them in small amounts like this. Minerals.......well, this could be ferts.....maybe PO4/Mg etc, which are often lean, too lean(dependent factor) in most ADA run routines. Depends on the tap, ADA's tap has about 0.5ppm of PO4. What's yours? KH? Mg?
etc..........


So adding that might be the effect you see, and why it had no effect in my cases. I hack back my tanks fairly aggressively, I sell a lot of Starougyne, I have a bottle of Super Thrive, which also has amino acids and organic acids(mostly to keep the bacteria and the solution reduced). I also have separate individual hormones, you can buy them as well.
Then you can test and see.

Instead of guessing who is doing what.
That is only mechanistic, we learn very little from that approach.



What do you honestly think grows plants?
Magic?

Come on......we can and many have added hormones to planted tanks with little effect going way way back 15 years worth on line. I'd like to slow plant growth down, just have it grow in nice and stay put. If you want more research type conditions, ask Tom Kane. I repeated a few of his older hormone studies on some plants, notably Crypts.



No, I should not waste $ on stuff that does not specifically grow plants.
If it is the minerals, there's a simple solution to that and it's much less than 18$, that much I think we can really clearly say.

Hormones DO NOT GROW PLANTS. They tell the plant organs what to do endogenously, but I've seen NO EVIDENCE, none, that suggest they have any effect when added to the water exogenously on growth of development in aquatic plants.

If you think I am incorrect, then you need to support it with some evidence and a well defined logically approach to illustrate it. Simply posting or talking louder or repeating yourself more than someone else is not going to work.

Nutrients, light and CO2/water. These grow plants.
Organic acids can make some nutrients a bit more available if the KH is high.
"Minerals" are nutrients, so it could very well be some PO4 or Mg etc.
It also might be something like ECA.

When we dosed PO4 years ago, we saw a strong response with respect to O2 production, an increase of 2ppm upon adding PO4 to a PO4 limited tank.
This took only 40 minutes etc. Slightly less with Mg limitation and dosing. About 4-8 hours and only 1 ppm.

When we hack the plants back, the freshly trimmed plants have more access and concentration to/of CO2(since it is rarely adjusted for between trimmings). This is due to less plant biomass, thus less demand. ADA and many other folks tend to run too lean on their nutrients to rule out limiting factors that lead to dependency. Further, few experiment of test with the individual components to know much of their effects. So most aquarist just guess, which teaches you little. After a trim, more current also occurs and more access to light on the lower stems. All these are positives for growth. These are also independent, the only dependency seems to be more the nutrients.

We can add peat and see, or amino acids and hormones(various products).
Then you have narrowed it down. Takes time and effort, not just following someone else's marketing mumbo, then you'll know, learn and be able to solve problems and create.

Cost: effort, time, value?
Priceless.

Why not send me 18$??:hihi:

I sell aquarium related stuff, wood, plants, do maintenance etc also.
Some things are worth paying for, I am questioning if this is really one of those things.
I'm not convinced and have not seen or read otherwise thus far.
What else ya got?
Before this gets out of hand, or before this turns into something that makes the both of us look bad where nothing but snide or passive aggressive comments are being slung back and forth - let me just clear the air openly here.

We can both agree that the aquarium hobby, most especially the planted segment, is extremely budget conscious. As mutual professionals we both understand this fundamentally. This isn't good or bad, it's just the nature of the market and the culture. You get called out on nickels just the same as I do in representation of ADA, and we can also both agree that that is always a frustrating situation. At the end of the day, we understand that there we do just need to make a certain amount of money to keep the lights on and fund the 'cool' things we do to both grow the hobby and inspire people.

I also understand that you are the chief proponent of E.I. and that you operate a business that at times has conflicting interests to ADA products. Which is totally cool - I understand that. I understand the conflict over if someone buys and prescribes by the ADA fertilizer line they aren't likely to invest in the E.I. method at the same time.

We both assign value to our methods and philosophies and when they intersect in a conflicting way, that is naturally going to cause some friction. Neither of us is trying to deceive or dupe people into buying product or material or anything, we're simply trying to guide people down the path we have been successful with - and neither one is anymore wrong or right to do than the other. They both work, and have long and consistent track records of success.

However, I do feel that it is a little bit over the top when the second an ADA product gets reviewed or someone mentions something about a good experience and shares it, they get lambasted for their experience with a differing philosophy.

When someone posts or calls and tells me about their success with the E.I. method, or any other method, even direct competitors, I don't rip them apart for using that method, I don't spend the energy trying to make it look bad or incomplete or discredited. In fact, a lot of what I answer inquiries with is simple: if something is working for you, run with it! There's no need to change over for no reason. There are many ways to be successful with the Planted aquarium and there's no singular correct answer. However, if they ask me what was successful for me, of course I'm going to take the time to explain the ADA system and philosophy - much as you would with E.I., because that's what's been successful for us.

Let's take another example - we had differing readings of the PAR value of ADA lights, when asked, I made no attempt to say you were wrong - I just had a different reading, and that could have been for any number of reasons: different PAR meter sensitivities, old vs. new bulbs, slope, et cetera. In other words I didn't have the complete side by side controlled comparison and thus even went out of my way to specifically state that I had full confidence that you had accurate readings for that scenario and for that PAR meter, but here's a possible explanation towards why the numbers could be significantly different.

Here's the thing: it's cool that you're testing ADA products, but many of the tests from our angle are inaccurate because they aren't necessarily testing the purpose of the product itself.

For example, you telling me that there are no nutrients in PS is absolutely totally correct. But the conclusion that it's worthless from that data? That's just incorrect. Maybe it's because prior people (myself included) didn't fully understand the reason for powersand. Powersand isn't a method for growing plants. It has nothing to do with that. It's about full system health, and here's the break down:

PS is a highly porous pumice based material that serves the purpose of providing a strong bed of beneficial bacteria directly in the substrate. By supplementing bacter 100 and clear super directly (100 different types of beneficial bacteria and "food" for them) with PowerSand at the bottom of your substrate bed means that your whole layout is pre-seeded with bacteria beneficial towards complete system health, not just plant health. That means you have a secondary base for biological filtration not just in the filter but at the core of the system itself - in the substrate giving direct access of plant roots to the biological filtration. In larger setups it detracts from the compaction over time of aquasoil under water pressure - disarming the probability for anaerobic spots in the substrate.

So of course if you are only measuring by nutrient capacity your conclusion would be that it's useless. But that's also going back to the water in the gas tank scenario.

The ADA philosophy and product line is not for everyone and it's not a 'marketing scheme,' we aren't trying to make everyone who has a planted aquarium an ADA customer.

I believe that you should go with what works for you the best. All I'm saying is that we've had nothing but success with using the full ADA system. Amano has had nothing but success using his whole system. That's a lot of credibility. It works extremely well, and it works without supplementing anything from any other product line.

It comes down to ADA being the Apple of the planted aquarium - while a Mac and a PC do the same job, not everyone is going to buy a Mac and not everyone is going to buy a PC and they aren't wrong for having success using either device.

All I'm asking for is that same courtesy to respect the methods of others that we extend out. Now if you'd like to continue the debate in a civil method, I'm all for it. What I don't want to do is end up banging my head against a wall for no reason. If we have to agree to disagree, I'm totally cool with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,709 Posts
This is written to Francis Xavier.
Planted tank hobbyists are not necessarily cheap, though many of us are.
Nor are we necessarily stupid. Some days you wouldn't know it based on arguments that have been re-hashed for twenty years.

Some of us actually read the literature we cite and use.
Hormones, such as cytokinin are used in tissue culture propagation because they have been demonstrated to work.
None of the research, that I've read, suggests that adding cytokinin to the water in a planted tank, would help with anything.

I've tried to research Green Gain, but all I find are claims and testimonials that are either from ADA or quoting the product brochure. If I look up cytokinin or other tissue culture references, I find lots of work on tissue culture but none to plants in an aquatic environment.

I work in a fair sized university research library. If you can provide any links to scientific studies, or titles and authors, I'll find the original work and post the abstracts. Abstracts are fair use items, particularly in a forum such as this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,609 Posts
Francis:

Attack the idea, not the person.
You avoided each question and instead brought up other stuff like me personally, Lighting, EI and side stepped the topic that has little to do with ADA Green Gain or it's claims, you have not supported your claims.

I have also suggested several methods to test to find out the answers to the questions. Point is, what is Green Gain, what can we do to test and measure what aspects are really helping(assuming that it does), what do we know already, and is it a worth while thing for management, or are there other alternatives that would improve and be cheaper etc, more options etc?

Fear not, I'll keep asking them as many times as it takes to get an honest direct answer. I still support ADA, but that does imply I believe everything Amano or ADA marketing says either. Penac quackery? That is not market scheme??? Heck I do not know what a marketing scheme is....if that ain't one. The rest is off topic as far as I can tell. You wanna bring those up and debate them in another thread, go for it, but it's off topic here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
Tom, it is rather obvious that you have a knee-jerk reaction to anything with ADA slapped on it. Not to mention even the slightest hint of a possible criticism of EI. It's all over this forum.

Well and good.

Francis, I don't know if I'll be using the whole ADA line...I'm doing a bit of experimenting myself :) But I do think that Amano isn't the kind of person - or has the kind of image - that he would risk damaging by selling a completely hokum product just to rip people off. Some things may work better than others, and some may not be necessary at all. Depends on the plants, the tank, the keeper. In any case, I thought I'd show you some support...because at this point, regardless of the product in question, I admire your patience and your discretion in discussing this.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top