# A question for all: Algae in ADA tanks



## niko

The topic may sound almost blasphemous to some. I do not want to ask Luis Navarro for example what he things about algae in ADA tanks. Maybe when he comes to Dallas we can all play a trick on him and ask him that very question publicly. Anyway - please read on:

Just the other day a funny thought came to my mind. It made me think. See how thought inducing it is for you.

I have never, ever, seen a picture of an ADA tank that had BBA in it. I got to say that I have a trained eye to recognize the first phases of BBA infestation as well as the leftovers after a successful erradication or spontaneous die off. Don't ask me how I've become a BBA expert. Anyway - in ADA tanks there is not a single trace of BBA at least from what I have managed to see in photographs. 

On pictures of ADA tanks I've seen fuzz algae (a macro picture of a part of a plant leaf). I've seen spot algae on their Anubias, as well as encrusting algae on rocks or wood. All of these were beyond minor. But I've never seen BBA. Or Cladophora for that matter.

I think I know why and the answer is easy to understand - because the water contains NOTHING that supports algae. ADA tests and publishes the value of "COD" which is an indicator of organic pollution. Their tanks have extremely low COD. ADA is the only aquarium equipment company that even sells a COD test. In the US you have to special order it because it is not something we even know about. Low COD means low organics. It means that the biofilter is working perfectly. It means that the water is clean. And it means zero BBA.

You can start changing your aquarium water very often and the organics will eventually be reduced to very low number. I can guarantee you that BBA will start to fall apart quickly, in a matter of days it will be all gone. I have done it in a tank overloaded with fish that I fed hamburger meat. So I believe organics are a big thing for BBA and I believe BBA is not the worst of all algae. With EI and its big water changes you are doing exactly that - reducing organics. "Resetting" the fertilizer concentrations is only part of the picture. So: low organics = no BBA.

Then comes the Cladophora. If you successfully cleaned your water from organics you maybe far from a clean, pristine tank. All other kinds of algae are more or less manageble and "kill-able". Not Cladophora. It likes exactly what plants like. Especialy food floating in the water. And Cladophora is doomed if the water is deprived of nutrients. It will gradually dwindle away. Guaranteed. ADA does that to a great extent by using the substrate. With AquaSoil sucking the nutrients and making them available only to the plant roots the free floating food for algae in the water is very short lived and basically not existent.

Back to the "algae ridden" ADA tanks: The algae that I have actually seen in ADA's tanks are the slow growing creeping kind. They are very much a given. Back in the early 80's I had noticed that good plant growth also meant a gradual development of spot algae on the glass. If the algae stopped growing the plants stopped too. But in a purist's tank all algae are taken care of. In ADA tanks they are taken care of with proper maintenance, Otos, Amano shrimp, as well as plain old scrubbing. Also ADA sells a chemical (named Phyton-Gyt) that is supposed to clear spot algae from Anubias. I do not know if Phyton-Gyt really works. I'd like to hear more about that. My guess is that it does work IF you have all the other things in line. Which leads me to my main point:

A "general mess" is what is common in our US planted tanks: Organics are unknown, the substrate is in who knows what phase of development, the filter is often non-existent (in terms of biofilter size, activity, and proper flow through it). The water flow in the tank is often what the hobbyist found to suit his/her/its fancy. Looking at all this barely logical mess of a setup (the average US planted tank) it really seems that the best approach is a comprehensive system. A system that uses all the things that actually go inside or are connected to a planted tank. Not a blanket approach that is supposed to take care of everything (with a lot of elbow grease too).

--Nikolay


----------



## fishyjoe24

well um here is a curve ball... what if some one was to use rich substrate a mix of ada aqua soil, sea chem flourite, and sea chem flourite sand... a filter that turns the tank over 8 times an hour, and the filter can hold 5% of the tanks volume in bio media. with clean 0- tds, water from a ro/di unit. with a good lighting, and c02, with liquid ferts?
with it heavly planted from the start..



it seems that usa tanks people want to have supper strong lighting, pump a lot of c02 in the tank, and dump crazy amounts of ferts in the water, then they forget to stay on top of water changes and maintence. 

what do you think nikolay?


----------



## D9Vin

And what does COD stand for?


----------



## fishyjoe24

D9Vin said:


> And what does COD stand for?


c = chemical o=oxygen d= demand. c.o.d.= chemical oxygen demand.

COD, not cash on deliverly !!! op2::lol:

a standard method for indirect measurement of the amount of pollution (that cannot be oxidized biologically) in a sample of water. based on the chemical decomposition of organic and inorganic contaminants, dissolved or suspended in water. The result of a chemical oxygen demand test indicates the amount of water-dissolved oxygen (expressed as PPM parts per million or milligrams per liter of water) consumed by the contaminants, during two hours of decomposition from a solution of boiling potassium dichromate. The higher the chemical oxygen demand, the higher the amount of pollution in the test sample. For the contaminants that can be oxidized biologically, the biological oxygen demand (BOD) method is used.

biochemical oxygen demand
is The amount of oxygen required by aerobic microorganisms to decompose the organic matter in a sample of water, such as that polluted by sewage. It is used as a measure of the degree of water pollution.

(TDS)Total Dissolved Solids is a measure of the combined content of all inorganic and organic substances contained in a liquid in: molecular, ionized or micro-granular (colloidal sol) suspended form.

(TSS) total suspend solids is a water quality measurement. at one time called non-filterable residue (NFR), a term that refers to the identical measurement: the dry-weight of particles trapped by a filter, typically of a specified pore size.

High TDS levels generally indicate hard water,which can cause scale buildup. it can be seen in are filters, reducing performance.


----------



## niko

Joey,

What I'm trying to do with all these posts is to change our mindset. I can't deny we, in the US, know a lot about planted tanks. And also we can't deny that if we are asked to put together the best system we will end up integrating all the parts. They don't need to be some brand name for the tank to work - what you suggest will work if you know what to plan for and what to watch for. We do need a change in mindset - toward this same "system" approach, and without some old habits/assumptions.

D9Vin,

Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_demand
and here too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemical_oxygen_demand

And to apply that more clearly to a planted tank:
You can measure the organics (how dirty is your water) in two ways:
1. Check how much effort it takes to chemically break down the trash in your tank. (COD)
2. Check how much effort it takes for the bacteria to break down the trash in your tank. (BOD)

In another words:
Say you hire people to clean your house. You can check how dirty is your house in two ways:
1. Look at the trash.
2. See how hard the cleaning guys are working (sweating, panting, cursing, joking around)

There are two main things that everybody needs to know here:
-- First, checking how much trash you have in your tank (by measuring COD) does not tell you how healthy your system is. The trash is laying there. Are the bacteria working on it? How hard?

So you measure how hard they work (BOD). If they barely work you should have little trash. If they barely work and you see you have a lot of trash, or if you have algae issues then you need to make sure the bacteria is feeling good. Or that it is not overwhelmed with work. ADA does that with weekly water changes + certain water flow in the tank (rate, pattern) + animals + light control + substrate structure + filter staging and sizing. If that sounds too complicated that's ok. As long as you understand that it's all about a "system" and not about doing a few things and hoping the pieces will fall together just right.

So in all this it becomes evident that we need to be concerned with how effectively the tank cleans itself. If we must change water every week or the tank will go bad then we have not set it up right. If you special order ADA's COD test kit and find out your tank needs cleaning from organics are you going to pull out the hoses, start changing water, and stay forced to do that forever? Or you are going to start thinking about a better approach that keeps the tank clean?

-- Second, what we do to the tank can supress the bacteria
In this link scroll down and look at the section "Toxicity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemical_oxygen_demand

It talks about the different ways you can make your bacteria feel bad and not really work. We may not be adding crazy chemicals to our tanks (antibiotics, chlorine, etc) but most folk in the US consistently do something that really, really bothers the bacteria. Low pH.

So the logic that most folk in the US hobby follow is:
[Lots of food in the water + Lots of CO2 + Lots of light] = [Great plant growth] = [No issues with anything].

Turns out a lot of everything is not the best approach. The biofilter in your filter and inside the aquarium loves a pH of 7.5-8.0. But we pump CO2 to 30 ppm and often are very happy to see pH of 6.2 or 6.4. Makes us feel great. Except that at pH=7.0 the bacteria works at only 50% capacity. At 6.5 it barely works. It does not like low pH. So by not understanding how pH and biofiler are connected we both supress the biofilter AND provide excess CO2 for algae to grow.

No need to say what is the pH in all ADA tanks. It is not low. It is very much invariably 6.8. It is not the best for the biofilter, but you need a happy medium - fed plants and working biofilter. In addition ADA has certain practices that make sure the biofilter works at its best. (But please do notice that ADA does not check BOD. It checks COD because the test is cheaper I guess AND because they make sure the bacteria is feeling at their best.). So here it's easy to see how 3 things work together in the ADA system - biofilter, pH, CO2 - toward a cleaner tank that keeps itself going clean.

I still want to hear if someone has observations about algae in ADA tanks.

--Nikolay


----------



## HeyPK

The OD part of it very likely stands for Oxygen Demand. I am not sure about the "C" part. Probably Chemical. If that is the case, they are running a test for chemical oxygen demand as opposed to a test for biological oxygen demand. In a BOD test you set a tightly stoppered bottle of water with no air bubbles away in the dark for a specified period of time, and then measure the oxygen content in parts per million. You compare your value with the dissolved oxygen content of a freshly drawn sample. The drop in oxygen content is due to bacteria (mostly) in the water consuming oxygen as they break down organic matter. In a COD test you add a strong oxidizing agent and measure how much of the agent is left after a certain time. This test is a lot cheaper and simpler.


----------



## fishyjoe24

so how would a person keep a plant that requires c02... say i want to grow glosso, rotella wallichi, and rotella roundofila how would i keep the glosso growing low, the wallichi red, and the roundofila pink, but keep the bio filter happy? 

tell how to set up the tank, to do that? could i still use pressured c02 but make it to where it only goes down to 7.0


----------



## tae2610

D9Vin said:


> And what does COD stand for?


Call Of Duty ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Storms

Niko, I really appreciate what you are trying to do here. If it were not for you when I was setting up my 60P I would have gone down the wrong track and done heavy fert dosing and wondered why I had new tank algae syndrome, or something worse. Instead, I used Aquasoil and haven't dosed anything. I planted heavily from the start and also added frogbit to help soak up excess ammonia from the water column. I changed my water daily at first, then every other day, now twice weekly. I haven't had a single bit of algae touch my tank. It is a miracle. My plants also grew so fast from the Aquasoil that the rotalas reached up to the surface, then curved back down to the substrate.

I wanted to thank you for helping me to understand the relationship between excess nutrients in the water column and algae. Between Amano, Walstad, and you, I'm beginning to understand the chemistry that helps plant growth and keeps algae at bay. It is sad to see so many misinformed people who think that dumping huge doses of chemicals in their tank will help prevent algae! A lot of people believe that algae forms from fert deficiencies. How can something (algae) grow in a vacuum? It seems that fert overdoses cause more algae than anything else other than light overdose.

Keep educating people and know that your message is reaching some of us.


----------



## Storms

Niko, here is my beautiful algae free tank (zero fert dosing):



This growth is in only 1 month and I have too much light (2x24 watt T5HO 16" from the substrate for 8 hours daily) but I'm using frogbit as a nutrient soak and I did 1/3rd water change on this schedule:

* daily first week
* every other day second week
* twice weekly next 2 weeks
* weekly from now on

Question: Do you think I will eventually have to begin fert dosing as the substrate (ADA Aquasoil "new" amazonia) gets depleted, or will fish food and waste provide enough replenishment to the substrate to keep it active? Perhaps clay ice cubes can be added later to keep the substrate healthy. I really plan on only dosing if I see a deficiency in the plants. So far, rotala colorata is growing extremely fast and the stems are red, so no iron deficiencies.


----------



## fishyjoe24

Storm you have a nice tank storm.. um try raising it up a few more inches to around 24 inches from the substrate.


----------



## Storms

Thanks Joey. I do plan on hanging the light - I need to take a field trip to home depot for some wire hanging supplies.


----------



## niko

Storms said:


> Niko, here is my beautiful algae free tank (zero fert dosing):
> 
> ...
> 
> water change on this schedule:
> 
> * daily first week
> * every other day second week
> * twice weekly next 2 weeks
> * weekly from now on
> 
> Question: Do you think I will eventually have to begin fert dosing as the substrate (ADA Aquasoil "new" amazonia) gets depleted, or will fish food and waste provide enough replenishment to the substrate to keep it active? Perhaps clay ice cubes can be added later to keep the substrate healthy. I really plan on only dosing if I see a deficiency in the plants. So far, rotala colorata is growing extremely fast and the stems are red, so no iron deficiencies.


Thank you for the good words. Wish more people accepted the truth - if Amano and others can do without dumping chemicals as the main way to maintain a planted tank in the water why do we still do it?

Anybody can start like you and not even know how algae looks. Look at your tank - was there a problem at any point? If there was how bad it was? I can only guess the answers are "no" and "there were no problems at all".

Your water change schedule follows the not very well known, but not secret, practices of ADA, ADG and others. Frequent water changes in the beginning and less frequent as the tank establishes itself. Such water change schedule is one of the things in the proper way to start on the road to a stable planted tank.

*Adding fertilizers to the water:*
*YES!*
You will have to add them. ADA does. But they are not the main way to maintain the tank. You will be adding fertilizers in tiny amounts. Best practice is to do it daily.

There are two things that one must know about adding fertilizers to the water the way ADA does it:

*1. The fertilizers are not meant to float free in the water* and become food for plants, algae, and what not.
The fertilizers interact with the AquaSoil. The AquaSoil absorbs what the plants could not. The AquaSoil serves as an accumulator of nutrients. So *through fertilizers added to the water you are enriching the substrate*. Once again - this needs to be done in tiny amounts.

*2.Ammonia fertilization*
I understand that some of the ADA liquid fertilizers contain Ammonia. That was not very surprising to me. Some years ago I had hear of some well known US aquascapers that actually used ammonia drops to fertilize.

The use of Ammonia is very easy to understand. Plants love it. It's the form of Nitrogen that they can use the fastest. Anybody can add a few drops of Ammonia to their stable tank and see for themselves that a day or two later the plants do show a faster, healthier growth.

And another benefit from the Ammonia fertilization - feeding the biofilter. If you add tiny amounts of Ammonia to your tank the biofilter will stay active and be ready for any potential Ammonia spike that may happen. That's a very simple (and I'd say clever) way to stay on top of the game. You feed the bacteria, it is active, and has enough biomass to handle a possible issue. Brilliant in a way.

I'm not advocating you forget that the normal water fertilizer is Nitrate. I'm just telling you things that ADA does because they have a system in place. To us Ammonia is an enemy. To the plants is the best food they can find. A beneficial connection between ferts and biofilter? To most of us they have nothing in common. But knowledge can take you places.

--Nikolay


----------



## Storms

niko said:


> Thank you for the good words. Wish more people accepted the truth - if Amano and others can do without dumping chemicals as the main way to maintain a planted tank in the water why do we still do it?
> 
> Anybody can start like you and not even know how algae looks. Look at your tank - was there a problem at any point? If there was how bad it was? I can only guess the answers are "no" and "there were no problems at all".


The answers are "no" and "there were no problems at all".



niko said:


> *Adding fertilizers to the water:*
> *YES!*
> You will have to add them. ADA does. But they are not the main way to maintain the tank. You will be adding fertilizers in tiny amounts. Best practice is to do it daily.
> 
> There are two things that one must know about adding fertilizers to the water the way ADA does it:
> 
> *1. The fertilizers are not meant to float free in the water* and become food for plants, algae, and what not.
> The fertilizers interact with the AquaSoil. The AquaSoil absorbs what the plants could not. The AquaSoil serves as an accumulator of nutrients. So *through fertilizers added to the water you are enriching the substrate*. Once again - this needs to be done in tiny amounts.


I'm going to try something like your subZero for ferts. I already have all the dry chemicals, but what I'm really lacking is the experience and knowing how much to add. I think the point of the subZero method is to start small and learn to watch your tank for what is normal. Since each tank is completely different, it's important to learn as we go, since what is right in one tank might be wrong in another.

I think also, what is important for me is to maintain as little in the water as possible. For this reason I plan on testing nitrates a few hours after dosing. If I dose at lights on, then 4 hours later I should see 0 nitrates. If I see more than that it might indicate I dosed too much leaving nitrates free floating in the water column where algae can use them. Do you think this is a viable approach? I suppose within a few hours of dosing the chemicals should all be either absorbed by the plants or absorbed by the aquasoil.

I appreciate the feedback and hopefully we can all learn a little bit about growing successful tanks. I personally feel like this is a revelation because it combines Amano's and Walstad's methods. Both methods avoid heavy fertilization. Both methods keep nutrients out of the water column and in the substrate where they belong. Whether you are using low light or high light, you can benefit from this knowledge. Thanks again.


----------



## digital_gods

Quick question, how does COD differ from DOC (Dissolved Organic Compounds)?


----------



## niko

Storms,

Since you will have to start from somewhere the SubZero approach to gradually figuring out what and how much ferts are needed makes sense. As long as the ferts do not become the main thing that keep the tank clean.

I really don't think using SubZero will mess anything. As I said in the description of the SubZero method - it leads the tank to a very stable state. Combining it with AquaSoil should work very well, except I suspect that you are going to need much less ferts than if you used any other substrate. Basically what I'm saying is that want it or not you may end up using fertilizer amounts similar to what ADA recommends.

Keep in mind that different fertilizers are eaten at a different rate. I'll also look for some information on how long it takes for the ferts to disappear in an ADA tank.

Digital,

This is a question that Phil Edwards will answer better than me. I found this link very useful and clear for our hobby purposes:
http://pearl.maine.edu/glossary/misc/doc.htm

To compare COD and DOC I googled around and this is what I think:
COD is a way to measure DOC.

The DOC is the actual material. COD is the test to measure it. COD gives us a number that tells us how much stuff we have in the water. How much DOC.

One interesting thing that I found in the above link is this:
_"...The more recognizable types of DOC such as soluble fats, proteins, and carbohydrates are often created within the stream or lake from animal feces or decomposition of fish and insects. [They are] not pigmented and [do] not influence the color of a lake or stream...."_

So these are the "organics" that I blame for everything bad in our tanks. You have seen me say many times "Your tank looks clean, but it is dirty. You have organics. That's why you have BBA." I maybe wrong about the appearance of the tank. But there is something else that is more interesting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolved_organic_carbon

_"...DOC is also extremely important in the transport of metals in aquatic systems. Metals form extremely strong complexes with DOC, enhancing metal solubility while also reducing metal bioavailability...._

So these invisible "organics" *bind* with all kinds of metals and can reduce bioavalability. Think Fe, and many of the Traces that we use as fertilizers. What I also know is that depending on different factors these organic-metal complexes can actually *release* the metals all of a sudden.

The bottom line from all this is - *"Mind your organics!"*. And the best way to do that is by using a properly setup biofilter, changing water, and using a substrate that is able to pull "stuff" from the water and hold it. Once again I sound like I peddle ADA's AquaSoil. But be honest - does all of the above make sense to everybody? Do you see how the parts work together?

If nothing else this post very much introduces the idea that we all need to always take a "new" factor into account - "Organics". Think if it this way - the folloing are accepted as "important" factors to the state of an aquarium:

- pH
- O2
- CO2
- NPK, Fe/Traces
- Mg/Ca
- Temp
- Light

To that list you should also add:
- Organics

--Nikolay


----------



## niko

Wow! I just found some numbers that very much shocked me. It's about how clean is the water in Amano's big tank. Here it is:

Look at the COD (right above the first picture):
http://theaquaticgazette.com/2011/04/25/takashi-amanos-private-tank

Now this number (COD 4mg/l) didn't really tell me if his water is clean. So I looked for information what exactly is considered clean water. I found this:
http://www.gaepd.org/Files_PDF/techguide/wpb/devwtrplan_b.pdf

And look what it says:
_"...(COD) does not differentiate between biologically available and inert organic matter, and it is a measure of the total quantity of oxygen required to oxidize all organic material into CO2 and water. COD values are always greater than BOD values..."_

So COD shows us *all organics* that we have - both biodegradable and non-biodegradable. Amano has 4mg/L... And here's where it gets interesting:
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/waterq3/WQassess3f.html

Look at the very end of the article:
_"...Unpolluted natural waters will have a BOD of 5 mg/L or less. "_

So in Amano's big tank the water is cleaner than "unpolluted natural" water! Because remember - "COD is always greater than BOD." But Amano's COD (4) is less than the BOD(5) of clean natural water! Cleaner than clean.

So Amano has water that is void of "organics". And void of free floating fertilizers. The interaction between the two is minimal. Why do I say that? Because think of your tank - loaded with ferts in the water and who knows what amount of organics all over. Do I sound ugly? It's your tank... And I have written extensively about biofiltration, flow rate, flow pattern - all things meant to help you with, yes, ORGANICS!

I expected to find information supporting all my claims, but what I just found is just extreme. Or is it? Maybe we really, *really* need to take a second look at our tanks.

Interested in getting a COD test kit? Try ADG or AquaForest. As I said - last time I checked it was a special order item. ... 'Cause we don't even know about COD, hehe. Here's how the test kit looks like. This is the first time I see it too:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktorlantos/with/5436250679

Time for my usual dose of sarcasm:
Browse around that Flickr account. I guess all those tanks are void of organics and extremely lean on free floating ferts. What part of this hobby we do not understand yet? Please don't get jealous of that aquarium store (I did it already for you all). The store is in Hungary apparently - far away and easy to ignore, haha. Hopefully some day we in the US hobby will have enough knowledge, experience, and common sense to make our hobby grow even more and support stores like that. For now most of us dump dry ferts in our tanks and often discuss algae.


----------



## OTPT

I wondered how clean was 4 mg/l COD water (most Amano's tanks are 4 mg/l COD).

Well, according to this document, the 4 mg/l COD value easily falls into Class I quality 
which requires less then 7 mg/l COD.
http://www.oecd.org/officialdocumen...NV/EPOC/EAP/REPIN(2011)1/FINAL&docLanguage=En

What is Class I quality? It is the cleanest water you could find in nature. 
Drinking water can be prepared with simple treatment.

How rare is Class I water?


> "Water Quality. The quality of water resources is generally unsatisfactory and is deteriorating.
> Since the 1990s water quality in most Serbian rivers has deteriorated from second class (suitable
> for bathing and drinking purpose only after treatment) to third class quality (suitable for
> irrigation and industry). Examples of very clean water - Class I and I/II - are very rare, and are
> situated in mountainous regions."


Anyway, this is from looking at COD alone. So water in Amano's tanks may not actually be 
Class I but it does shows that DOC in his tanks is very low. :shock:


----------



## Michael

Not to sound like a Walstad groupie, but all of this was discussed extensively in _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_ (1999).

The more I learn, the more I think that Amano's method and Walstad's method are parallel techniques. The main difference is that Amano uses much more sophisticated technology, which is marketed as an integrated system.


----------



## Storms

Michael, I have to agree with you there. Amano tailored his techniques to a high light, high tech approach, while Walstad tailored her techniques to a low light, low tech approach. Both are based on the same scientific principles, however.


----------



## Storms

niko said:


> Since you will have to start from somewhere the SubZero approach to gradually figuring out what and how much ferts are needed makes sense. As long as the ferts do not become the main thing that keep the tank clean.
> 
> I really don't think using SubZero will mess anything. As I said in the description of the SubZero method - it leads the tank to a very stable state. Combining it with AquaSoil should work very well, except I suspect that you are going to need much less ferts than if you used any other substrate. Basically what I'm saying is that want it or not you may end up using fertilizer amounts similar to what ADA recommends.
> 
> Keep in mind that different fertilizers are eaten at a different rate. I'll also look for some information on how long it takes for the ferts to disappear in an ADA tank.


This is helpful, and although I decided I don't want to follow SubZero 100% because it requires an initial period of "deficiency" which might deplete my Aquasoil too much, and it would be difficult to tell with certainty whether the plants were growing from nutrients stored in the substrate, or nutrients fertilized.

What I decided to do was go with PPS-Pro, but with half the normal amount of ferts. I dosed the last 2 days following a water change. Traces I dosed only the first day, again at half normal. Because the only test I have with any certainty is Nitrates, or NO3, this is the test I am doing to see how quickly my plants and substrate remove it from the water column. My goal is to have plants fully remove NO3 from the water column within 1-2 hours.

Ferts dosed at lights on.


1st day I tested Nitrates at +4 hours - 0 Nitrates.
2nd day I tested Nitrates at +3 hours - 0 Nitrates.
3rd day I will test Nitrates at +2 hours.

If I reach a happy equilibrium where NO3 is free floating in the water column for only 2 hours or less from when dosed, I think that is a safe state to keep the aquarium in throughout it's lifetime, would you agree?

I'm trying to find a natural equilibrium between nutrient rich and nutrient poor that will keep this aquarium healthy and algae free for it's lifetime, which hopefully will be many years. Any feedback or tips you could give me in achieving this are helpful.

P.S. I will look at adding the COD test kit to my next AFA order. AFA seems to be the best aquarium hobby store in US, on both price and availability of quality equipment.


----------



## houseofcards

Michael said:


> Not to sound like a Walstad groupie, but all of this was discussed extensively in _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_ (1999).
> 
> The more I learn, the more I think that Amano's method and Walstad's method are parallel techniques. The main difference is that Amano uses much more sophisticated technology, which is marketed as an integrated system.


Maybe I'm missing your point, but other than the substrate being rich I'm not sure how similar they are. One relays on keeping organic content in the other out. The Walstad method requires nothing for long periods of time, while the ADA system could not work without water change and column dosing. The latter giving you much more flexibility without limit in terms of light and plants.


----------



## Storms

houseofcards said:


> Maybe I'm missing your point, but other than the substrate being rich I'm not sure how similar they are. One relays on keeping organic content in the other out. The Walstad method requires nothing for long periods of time, while the ADA system could not work without water change and column dosing. The latter giving you much more flexibility without limit in terms of light and plants.


There are more similarities than you might suspect. Both focus on a nutrient rich substrate. Both focus on keeping chemicals out of the water column and fertilization through the substrate. Where they seem to differ is Walstad uses DOC as a form of carbon to assist plants in photosynthesis, where Amano uses Co2 injection to achieve the same result.

From Walstad's Ecology of the Planted Aquarium:



> E. Carbon Sources for Plants
> Lakes and rivers almost always have more CO2 than one would expect from just equilibration with air [9]. The extra CO2 is generated by decomposition (see pages 58-60). This CO2 can be considerable, especially since natural waters contain lots of dissolved organic carbon (DOC). Much of this DOC is in the process of decay, and therefore, is a potential CO2 source.
> 
> Many aquatic plants could not survive in nature without the CO2 provided by decomposition. Water in equilibrium with air contains 0.5 mg/1 CO2. Yet, many aquatic plants require much higher CO2 concentrations. For example, when CO2 levels were less than 36 mg/1, the moss Sphagnum cuspidatum was found either dead or dying [22]. And Callitriche cophocarpa and Ranunculus peltatus were found to be limited by CO2 in their stream environment containing 5 mg/1 CO2 [21]. Because these species cannot use bicarbonates, they depend on the CO2 released from decomposition.


So, it seems that they have similar goals and philosphies where it counts, but Walstad relies on DOC to provide a carbon source where Amano chooses the high tech approach of Co2 injection.


----------



## Storms

Here's another question for you:

People following EI or PPS dosing regimes have several easy tests they can do fine tune their systems - they can simply check the levels of N, P, or K to see if they have the right parts per million and use an inert substrate.

For those of us focused on keeping chemicals out of the water column and substrate fertilization, how do we effectively test? Is it really only by looking at plant growth and general plant health? Because, plants can store nutrients and might not show a deficiency for days or even weeks.

How would you propose we do this? I suppose the genius of the ADA solution is the simplicity - "1 squirt of Brighty K daily" or something similar and you are good to go. The hobby desperately needs real documentation on how to successfully grow a healthy aquarium. Perhaps we need more scientific tests like a substrate test, etc.


----------



## niko

Michael said:


> Not to sound like a Walstad groupie, but all of this was discussed extensively in _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_ (1999)....


So why is it that Tom Barr never mentions clean water (low organics) as part of his EI. Why didn't Edward ever mention it either. Tom can claim that the big water changes were meant exactly for that. PPS can't even claim that because Edward's pipe dream was to feed the plants exactly as much ferts as their tissues contain AND not change water. One bad the other one worst...

The more I know that more I see that the "methods" that are popular in the US - EI and PPS - are utterly ridiculous.

And yes, at some point, I think about 2 or so years ago, I too figured out that Amano has not invented anything new.

--Nikolay


----------



## houseofcards

Storms said:


> There are more similarities than you might suspect. Both focus on a nutrient rich substrate. Both focus on keeping chemicals out of the water column and fertilization through the substrate. Where they seem to differ is Walstad uses DOC as a form of carbon to assist plants in photosynthesis, where Amano uses Co2 injection to achieve the same result.
> 
> From Walstad's Ecology of the Planted Aquarium:
> 
> So, it seems that they have similar goals and philosphies where it counts, but Walstad relies on DOC to provide a carbon source where Amano chooses the high tech approach of Co2 injection.


Yes, I understand the substrate but after six months or so the ADA system relies heavily on regular column dosing to maintain good growth as the nutrients in the substrate deplete, while the Walstad method continues as a substrate based fert system relying on mulm and other organics. From a maintenance put of view they are very different.


----------



## niko

Storms said:


> Here's another question for you:
> 
> People following EI or PPS dosing regimes have several easy tests they can do fine tune their systems - they can simply check the levels of N, P, or K to see if they have the right parts per million and use an inert substrate.
> 
> For those of us focused on keeping chemicals out of the water column and substrate fertilization, how do we effectively test? Is it really only by looking at plant growth and general plant health? Because, plants can store nutrients and might not show a deficiency for days or even weeks.
> 
> How would you propose we do this? I suppose the genius of the ADA solution is the simplicity - "1 squirt of Brighty K daily" or something similar and you are good to go. The hobby desperately needs real documentation on how to successfully grow a healthy aquarium. Perhaps we need more scientific tests like a substrate test, etc.


I don't think we need more tests. The idea is to set up everything right. If you do the tank becomes extremely stable. If you must check this and that parameter to adjust things you have the wrong mindset. Look at the endless threads about pinpointing defficiencies in tanks with water colum ferilization. Such threads date 10+ years back. Fixing things on the run seldom works well. My point is - it's all about the setup.

My hope is that we can take this hobby to the next level exactly through knowledge that's available freely and shared openly. At the moment we don't have anything like that. ADA does not really go into details very openly. I believe that's a marketing strategy. With the substrate the Ukamikazu is developing and with discussions like that we have a chance. If we don't try we will do EI, PPS, SubZero and what not forever, testing too much and we'll never really have the freedom to aquascape that we can have if we understand things correctly.

--Nikolay


----------



## Storms

I'm following the substrate forum where Ukamikazu is coming up with a very interesting substrate recipe. I want to wait and see some success stories before jumping in and building a tank with this method, however. Any system so complex requires some inevitable fine tuning and trial/error.

An interesting thread from the "other" forum:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/fertilizers-water-parameters/154574-no-phosphate-no-algae.html



> I ran out of phosphate as part of my EI dosing in a high tech 75g with injected CO2 so I stopped dosing phosphate for the last 6 weeks. I have noticed no issues in plant growth BUT I have not had to scrape ANY algae from the front glass for 6 weeks.
> 
> I used to get hard circle green algae and now I have zero and no new algae.
> 
> I wonder if anyone else has seen this before, I suspect the plants get enough phosphate from fish food and waste and algae gets known.
> 
> My plant growth rate has not changed and no plants are suffering at all. The tank is even less maintenance now that I don't even need to scrape hard algae from the front glass at all.
> 
> Anyone else have a similar experience?


Be sure to read the whole thread for some really laughable replies... it is amazing how clueless some are:



> Is there any algae that is related to nutrient levels?


----------



## houseofcards

Storms said:


> ...http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/fertilizers-water-parameters/154574-no-phosphate-no-algae.html
> 
> Be sure to read the whole thread for some really laughable replies... it is amazing how clueless some are:


I'm up for a good chuckle. Humor me! [smilie=u:


----------



## Michael

houseofcards said:


> Maybe I'm missing your point, but other than the substrate being rich I'm not sure how similar they are. One relays on keeping organic content in the other out. The Walstad method requires nothing for long periods of time, while the ADA system could not work without water change and column dosing. The latter giving you much more flexibility without limit in terms of light and plants.


The Walstad method does require a constant input of nutrients, just as ADA does. The nutrients come from fish food. This is not just some fuzzy faith in "balance", but rather from chemical analysis of fish food compared to nutrient requirements of plants. Feeding the plants by feeding the fish is an alternate technology to direct fertilization.

Walstad feeds generously, but does recommend light stocking. In my experience, if you increase biofiltration and circulation, you can stock heavily, feed generously, and have good sustained plant growth without nutrient supplementation (including CO2). I think of increased biofiltration and circulation as enhancements of Walstad's basic method. It is important to note that this is mechanically very simple filtration, but it relies on complex biological processes to be effective.


----------



## jeff5614

Storms said:


> I'm following the substrate forum where Ukamikazu is coming up with a very interesting substrate recipe. I want to wait and see some success stories before jumping in and building a tank with this method, however. Any system so complex requires some inevitable fine tuning and trial/error.
> 
> An interesting thread from the "other" forum:
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/fertilizers-water-parameters/154574-no-phosphate-no-algae.html
> 
> Be sure to read the whole thread for some really laughable replies... it is amazing how clueless some are:


That's true and the "clueless" quote you posted was mine. It was a bit of sarcasm to illicit some responses and maybe get some people to think. Of course nutrient levels cause algae to grow. I have a hard time believing, as many would lead us to, that algae and nutrients are totally independent of each other.


----------



## houseofcards

I don't disagree about the fish food good point, but in essence one is keeping high organic load and the other isn't. That to me is a large difference between a limited system in terms of light, plant species and one that is essentially without limit due mainly to it's lean water column. Also fish food breaks down to what? yes that's right and no3 inorganic dosing breaks down to what?


----------



## niko

About the Walstadt tanks and ADA:

It is important to notice someting simple here:
*Both approaches treat the tank as a system.*

Most of you know why I state this so clearly and in bold letters; Because we need to get some things right. No more "fuzzy faith in "balance"".

As long as we discuss how the two systems are different we are going somewhere.

Some obvious similiarities:

1. Both systems use rich substrate
2. Both systems use plants that match the system
3. Both systems avoid super fast plant growth.
4. I do believe that the substrate in an El Natural tank has some of the properties of ADA. I believe that ADA has fashioned AquaSoil by looking at Nature. And in an El Natural tank Nature is the first consideration.

Other than that I can't talk much about El Natural. I don't know much about it, other than it is an actual system (unlike EI and PPS).

--Nikolay


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> About the Walstadt tanks and ADA:
> 
> It is important to notice someting simple here:
> *Both approaches treat the tank as a system.*
> Some obvious similiarities:
> 
> 1. Both systems use rich substrate
> 2. Both systems use plants that match the system
> 3. Both systems avoid super fast plant growth.
> 4. I do believe that the substrate in an El Natural tank has some of the properties of ADA. I believe that ADA has fashioned AquaSoil by looking at Nature. And in an El Natural tank Nature is the first consideration.
> 
> --Nikolay


How does ADA match plants? Can't you go with pretty much anything from a dense forest to a sparse iwagumi. Doesn't El Natural rely much more on the plants to keep the soil loose and to suck up all the excess so your extremes are more limited.

In most ADA system tanks the growth in the first 6 months or so is pretty extreme with all that available ammonia.


----------



## Michael

"How does ADA match plants? Can't you go with pretty much anything from a dense forest to a sparse iwagumi. Doesn't El Natural rely much more on the plants to keep the soil loose and to suck up all the excess so your extremes are more limited.

In most ADA system tanks the growth in the first 6 months or so is pretty extreme with all that available ammonia."

Walstad uses water changes and very dense planting of fast growing species *at the begining* to absorb excess nutrients from soil and maintain water quality. As the tank matures, water changes become less frequent. Fast growing species can be reduced or replaced with more slow growing ones.

ADA plants densely from the begining, but perhaps not as densely as Walstad, and without the emphasis on fast growing species. In fact many favorite ADA species are slow to establish. And usually there isn't so much change of species as the tank matures. ADA depends on plants, water changes, and a stepped strategy of chemical filtration. Chemical filtration is intense at first, then decreases as plants and biolfilter mature. Eventually there is no chemical filtration, as in a Walstad tank.

Again, Walstad uses technologically simple manipulation of biologically complex processes. ADA uses more sophisticated technology, especially at first, then relies more and more on the biological processes as the tank matures.

It is easy to see why the two methods differ in this respect. ADA has a much more controlled aesthetic right from the start as a primary goal. Aesthetic goals develop more slowly in a Walstad tank, if the aquarist desires.


----------



## houseofcards

Michael said:


> "How does ADA match plants? Can't you go with pretty much anything from a dense forest to a sparse iwagumi. Doesn't El Natural rely much more on the plants to keep the soil loose and to suck up all the excess so your extremes are more limited.
> 
> In most ADA system tanks the growth in the first 6 months or so is pretty extreme with all that available ammonia."
> 
> Walstad uses water changes and very dense planting of fast growing species *at the begining* to absorb excess nutrients from soil and maintain water quality. As the tank matures, water changes become less frequent. Fast growing species can be reduced or replaced with more slow growing ones.
> 
> *ADA plants densely from the begining, but perhaps not as densely as Walstad, and without the emphasis on fast growing species. * In fact many favorite ADA species are slow to establish. And usually there isn't so much change of species as the tank matures. ADA depends on plants, water changes, and a stepped strategy of chemical filtration. Chemical filtration is intense at first, then decreases as plants and biolfilter mature. Eventually there is no chemical filtration, as in a Walstad tank.
> 
> Again, Walstad uses technologically simple manipulation of biologically complex processes. ADA uses more sophisticated technology, especially at first, then relies more and more on the biological processes as the tank matures.
> 
> It is easy to see why the two methods differ in this respect. ADA has a much more controlled aesthetic right from the start as a primary goal. Aesthetic goals develop more slowly in a Walstad tank, if the aquarist desires.


Yes, I mean we covered this in other threads. ADA is positioned as art and Walstad well it's "The Ecology of Planted Tanks" a far cry from the objective of an ADA whether it be at the start or finish. I do disagree with the establishment of plants and change. The plants take off like wildfire in the first few months as all the goodies are going full steam. I've done enough ADA style tanks. When I see Walstad tanks entering contests and placing right next to ADA or EI type ones I'll be more convinced. Much more limiting. The thought of fine tuning a scape with upsetting that soil makes me cringe.

EDIT: ADA does not plant density Where is that? I mean you might decide to do that, but you might not. That is the flexibility without limits. They do plenty of Iwagumi type scapes. They don't throw stems in there. As you said it's a "more controlled aestetic right from the start as a priamry goal. The way this is maintained without algae issues is of course the water change and alot of carbon and other organic removal processes. This is probably not going to happen for a Walstad tank.


----------



## houseofcards

BTW none of these systems are perfect and I really believe their isn't one system that works for all. An EI-dosed system without a doubt has it's place and works for many. I would not be able to maintain a complete ADA system that runs that lean and needs daily dosing after the honeymoon period. The first six months a monkey could run a tank with ADA aquasoil if he knows how to do a water change and doesn't put his feet in the dirt.


----------



## OTPT

houseofcards said:


> I would not be able to maintain a complete ADA system that runs that lean and needs daily dosing after the honeymoon period.


ADA have their own root tabs (Multi Bottom, Iron Bottom).
Does anyone use them to maintain Aqua Soil fertility?
Do ADA themselves use them?


----------



## Storms

Well, only 3 days of dosing 50% PPS-Pro and GDA started to form on the glass. I cut all dosing and will just let my Aquasoil deplete itself. Who knows, perhaps if I overfeed my fish like Walstad does, the fish food can replenish my substrate.

Personally, I'd rather enjoy a beautiful, maintenance free tank (other than water changes) for 1-2 years and then replace the Aquasoil and do a new layout, rather than dose chemicals and fight algae continuously.

Perhaps by the time the Aquasoil is depleted the new miracle soil will be fully developed and offer me a permanent substrate. I can dream, can't I?


----------



## niko

*How does ADA match plants?*

3 things to consider:

- I started to think about matching plants with your tank when I noticed that there is only 1 single ADA tank that had Potamogeton in it. If you have ever tried to grow Potamogeton in your tank you'd know that it's a disappointment - beautiful semi-transparent underwater leaves and super fast growth till it hits the surface. That ADA tank was setup about year 2000. Never Potamogetons again.

-Swords are not very common in ADA tanks. Could be size, could be that Amano has aversion to this particular plant.

- Stem plants are usually grown with the bottom part of the stem hidden behind other plants.

So from those 3 you cannot really say that ADA matches the plant species to their system. But what's important is to use those 3 flimsy arguments to see something else: The typical US planted tank is a home for all kinds of plants forced to co-habit together. "Collectoritis" is a word we all know. We often grossly disregard the plant's preferences and force plants to grow in ways that they are not meant to. ADA is guilty of that too - remember Riccia carpets? So what we can see through the years is that ADA has gone to "streamlining" the plant choices. I do not know if that's another marketing thing. I don't know if it has to do with market research showing that certain plants look better in the sizes of tanks that ADA sells most. But I do see a form of "matching" plants with that work best with their system.

El Natural openly admits that some plants would not grow in their system. After seeing Michael's natural tanks I'm not too sure about that - the guy can grow intensely green plants of all kinds in his "low tech" tanks. But the idea is the same - there is a reasonable "matching" of plants and what the system is.

In contrast with ADA and El Natural EI and PPS offer us complete freedom + disregard of many aspects of the system.

*EI having a place in this hobby.*
It's for newbies. People that are trying a planted tank for the first time and can't wait to make the plants grow like crazy. I've said before - Tom Barr has both helped this hobby grow AND he's hurting it by not giving a perspective of how his "method" fits in the long-term upkeep of a planted tank.

Most people that stick with this hobby go through a natural progression. The initial exctitement and wanting to try many different plants. Grow them fast, get involved with the online community about all kinds of techniques/problems. After that follows a calming phase in which the super fast plant growth is not that important and the maintenance is not a mandatory thing.

EI has a place in this hobby to introduce people to a planted tank, keep them excited, and grow plants super fast. But EI needs to be presented with an understanding of the drawbacks and from there - does it really make sense to follow a true system approach like ADA's. If you are a hyper type of person - most likely you would love EI. If you don't know much and have always been doing EI you would love and defend EI. Any of that does not change the fact that polluting your water with fertilizers is not a good way to run a planted tank.

*Storms and PPS*
One of the things that really messes up things in this hobby is the mixing of approaches. Most of us don't actually follow a pure EI or PPS or whatever method. We mix them. Problems arise because of both lack of knowledge about the place of each method AND from mixing them.

Think of folk wanting to replace their substrate without breaking down the tank. Think of people that try to pump CO2 in an El Natural tank. Think of folk that use AquaSoil + EI. All of these things can be done IF you understand well how everything works. Unfortunatelly most of us don't. If you think I think I know it all you are wrong. I love to question things to the point of honestly saying "I can't deny that...". But the prevalent mentality is "I have a 1000 reasons why this plant must do this now! I will make it happen!". Good. As long as you understand you have a shot. Just a shot, nothing else. Be prepared for surprises because you are dealing with Nature  This is what makes the hobby interesting really.

--Nikolay


----------



## AaronT

I prefer to cheat myself and use a UV sterilizer. Balancing the aquarium is also important, but adding the UV cleans up any unwanted organics in the water column and makes for crystal clear water, which is important for plant growth.


----------



## niko

AaronT said:


> I prefer to cheat myself and use a UV sterilizer. Balancing the aquarium is also important, but adding the UV cleans up any unwanted organics in the water column and makes for crystal clear water, which is important for plant growth.


Ah yes a UV sterilizer works. Purigen works too.

But ONLY if you have taken care of the other parts of the system. The average planted tank with a UV hooked up to it and Purigen in the filter will not score very good on the COD scale. The organics are just too much.

A diatom filter is another similar thing - it can make the water unbelievably clear. But only if the tank is pretty clean to start with.

No matter how we look at all this - unless your filter works good and you look at the tank as a whole consisting of many parts you are looking at problems at some point.

--Nikolay


----------



## houseofcards

AaronT said:


> I prefer to cheat myself and use a UV sterilizer. Balancing the aquarium is also important, but adding the UV cleans up any unwanted organics in the water column and makes for crystal clear water, which is important for plant growth.


I totally agree about the UV. IMO they aren't used enough and is a good proactive approach to solving a lot of problems before they start. Not to mention it can help immensely on the fish end as well.


----------



## houseofcards

OK what did I do wrong? ADA soil based tank with EI dosing over two years.


----------



## wearsbunnyslippers

I have seen clado in at least one of amano's tanks in one of his books.

I will take a look throug them and post the layout the people can concur if it is clado or not...


----------



## niko

houseofcards said:


> OK what did I do wrong? ADA soil based tank with EI dosing over two years.


Hehe, this is funny.

Two questions:

1. What happens to the tank if you do not fertilize for a month?

2. Do you think you know what you are doing?

My take on the 2 questions:

1. After a month of no ferts the tank develops algae. Plants don't grow too well.
That is not a guaranteed but it is a likely outcome for anybody using EI. Normally EI tanks need to be shut down (light off or low, shut off CO2, etc.) before going on vacation. And normaly EI tanks take about a month of effort (water changes, ferts) to come back to normal. Way to go for a "great method". 
Your tank is 2 years old. By that time the substrate has had time to establish well. If your filter and flow are appropriate the tank will be stable. But that is *NOT* because of *EI*.

2. You can do anything you want if you have a basic understanding how the parts work.
You can even mix approaches which is problematic for most folk.

--Nikolay


----------



## niko

wearsbunnyslippers said:


> I have seen clado in at least one of amano's tanks in one of his books.
> 
> I will take a look throug them and post the layout the people can concur if it is clado or not...


Ah finally something of substance!

I still remember how Amano called one of the US aquascapes to have "nice moss on the wood". It had intentionally positioned and grown Cladophora. Let's see if in that tank you will post the algae has turned into a moss too 

--Nikolay


----------



## Storms

niko said:


> Hehe, this is funny.
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1. What happens to the tank if you do not fertilize for a month?
> 
> 2. Do you think you know what you are doing?
> 
> My take on the 2 questions:
> 
> 1. After a month of no ferts the tank develops algae. Plants don't grow too well.
> That is not a guaranteed but it is a likely outcome for anybody using EI. Normally EI tanks need to be shut down (light off or low, shut off CO2, etc.) before going on vacation. And normaly EI tanks take about a month of effort (water changes, ferts) to come back to normal. Way to go for a "great method".
> Your tank is 2 years old. By that time the substrate has had time to establish well. If your filter and flow are appropriate the tank will be stable. But that is *NOT* because of *EI*.
> 
> 2. You can do anything you want if you have a basic understanding how the parts work.
> You can even mix approaches which is problematic for most folk.
> 
> --Nikolay


First, he has a beautiful tank, and whatever method, it has obviously worked well for him. To play devil's advocate here - even your subZero method requires regular dosing. I often hear you say that EI tanks cannot be left for a month on vacation - but really, can any high tech tank be left alone for a month with no intervention? No ferts, water changes, or trimming?

I'd truly like to know - I think only Walstad tanks can truly be left for a month without maintenance and still look beautiful.


----------



## Ekrindul

How many people leave their tank for a month on a regular basis? I mean what kind of argument is that. It's like saying, what if a meteor hits the earth and wipes us all out? What will happen to your EI tank then?

This whole topic is stupid. Why? Because it isn't driven by science, it's driven by Barr/EI envy. Barr is working toward a Phd and works with plants for a living. And he backs up his advice with evidence, not BS. This topic doesn't add anything at all to the hobby for the sole reason that it keeps attacking some of the most progressive thinking the hobby has seen in decades. How intelligent is that? 

If you have a better method, how about you stop talking about it and prove it. Because that ugly 55 gallon tank of green goo ain't too convincing.


----------



## jeff5614

Ekrindul said:


> How many people leave their tank for a month on a regular basis? I mean what kind of argument is that. It's like saying, what if a meteor hits the earth and wipes us all out? What will happen to your EI tank then?
> 
> This whole topic is stupid. Why? Because it isn't driven by science, it's driven by Barr/EI envy. Barr is working toward a Phd and works with plants for a living. And he backs up his advice with evidence, not BS. This topic doesn't add anything at all to the hobby for the sole reason that it keeps attacking some of the most progressive thinking the hobby has seen in decades. How intelligent is that?
> 
> If you have a better method, how about you stop talking about it and prove it. Because that ugly 55 gallon tank of green goo ain't too convincing.


Wow, what a well thought out contribution to the discussion.


----------



## Michael

I have been a participant in this discussion. Now I am acting as moderator.

Ekrindul, your post comes perilously close to insult and personal attack. Please edit it to remove the emotional content.


----------



## fishyjoe24

maybe I'm doing my tank the joey way, I have not even hooked up my c02 system, top of water, and changing it each day for almost a week now. my glosso is growing, and my rotela is growing... I'm not over feeding the fish, my tank is turned over 7-8 times an hour, the media holds 5% of the volume of the whole tank... this a 20g. 

want to see what happens when a big tank, with un balanced lighting, to much or to little ferts, not keeping up with water changes. it comes a mess with algae etc.

josh, calm down........... ! you don't want drinda,michael, or another mod to give you a warning or infraction do you?


----------



## houseofcards

Ekrindul said:


> How many people leave their tank for a month on a regular basis? I mean what kind of argument is that. It's like saying, what if a meteor hits the earth and wipes us all out? What will happen to your EI tank then?
> 
> This whole topic is stupid. Why? Because it isn't driven by science, it's driven by Barr/EI envy. Barr is working toward a Phd and works with plants for a living. And he backs up his advice with evidence, not BS. This topic doesn't add anything at all to the hobby for the sole reason that it keeps attacking some of the most progressive thinking the hobby has seen in decades. How intelligent is that?
> 
> If you have a better method, how about you stop talking about it and prove it. Because that ugly 55 gallon tank of green goo ain't too convincing.


I'm sorry but LMAO. I was taking a sip of my green tea with honey and spit it out on the front of my beautiful EI-dosed tank upon reading this. Niko dishes it out pretty good and I think he has a sense of humor about it so I think he can take it.

Getting back to reality I do agree that none of these methods can survive long time in *pristine* condition. The ADA tank will surely lack something nutrient wise especially if it's two years old and will have organic build-up as well. I don't see that being much different than the EI-based tank, but mileage will vary in each.


----------



## niko

Ekrindul said:


> How many people leave their tank for a month on a regular basis? I mean what kind of argument is that. It's like saying, what if a meteor hits the earth and wipes us all out? What will happen to your EI tank then?
> 
> This whole topic is stupid. Why? Because it isn't driven by science, it's driven by Barr/EI envy. Barr is working toward a Phd and works with plants for a living. And he backs up his advice with evidence, not BS. This topic doesn't add anything at all to the hobby for the sole reason that it keeps attacking some of the most progressive thinking the hobby has seen in decades. How intelligent is that?
> 
> If you have a better method, how about you stop talking about it and prove it. Because that ugly 55 gallon tank of green goo ain't too convincing.


You are missing the whole point. There are better methods and we are discussing exactly that.

I work 4 jobs and go to school. To me this hobby has turned into a luxury because I do not have any time for it. If you tried to do what I do every day you'd be in a hospital in about a month.

Sorry for trying to think. Sorry for trying to make people think. Sorry for aggravating you. Sorry that you read something and can't even grasp the basic idea. Call me and you will get more "sorries" if you want.

How many times do I have to state why I post all these controversial topics and make pognant remarks? Why don't you list my reasons to do all that? Envy to Tom is not among them, trust me. And because titles apparently impress you - Have you ever asked me what is my education? You maybe surprised.

Here's something else: Do explain how exactly ADA's tanks work and please compare that to EI. I used 30 minutes of my time to word this reply in a nice manner. Time between two jobs. Be respectful now and explain what I asked you to. Please forget the spirit of contention and do this when you have a chance:

1. List my reasons to post controversial topics.
2. Explain in details how ADA's tanks work. Compare it to EI.

--Nikolay


----------



## niko

Everybody,

Please remember a few of my posts that do say that extreme stability is indeed possible in a planted tank. Stability that can actually let you forget the tank until it evaporates 50% and the heater breaks because it is out of the water.

Such stable tank is not the point of my discussions. Yes it is doable. Yes, I've had at least 2 tanks like that. No, there are no algae. No not all plants do great in such a tank. No, I did not know what I was doing. But the point of all that I do on this forum is:

*If we have a good understanding of a method that allows us to start and run a planted tank with minimal and no issues we can focus on aquascaping. The hobby will grow much faster. More people will get into it. There will be both qualitative and quantitative progress.*

Ekrindul,

Now that I answered #1 for you please write #2 - the detailed description of the ADA system. And how it compares to EI.

--Nikolay


----------



## houseofcards

While you await an answer from your follow Texan, let's get back to the original question.



niko said:


> ...I have never, ever, seen a picture of an ADA tank that had BBA in it. I got to say that I have a trained eye to recognize the first phases of BBA infestation as well as the leftovers after a successful erradication or spontaneous die off. Don't ask me how I've become a BBA expert. Anyway - in ADA tanks there is not a single trace of BBA at least from what I have managed to see in photographs...--Nikolay


Now just so I understand your referring to tanks in the gallery and/or shots in magazines. I wouldn't expect much algae to be present either since they are pampered and prepped for photos like a model would be for a photo shoot.


----------



## houseofcards

Now if BBA was not part of the culture why would this appear in the Book of ADA on Page 58.










A possible smoking gun!


----------



## Ekrindul

niko said:


> You are missing the whole point. There are better methods and we are discussing exactly that.
> --Nikolay


I respectfully disagree that I'm missing the point.

Here's something you said earlier in the thread, Niko:

"_EI having a place in this hobby.
It's for newbies. People that are trying a planted tank for the first time and can't wait to make the plants grow like crazy. I've said before - Tom Barr has both helped this hobby grow AND he's hurting it by not giving a perspective of how his "method" fits in the long-term upkeep of a planted tank.

Most people that stick with this hobby go through a natural progression. The initial exctitement and wanting to try many different plants. Grow them fast, get involved with the online community about all kinds of techniques/problems. After that follows a calming phase in which the super fast plant growth is not that important and the maintenance is not a mandatory thing.

EI has a place in this hobby to introduce people to a planted tank, keep them excited, and grow plants super fast. But EI needs to be presented with an understanding of the drawbacks and from there - does it really make sense to follow a true system approach like ADA's. If you are a hyper type of person - most likely you would love EI. If you don't know much and have always been doing EI you would love and defend EI. Any of that does not change the fact that polluting your water with fertilizers is not a good way to run a planted tank._"

Niko, that completely misrepresents EI and you know it does. If that's your understanding of what is being discussed over at the Barr Report, Niko, you must be doing some really heavy glossing of the material. The fact that you never, ever discuss light when talking about EI shows that you are not too well informed about where EI has evolved. Yet, you continue to represent it as polluting the water. What does that even mean, anyway? Polluting the water. What, with chemicals that are in the tap water already? As opposed to dumping a gas into the water that is known to cause mass fish kills if not controlled? And what exactly is the difference between nutrients in the substrate versus nutrients in the water column? They don't seem to be doing anything to the fish. You can't see the nutrients. So what exactly is being polluted here? Also, you never once point out that Barr has explained how to ween down an EI tank so that water changes can be done as often or as less often as you like. That fact alone tells me YOU don't get the point. I honestly don't have any confidence that you understand the point of EI, at all.

And if we're going to continue to argue that fertilizers cause algae, which is a very limited conclusion as long as we are talking about "systems", let's not just gloss over it like it's proven. How is it then that a plantless tank can get algae without any fertilizer, yet a planted tank will also get algae by adding fertilizer? I'm sure this can be explained by simply characterizing me as an EI user who doesn't know anything, but humor me anyway. Also, why is it that if all other things remain stable, why can algae be induced by a change in CO2 levels? Let's take your 55 gallon "stable" tank and triple the light source and see if we get algae, if all other things remain the same. And if you do get algae, which there's every reason to suspect you will, then why did you get algae? It wasn't fertilizers polluting the water, was it? Considering that about all we really know about algae is that it needs light and an ammonia source to thrive, I don't know why you want to throw the book at fertilizers being the culprit.

You can dismiss it as some naive idea of balance, that CO2, light and nutrients might be the key to keeping a healthy tank ... but I frankly don't see the placement of lily pipes, COD and filter composition being any less naive. Discussing the aquarium to the point of zen silliness doesn't help the hobby, IMO. If Amano knows the secret, I'm sure he'd have put a price tag on it and sold it to us already. He does what everyone else does that has had success. He uses common sense, relies on his experience and understands photosynthesis. And, if Waldstad has taught us anything, it's that the filter doesn't matter, so forget about the filter already. And if your nutrients are locked up in the soil or swimming in the water, the plants don't care; the fish don't care. Why should the humans?


----------



## D9Vin

Quick things to note: if your tap water has the nutrients that an ei tank has 1) why are you dosing more nutrients in there? 2) I hope you aren't drinking that stuff 3) you should probably call the EPA. My water quality report states 10 ppm nitrate is the highest concentration legally allowed.


----------



## D9Vin

And I do think you are missing the point. I am about to dose my daily ei nutrients, but I just don't think that flooding the tank with nutrients so that nothing is lacking is a really scientific system. Mr Barr is undoubtedly a smart man, I don't think anyone is arguing that. I really don't think even niko is trying to get everyone to stop using ei. But there really isn't alot of thought going into it. It is supposed to pollute the water with excess nutrients, so that there is never a deficiency, and relies on water changes to take care of the over abundances. Do you disagree?


----------



## Zapins

What I would like to see are some good experiments explaining what actually goes on behind the common problems we see in our tanks. What causes each individual species of algae, what causes each deficiency in each plant, mechanisms for each interaction, etc...

I think niko definitely has the right idea about organics, but ideally I want it tested and confirmed. What are the organics exactly that cause problems? Are tannins problematic? Partially digested food? Etc... The test that ADA uses to measure organics is very general, they don't know what the main organic is or what problems it causes or why it causes them. Its like measuring GH and not knowing what makes it up or what ratio the constituents should be in or what happens when they are overdosed or in deficit. It might work if you have a GH of 5 most of the time, but maybe not if the ratio is skewed. Maybe some organics are not harmful, maybe some are even helpful, maybe they are even like a nutrient that can be overdosed. We just don't know. There is a lot to be said for observational research but it definitely isn't as good as a thorough scientific research.

Though soil and ADA tanks come close to problem-less tanks they don't really answer any of the technical question of why. I suppose that was one positive thing about Barr, he tried testing the individual parameters. Whether the things he wrote about were valid who knows since as far as I know nobody confirmed them in an identical experiment. 

Explaining how each parameter affects the system or even another parameter will make clear how each individual method works and why things go wrong when they do.


----------



## Storms

Zapins, that's exactly what I'm saying. As someone fairly new to the hobby, I think we need simple and effective tests. I want to test my water weekly and say "oh, I have too much X, I can reduce that by dropping my level of Y," or "oh, I have too little Z, I'll just increase my level of A to compensate."

The only way this will happen is with scientific research. Diana Walstad has done a great service to the community by reading scientific research as it applies to aquaria. We need someone else to do similar research as it applies to high tech methods. One thing that a lot of us don't realize is that the reef community has benefited greatly from the scientific research around reef preservation and climate change. There is no similar impetus on the planted tank side since aquatic plants are not essential to environmental stability of the planet in the same way that reefs are. This is unfortunate, but it simply means that we must do our own research rather than relying on the grants and research of others.


----------



## niko

...

--Nikolay


----------



## niko

...

--Nikolay


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> ...
> 
> This hobby is not exact science. It's more of a common sense thing.
> 
> -Nikolay


Well that's pretty much my point. Pick your mentor, whether it's Amano, Knott, Barr. You will not have the same success if you aren't as committed as they are. Each setup requires intervention to keep them 'pristine' Yes some can run longer than others and still look good, but if your look at the ADA Maintenance timeline in the book you'll see all the things going on from outside the tank on a regular basis. It's great to pursue more exact answers to what's going on, but common sense does prevail. Look at the three names I listed. Are they all scientists? Isn't Amano an artist first and foremost, Knott is as well and they are both very good showman, which I believe the industry needs to keep the aesthetic dream alive.


----------



## 1077

Ekrindul said:


> How many people leave their tank for a month on a regular basis? I mean what kind of argument is that. It's like saying, what if a meteor hits the earth and wipes us all out? What will happen to your EI tank then?
> 
> This whole topic is stupid. Why? Because it isn't driven by science, it's driven by Barr/EI envy. Barr is working toward a Phd and works with plants for a living. And he backs up his advice with evidence, not BS. This topic doesn't add anything at all to the hobby for the sole reason that it keeps attacking some of the most progressive thinking the hobby has seen in decades. How intelligent is that?
> 
> If you have a better method, how about you stop talking about it and prove it. Because that ugly 55 gallon tank of green goo ain't too convincing.


I share your sentiment's.
Only just joined, and had hoped to hear more substance as opposed to attack's on those who aren't here to respond.
Quite sad.
I believe I shall slip back to where I was, for the smell in thread's like these offends the senses.


----------



## niko

...

--Nikolay


----------



## Storms

What's the name of the website? Why do you tease us like that and not tell it to us?


----------



## jeff5614

niko said:


> ... For now the choice is basically a popularity contest.
> 
> --Nikolay


Or more like a shouting contest to some extent in that he who talks the loudest seems to carry the most weight.


----------



## fishyjoe24

actually, amano is a nature photo graph, and throw nature photography he took that in to aquariums and made "nature aquarium"... oliver knott is just a aquariumist, barr is trying to get his p.hd. 

nikolay is trying to get people to think...


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> House,
> *We don't really know how much of a problem are algae in ADA's tanks.* So you see why I wanted to hear more about it. So far we got into what not but we still don't know much about the reality of an ADA tank. Super clean water allright, that was the most important lesson so far. Someone mentioned a picture of an ADA tank with Clado in it. And we have a kind of hello-kitty-advice for fighting algae. Other than that I don't think we know more.
> --Nikolay


Never thought it was a big problem, but algae does pop up even in a well run ADA tank. Again this is no secret to me since it's in their product/concept guide. Next thing you'll be telling us is that their sand doesn't get dark and their lily tubes don't get brown.


----------



## niko

...

--Nikolay


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> So far we all probably agree that ADA has to deal with much less algae that we normally are used to think of as an "algae problem". I guess that will be the end of this discussion because we can't dig up much more information about algae in ADA tanks. In another words - the people that do know do not post on APC.
> 
> --Nikolay


I could honestly tell you in any tank I set up now I don't get algae, not even diatoms. Even ADA fully expects the various algae phases to infest their tanks and of course as you know they turn the shrimp loose and those handy pro pickers. So have I figured out the secret? Do I know more than Amano? No, but I do know that simply good habits and being committed go a long way and of course that clean water.

Anyway here's a guy that should know what he's talking about he has over 200 tanks according to this interview and this is what he said when asked about algae.

*Q. Do you ever have algae issues in your tanks? What is your recipe for avoiding algae?*

*A. All the time and that is no importance of making it no algae at all. My recipe is making good practice on maintaining the tank. Aware of the plant growing. A lot of Algae can only tell that you are making mistakes or lazy. *

*His name: Cliff Hui. *


----------



## niko

...


--Nikolay


----------



## houseofcards

Niko why did you remove your posts?


----------



## mudboots

Interesting and seemingly heated dialog going on here. I hate that some of the posts have disappeared, but whatever the case may be I agree that we should always be exploring ways to maintain aquariums 1) to manage to our desired inputs and 2) to help demonstrate ways that help others acheive maintenence to their desired imputs.


----------



## fishyjoe24

I just throw some fake toy fish in it, with plastic plants, and fake driftwood with sand and be done with it. HEHEHEHEHEHE.

me I found that maintenance of trimming the plants regularly, water changes every day, the first week, to the second week regularly, with a good flow good filter, and some ottos does a good job.


----------



## OTPT

Ermm... looks like BGA @1:18.
http://www.youtube.com/user/aquadesignamano#p/c/5858A9B03BA0ABA6/0/HZNmAO4s9Sg


----------



## wearsbunnyslippers

niko said:


> Ah finally something of substance!
> 
> I still remember how Amano called one of the US aquascapes to have "nice moss on the wood". It had intentionally positioned and grown Cladophora. Let's see if in that tank you will post the algae has turned into a moss too
> 
> --Nikolay


Check out nature aqurium world book one. flourishing cryptos no. 17. The wood has clado, there is thread in the background and fuzz on the plants.. And fragrance of summer grass no. 23's foreground is infested too. He also seems to have a few ranks with u. gibba in..

This was in 1990 probably before he started using amano shrimp..


----------



## wearsbunnyslippers

houseofcards said:


> Anyway here's a guy that should know what he's talking about he has over 200 tanks according to this interview and this is what he said when asked about algae.
> 
> *Q. Do you ever have algae issues in your tanks? What is your recipe for avoiding algae?*
> 
> *A. All the time and that is no importance of making it no algae at all. My recipe is making good practice on maintaining the tank. Aware of the plant growing. A lot of Algae can only tell that you are making mistakes or lazy. *
> 
> *His name: Cliff Hui. *


Here is another awesome cliff hui quote:



Cliff Hui said:


> Algae:
> 
> My spy, it tells me the condition of the tank.
> 
> You care when you start, you don't care when are experienced, and you started to care again when you are lazy.


----------



## Rodan

Why does nikorette not share his substance and play these guessing games? I just spent several hours reading dumb questions 1 through whatever plus many other of n. posts and I ended here. Sadly it was a complete waste of time. If I had to write a report on what I read, it would mostly be a blank piece of paper. 

Lean water column and fertile substrate. Is this n's only message?


----------



## JustLikeAPill

Ever heard of the Socratic method? The point is to get you to think and use your brain. Why does everyone want instant gratification these days? This is not the hobby for that. 

He doesn't know all the answers, either. If you want the answers given to you... well it looks like you will have to go ask Amano-san yourself or translate old aquajournal editions from Japanese to English. 

Nico, I personally enjoy these series of questions : )


----------



## OTPT

Sarcastic Method :biggrin:


----------



## Storms

For those of you interested in real solutions to algae issues in ADA tanks, I highly encourage you to check out this informative thread from Francis at ADG:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...um/155525-ada-adg-gallery-journal-how-do.html

I learned a ton of great information there.


----------



## houseofcards

Storms said:


> For those of you interested in real solutions to algae issues in ADA tanks, I highly encourage you to check out this informative thread from Francis at ADG:
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...um/155525-ada-adg-gallery-journal-how-do.html
> 
> I learned a ton of great information there.


Agreed, its a great thread and Frank is very open and honest showing that ADA tanks do get algae and how best to deal with it. Not that it's algae that would completely ruin a tank, but it's part of a tank's evolution.


----------



## niko

So after this glorious, long overdue, ADG write-up I want to see everybody abandoning stupid practices.

Will this happen?

What I see for now is that people love to listen to gurus. If it is not for the use of some of ADA's products all the information in Francis' thread has been discussed already here on APC in the last 2 years. Filtration, flow, organics, keeping tight control over fertilizers, and the Holy Grail of it all - Balance. I did talk about all of that and more, didn't I? Including the bit about exposing algae to air to stop their growth.

But as one individual put it earlier in this thread - I'm not a PhD, I'm nobody. And also people are lazy and want it all served ready on a plate. Francis did exactly that. With the aura of ADG around him hopefully that will make a dent in our collective rigid mentality.

So, again - hope this finally works and makes Tom Barr's EI history. From what I see this has happened in other countries already. There is an Ukrainian website that describes 5 (five!) different types of planted tanks. The idea, website and the products on it are the work of actual professional scientists (chemists). The tanks are setup and run with what Francis calls "ebb and flow" in following post:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...a-adg-gallery-journal-how-do.html#post1605116

From some PMs I got in the last 2 weeks I see that debunking of EI is actually slowly happening in the US too.

--Nikolay


----------



## Storms

Tom Barr has made some great contributions to the hobby, but his writing is far too technical for most people to understand and he doesn't explain things in a very simple way. He has a habit of using techno-babble to confuse an issue whenever he is contradicted in a thread.

Personally, I think Tom is brilliant, but I think he lacks the language skills to explain concepts clearly in a way that lay-people who don't have a background in phd level chemistry and biology can understand.

EI is probably a fine way to dose, however, it would benefit a lot by explaining some simple things first:

1. If you keep fish in your tank you probably don't need to dose any N, because the fish will provide it through nitrification.
2. Your need for Ca/Mg or GH booster greatly depends on the quality of your water supply.

I think the reason why some people experience problems with EI is because they see a forum sticky that just says "dump these chems in your tank and all will be good" - well, they probably already overstocked their fish, under-filtered their tank and their flow and Co2 are not good. It doesn't take long in a high tech tank to get extremely out of balance. Once they get a BBA infestation they're probably screwed at that point.

Anyway, I don't have anything against Tom, I just think he could explain things better. I really appreciate what Frank is doing here because he is finally spelling out the ADA system in English so that anyone can see it.


----------



## Michael

Niko, I am glad to see that you are back!

Everyone, for reasons I do not completely understand, this topic really hits a nerve for many people. That does not mean that it should be avoided--far from it! But it does mean that we need to be very careful with our language so that the discussion remains courteous and productive, not emotional.

I suggest that we all avoid emotionally loaded words like stupid, lazy, ugly, BS, goo, and dumb. I also do not want to see any corruptions of anyone's screen name for humorous or sarcastic effect.

I love to see ideas tested in vigorous debate. But we need to be extra careful that the debate does not become personal.

Thank you.


----------



## Tex Guy

Well, I've been off line for a while. Anything interesting going on?


----------



## Michael

Storms said:


> For those of you interested in real solutions to algae issues in ADA tanks, I highly encourage you to check out this informative thread from Francis at ADG:
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...um/155525-ada-adg-gallery-journal-how-do.html
> 
> I learned a ton of great information there.


Thanks for posting the link to that thread! I don't get to TPT very often (I already spend too much time on the internet) and might have missed it.

I thought Francis' statement that there is no one way to combat algae--no magic bullet--was very revealing. You need to assess the function of the system, and correct the aspect(s) that is not in balance with the others.


----------



## fishyjoe24

Michael said:


> Thanks for posting the link to that thread! I don't get to TPT very often (I already spend too much time on the internet) and might have missed it.
> 
> I thought Francis' statement that there is no one way to combat algae--no magic bullet--was very revealing. You need to assess the function of the system, and correct the aspect(s) that is not in balance with the others.


X2.... I simmed over it really fast.... algae happens we can only slow it down. if we know what causes all algae then we can an a just this or that....

Niko has been trying to do this all along in this thread... all the talks about flow, circluation, dosing right, lighting, filtration etc... me even after dosing right, a justing my lighting, etc i got ditoms on the driftwood, and had to go buy some otto's. I even think the gismenn mid days i have are about to fad away...

any one remember the dallas lighting store that carried them.. I wasn't able to find them on 1000bulbs.com which is in garland.


----------



## houseofcards

Niko maybe if you actually showed some of your sparkling tanks people would listen more, but you don't. Instead you show contest and ADA gallery tanks and not your own and you have no idea how they are maintained on a day to day basis. They are not good examples of anything other than commitment. 

Nothing replaces commitment. Many will have different levels of this and it will affect their success, but calling people lazy and posting riddles is not the way to do it. 

If you read through many professional scaper threads and the ADA Frank thread you'll see all tanks need commitment. Every tank regardless of style is just a power outage away from collapse. They may look like nature, but they are not supported that way. 

To bad most can't get rid of algae as fast as you remove your posts when the conversation doesn't suit you. 

I have my differences of opinion with Tom Barr, but he put's his money where his mouth is and has many very nice setups based on his methods, can you say the same.


----------



## niko

I lose this discussion because of poverty.

Farewell.

--Nikolay


----------



## l33tgeist

Having read this whole thread, I have to say that Houseofcards hit it on the head. What we are creating in any one of our tanks is not a "Nature Aquarium" at all. It is a carefully controlled artificial ecosystem, designed for a particular functional purpose, whether that be to grow plants quickly, keep healthy fishes in a simulated habitat, or to create an aesthetically pleasing scene. Every aquatic environment in nature has inputs and outputs that we can only approximate in our setups through careful and diligent work. How can I keep a cross-section of a tropical stream in a box in my living room? Would I want to? As a hobbyist rather than a scientist, I have some goal in mind, some way I want to my tank(s) to look and operate, and I have to try to find the most PRACTICAL way to do this given my level of expertise/funds/equipment/time committment/etc. Whether this approximates what happens in nature is relevant in a purely functional sense, in that evolution has solved a lot of our problems for us already. 

When I put a fine-leaved plant that has evolved to solve its CO2 problems by promoting diffusion near the leaf (in a fast-flowing environment) next to a broad-leaved plant that has evolved to solve its CO2 problem by producing emersed growth in a (stagnant environment), next to another plant that has evolved to utilize bicarbonate for photosynthesis (in a mineral-rich environment), and then I inject CO2 to keep all of them in the soft-water, closed-top, low-flow environment of my tank, am I following nature's lead? No, I'm performing a precarious balancing act to suit my purpose. In nature, one or two species of plants would tend to dominate any given tank-sized patch of water, because they would be best suited to those particular conditions and outcompete everything else. In another tank-sized patch nearby, there might be no plants, or only floating/surface-growth plants, or only tree roots, or only algae. Do I want to replicate that in my tank? I'm probably not going to get much aquascaping done if I do. There's a natural inspiration, and then we try to figure out how far we can cut and bend and twist that state of nature before it breaks down. 

How many times have I seen Niko disparage DIY projects and say that FW aquarists are just too tight with their cash to do things right in comparison with ADA/reef aquarists? ADA appears to have essentially unlimited money to throw at their tanks, if their product lineup is any indication. Why is Niko always extolling ADA and acting like they have all the answers (which their cash allows them to implement) and then pleading poverty when someone asks to show us his tanks? If he actually believes that this is the way things have to be done, and he doesn't have the money to do it himself, perhaps he should find a different hobby. I'm certain he's a better aquarist than I (though he's been in it a lot longer), but that doesn't necessarily mean he knows what's going on. I get satisfactory results (to me) knowing a tiny bit of what's going on. 

This is not say that I do not appreciate thought-provoking posts, but there's a line between thought-provoking and antagonistic that Niko seems to step over fairly frequently. Niko seems to want to say that he's just asking questions, but like someone else mentioned, they're questions in the Socratic vein, and to be perfectly honest, I would have been sorely tempted to use the argumentum ad baculum on Socrates' presumptuous face if I had known the guy. When you're making things work, and can tell us what you're doing, how much it costs, how much effort it requires, then it makes sense to tell others what you're doing right so that they can waste less time and effort. I get the impression that this is what someone like Tom Barr is trying to do. I'm not using his method, because I don't want to do that much work, but if it works for somebody else, great. Barr's system may be fundamentally hackish, in that it's a klunky and inefficient thing to do, but it appears to "work". I appreciate Niko's concern for elegant solutions, which is what ADA appears to offer, but I suspect that a) they're not as elegant as they seem, because we're presented mostly with end results, and b) they're not going to be easy for the hobbyist with limited resources to implement. 

And that, it appears, is something that Niko and I would agree on. 

P.S. This whole thing reminds me of one of those heated discussions on martial arts forums in which the proponents of some weird-ninja-style claim that their following their ninja path can allow someone to win fights with the application of very little force. They are invariably called out by some big muscular dudes who demand to take it to the mat, and nothing productive comes of it. It's quite possible that the ninja-style would be very effective if trained for five hours a day for ten years, but most people aren't going to do that. You can show me a video of somebody demonstrating the ninja style in an awesome-looking way, but without knowing more particulars (and the experience level of the demonstrator) I can't conclude that I myself ought to devote myself to training in the ninja style. If I can go down to the local boxing gym and have someone teach me a relatively limited and clumsy style that I can put into practice against resisting opponents to good effect, that's going to leave an impression on me. I might never reach the highest levels of skill, but that's not what I'm trying to do.

P.P.S. A discussion is not generally not something that anyone "loses". If we're having a discussion, we might all expect to come away better-informed, and we all win if we put that better information into practice and achieve results. If Niko lost the discussion, it was because he did not himself come away from it better-informed. After all, what's it to him if we all have algae-infested tanks (which many of us do not)? It's a hobby, not a matter of public policy. If he had the better information and no one listened to him, he could still have the satisfaction of enjoying his own tanks that functioned the way he wanted them to, and we would all have been the ones who lost.


----------



## digital_gods

When it comes to aqua, there is always different methods for doing the same thing, keeping tanks healthy. What Niko advocates is the best turn key method that is out in the market. It's the Mercedes of aquarium products. Can we all drive Mercedes, no. We settle for our Honda and Toyota. We read our Car & Driver to know what the market is doing. Each car manufacturer claim they produce the best vehicle. It is the same with the manufacturers with our hobby. What matters is what you can afford and what will work for you.


----------



## fishyjoe24

digital_gods said:


> When it comes to aqua, there is always different methods for doing the same thing, keeping tanks healthy. What Niko advocates is the best turn key method that is out in the market. It's the Mercedes of aquarium products. Can we all drive Mercedes, no. We settle for our Honda and Toyota. We read our Car & Driver to know what the market is doing. Each car manufacturer claim they produce the best vehicle. It is the same with the manufacturers with our hobby. What matters is what you can afford and what will work for you.


I'm quoting you and putting it as my signture.
I just lost 100.00 dollars in saltwater, a 65.00 dollar xenia rock, a 25.00 colt leather,30.00 star paly rock, and half a fushy mush room rock. do to a going bad heater, after replacing it with a going bad heater... out: time to once again get a heater, and save up for a temp control...as robert says we all want the best stuff but we got to settle for what we can afford and what works for us.


----------

