# Amazonia Substrate



## Emc2 (Oct 29, 2005)

I know there is a lot of controversy about ADA substrates but I will never turn back. This substrate is amazing. Aside from being asthetically pleasing, it's practical and easy to work with. The back panel of acrylic was removed yesterday and the substrate was disturbed. I did not have any powersand makes it way to the top and unlike flourite there was no cloudiness. The tank remained clear and beautiful throughout the process. 

I was a little suprised at the amount of ammonia in the substrate but assume its there to fertilize the plants and help cycle the tank. Once I got used to the idea, I realized it was brilliant. Your plants have a month to 6 weeks to soak up the fertilizers and become established and by the time they are situated the tank is ready for a full bioload of fish.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

Perhaps that is why they suggest changing to a fert with N after a year or so. Perhaps this matches the time that the ammonia dissapates?

jB


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Emc2 said:


> I know there is a lot of controversy about ADA substrates but I will never turn back.


I do not think there is much contraversy. If you try it and use it over time, you'll really like it. The contraversy exist with those who have not tried it or with those that have not tried the other substrates to have a good comparison base line.............

You may be pleased with whatever you have now, sand and soil works too.
But I think most would agree having tried this and the sand soil methods, that this is easier, consistent and better to work with.

We could all argue that soil and sand is "good enough".......or even sand and water column ferts is good enough, hydroponics is no different other than the plants not having the added option to remove nutrients from the leaves and there is more transpirational pull.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Emc2 (Oct 29, 2005)

Jason, I'm not sure but I wish I could read Japanese.

Tom, I couldn't agree more. I'm sure you can grow plants in just about anything. I, however, will grow my plants in ADA substrates as long as they are available.


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Emc2 said:


> Jason, I'm not sure but I wish I could read Japanese.
> 
> Tom, I couldn't agree more. I'm sure you can grow plants in just about anything. I, however, will grow my plants in ADA substrates as long as they are available.


I have the translated stuff here.
Not too much info truthfully.

By adding KNBO3, you can get more growth and faster growth as well as provide less uptake and demand from the AS.

Why wait a year?

The same principle applies to a soil substrate as well.
It last about 6-12 months. Then you have enough fish loading, or add extra KNO3 etc.

I prefer a homogenous substrate and uniform color and grain size.
ADA AS provides this.

The form of N is also relevant I would speculate, the NH4 vs NNO3 is the likely differences some plants see in their health and growth.

Some claim is root vs shoot uptake difference, I do not think so.
N is translocated easily and most all plants use both well and why transport things if you do not have too?

I also have seen improvement in growth rates using KNO3 from day one vs not. This would suggest a synergistic effect, not preference, indicating that NO3 is a very relevant source as well for virtually every plant.

My focus is adding N to both locations, NH4 tends to bind better than NO3 in the soils/sediments. The trick is preventing the NH4 to getting to the water column, so the clay in ADA AS is sandwiched between the layers of clay inside each grain, unlike Jobes sticks which are easily lost to the water column when disturbed.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Snot, I had a great post all typed out then I hit the back button on the keyboard! Why must they put those right by the arrow keys...

Anyway, it sounds like the ADA is a similar clay type to the Soilmaster, especially their OilDri product. I assume based on your description Tom, that ADA is nothing more the a 2:1 smectite family clay what has been soaked in a nutrient rich, NH4+ solution which has replaced most of the Mg2+ or K+ cations between the clay sheets with the NH4+. This would also explain its "softness" and that it breaks down a little over time asthis type of clay has tendencies toward swelling and high CEC. This would also explain Aquasoil's water softening habits. Incidently, this also makes sense as the smectites are an older, more weather clay that are more likely to be found in tropical or subtropical regions (ie, Amazon). Did you ever test the CEC of the ADA Tom? A high CEC would indicate a smectite type clay while a low one might indicate that the ADA is actually a very weathered Fe or Al oxide with a good (+) charge, ie AEC. Most clay colloids have a - charge(CEC) why only weathered tropical clays tend to have a (+) charge.

Has anyone ever tested the hardness, Ca and Mg levels of ADA substrate before it was added to a tank?



> The form of N is also relevant I would speculate, the NH4 vs NNO3 is the likely differences some plants see in their health and growth.


This makes sense to me and it gives me a hypothesis, although I am sure you will be able to show I am wrong From my learnin', most terrestrial plants prefer NO3- as their N source; hwoever, most aquatic plants prefer NH4+. Now, since most of our preferd aquarium plants would traditionally spend much of their lives with wet feet it makes sense that the roots would have adapted to using NH4 as a prefered source. The foliar parts growing in the water would likely never see NH4 in a healthy system (hence algae's foothold in "unhealthy systems") plus it would get bound very quickly in the submersed, clay based soil conditions; however, NO3 would be more likely available in the water column due to runoff/boilogical activities.

Does that make sense?


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Actually I realized an error in my above post. I stated that clay oxides of Al and Fe would have negative charge(-) which is false. They would have a (+) charge giving them AEC rather than CEC. This overall (+) would attrace only ions like NO3-, Cl- etc not cations like NH4+, etc. Sorry and just to clarify I will edit my above post.


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

dennis said:


> Anyway, it sounds like the ADA is a similar clay type to the Soilmaster, especially their OilDri product.


No, it's different in the grain shape and the hardness, SM is baked, already hardened, this makes a significant different.



> I assume based on your description Tom, that ADA is nothing more the a 2:1 smectite family clay what has been soaked in a nutrient rich, NH4+ solution which has replaced most of the Mg2+ or K+ cations between the clay sheets with the NH4+.


No, there's a mix of those in there, it's not replaced unless as the micro sites have the NH4 and K+ removed by uptake, they are replaced from the water column above.



> This would also explain its "softness" and that it breaks down a little over time asthis type of clay has tendencies toward swelling and high CEC.


No, this ADA As does not swell, I know the clays you are thinking about, this is not that clay, kitty litter is that clay.
We do not want that for other reasons.



> This would also explain Aquasoil's water softening habits. Incidently, this also makes sense as the smectites are an older, more weather clay that are more likely to be found in tropical or subtropical regions (ie, Amazon). Did you ever test the CEC of the ADA Tom? A high CEC would indicate a smectite type clay while a low one might indicate that the ADA is actually a very weathered Fe or Al oxide with a good (+) charge, ie AEC. Most clay colloids have a - charge(CEC) why only weathered tropical clays tend to have a (+) charge.
> 
> Has anyone ever tested the hardness, Ca and Mg levels of ADA substrate before it was added to a tank?


I have done a CEC test, I have done AEC test for PO4, but these are only relative test, not absolute.
These will be posted when I get to the substrates on the Barr Report.

There are issues with how well CEC and growth are correlated and in aquatic plant horticulture. Hydroponics will have better research, but ......they also do not use many of the same methods we do and do not have anaerobic sediments. That changes everything.



> This makes sense to me and it gives me a hypothesis, although I am sure you will be able to show I am wrong


That's never the point nor intent, the intent is to learn and set up a better test or ask a better specific question.



> From my learnin', most terrestrial plants prefer NO3- as their N source; hwoever, most aquatic plants prefer NH4+.


My observations suggest as trend......the aquatic plants prefer NO3........and the data present in Diana's books clearly suggest at applicable levels of NH4, that plants prefer NO3, it is not until you have 0.5ppm or higher that the species in the one test will prefer the NH4+. Do you have 0.5ppm or higher of NH4+ in your tank's water column, do you want to try and maintain that level?

Additionally, one plant such as Elodea is hardly an arguement for a consensus or a generalizaton. Barko et al have suggested simiklar findings, but I've not seem similar time based graphes. I'll be looking into it more later.

I've added NH4 to the water column, few folks really have except in the form of fish waste and few have measured that in any real way.

Lots of speculation, but no one doing any testing.....which is typical in the plant hobby.

I leave the door open for certain species having a preference and the option to get the different forms and at different locations.
We all slack off dosing at some point, nice to have a back up.

But I want a back up that works and is not the PITA a jobes is, nor do Jobes grow the plants like ADA nor do they add it all occluded and spread out evenly like the substrate rather than amendments.



> Now, since most of our preferd aquarium plants would traditionally spend much of their lives with wet feet it makes sense that the roots would have adapted to using NH4 as a prefered source. The foliar parts growing in the water would likely never see NH4 in a healthy system (hence algae's foothold in "unhealthy systems")


Are you so sure of that assumption?
Is it safe?

Why do we have fish and no measureable NH4+ in the water column?
Plants most certainly remove the NH4 from the water column and roots most certainly leak out a fair amount into the sediments.



> plus it would get bound very quickly in the submersed, clay based soil conditions; however, NO3 would be more likely available in the water column due to runoff/boilogical activities.
> 
> Does that make sense?


NO3 is extremely mobile and less prone to bacteria reduction, ther NH4 is oxidized easily in the substrate by bacteria so they are nibbling away at it also.

I think it's supplying some of the plant species with more NH4 in a safe manner, a softer rooting texture, nice grain sizing, some peat mixed in the grains etc.

It's not so much or an either or situation, it never was.
That is a fabricated notion except in research type test.

In practical hiorticulture, the plants get it from the water column and the roots. It's just good to have a good supply in *both places*, not just one.

I've stated this many times over the years, the thing is, so many folks over the years have whined, complained, said I'm wrong, presented weak arguements about algae when it comes to the water column nutrient levels and the forms involved.

So folks seem to think I am all water column, no, I've not discounted the utility of the substrate.

I've done that years ago abnd still hold it as part of a system, but ADa finally came up with what I once described on the APD years ago as an ideal substrate, well........except I wanted a white color for it.
But the black color is great

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------

