# ADA's "low tech" approach



## niko

Almost low tech. But it is interesting to think of it that way.

It occured to me that ADA is not really running high tech tanks in the sense that we here in the US understand "high tech".

To us:

"High tech" means:
- lots of light
- lots of fertilizers (5, 10, 15 ppm)
- intense CO2-injection (often 24/7), pH= 5.0-6.4. (pH of 6.8 is considered too high at dGH 4.)
- the plants grow extremely fast (not uncommon to report 1-3" of daily growth on some stems)
- substrate is often an almost useless media (commercial products with some good characteristics and completely missing others)
- you can run a high tech tank without any substrate

"Low tech" means:
- low light
- no fertilizers (or minimum)
- little CO2 (light constant trickle)
- Plants grow slow
- Substrate provides the the basis for everything - plant establishment and sustained growth.
- does not exist without an active substrate

ADA
- low light (except for a few hours of strong light)
- minimal fertilization (very careful, never readable amounts)
- CO2 is high only when the light is high. pH is commonly reported as 6.8 @ dGH 3-4.
- The plants do grow fast but not as fast as the "US high tech tank"
- substrate plays a huge role in the initial establishment and sustained plant growth
- some layouts have minimal amounts AquaSoil. But overall AquaSoil is the most important part of the system.

So you see - lots of parallels with what we understand as "low tech tank". Except that ADA makes it look high tech with all the gizmos, products, and overall appearance. Yes it is a mix of both worlds, but if you ask me which one is dominant I got to say ADA leans more toward "low tech" if you look at how everything works together.

--Nikolay


----------



## fishyjoe24

very interesting.... also have to remember more lights mean more use of c02 and ferts.... 

I've seen photos of dwarf hair grass carpeting a 75g with just 2 t5 ho bulbs and c02.. it seems that the c02 was more controlable and got more grow out of the plants....

it just seems like ada would be high tech because of amano does the sets up, with the MH lights,the special substrate, and the fancy c02, and perfume smelling ferts...


----------



## Michael

Ah Niko, ever the _agent provocateur_!

How do you think AquaSoil compares to mineralized topsoil in the functioning of the planted aquarium system? And while we are on the subject, what *IS* AquaSoil, anyway? I mean, what is it made of? What about it contributes so much to the ADA system?

Mudman Michael wants to know.


----------



## JeffyFunk

I have to disagree to a certain extent. In my opinion, ADA is not "low tech", but rather the ADA "Nature Aquarium" system is simply... the "El Natural" method. Everything Walstad states or explains in "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium" is implemented in the "Nature Aquarium". Everything. It's all a matter of rate.

What is ADA Aqua soil? It's simply mineralized soil that's been manipulated in such a way to make it easy to work with and not cloud the soil. ADA states that's soil that's been fortified w/ clay and baked into pellets (or powder).


----------



## Michael

So AquaSoil is mineralized topsoil without the mess? No wonder it works so well!


----------



## fishyjoe24

so if aqua soil is just baked soil, i wonder if i could just take mineralized topsoil, and bake it and make it in to pellets... then make millions as fishy wishy mishy joe joe substrate rock, or some other catchy name like that.


----------



## niko

I will type what I know about AquaSoil but I have the feeling we will all get an eerie feeling that we are talking about... mud. Used in El Natural.

AquaSoil:

First I want to say why I think it is a unique substrate for the planted tank
To me AquaSoil is a "man made" product. Some years ago I found a diagram how a substrate called "AquaSoil" is made. The name was the same but I'm not sure it was the same product. It was a substrate made specifically to be used on the sides of some very tall pyramid like building. It had to have very specific properties - holding water, CEC, pH, and have some physical characteristics that made it appropriate to use on the sloped side of the building. I got the feeling that it could be what Amano later market successfully to all of us.

That maybe an interesting detail and I maybe totally off. But what I got from the whole thing was that the Japanese can tweak a substrate to the n-th degree. Make it do anything they want. This is not Fluorite or EcoComplete, folks. And to me ADA AquaSoil is "man made" because the properties are so precisely included in the final product. I don't know how different clays feel to the touch but if you squeeze a grain of AquaSoil with your fingers it feels so artificial. Almost like asphalt (which is a natural product I guess) or something plastic. In any case - AquaSoil has some very specific properties. In that sense I call it "man made". Or a "designer product" if you wish.

Properties (and think how they correspond to the properties of the "mud" used in an El Natural aquarium):

*1. Provide higher levels of Ammonia in the first 3-4 weeks*
ADA has actually done tests to figure out how to exactly handle that Ammonia in a new tank. Depending on the filter media they can have it gone in 15 or 21 days - your choice. But they do not want it gone completely from day 1 because it has been included in the AquaSoil to help the new roots.

*<How does El Natural's "mud" compare? Releasing extra nutrients (or even Ammonia) initially?*

*2. High CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity)*
To someone that may sound like Chinese. Basicaly it says that the material is very capable of holding to nutrients and readily give them to the roots. For whatever strange reason it does not release them in the water but gives them to the roots. The explanation must be in ion exchange mecanisms. To us it looks like the substrate helps the roots but refuses to dirty up the water.

*<How does El Natural's "mud" compare? High CEC perhaps?>*

*3. Sequester nutrients from the water*
That simply means that AquaSoil can suck up nutrients from the water, hold them and give them to the roots only. That is the reason AquaSoil softens the water a little - so it grabs Ca and Mg from the water and holds them. Let me tell you I have an experience with a substrate that actively released Calcium and Magnesium - the plants literally go wild when they have active Ca and Mg ions being released around their roots (3" growth in a day!). The Ca/Mg are so exciting for the plant if they are only floating in the water. But being released around the roots is a totally different beast as it seems. So bottom line is - AquaSoil sucks food from the water and makes it available to the roots which is a big deal for the plants.

*<How does El Natural's "mud" compare? Does it have such sequestering properties?>*

*4. AquaSoil provides acidic environment for the roots from day 1.*
From what I've seen - about pH of about 5.5. All substrates eventually start doing that once mulm and bacteria accumulate. But AquaSoil starts from day 1. The low pH helps the active exchange of ions between the roots and the substrate. I think that actually the exchange of nutrients partially (or to a great extent, I'm not sure) depends on the livelyhood of bacteria living in the substrate. And these bacteria like acidic environment. So if your substrate is not acidic from day 1 you can have all the good bacteria you want but the roots are not going to benefit much from them. AquaSoil lets them be active as soon as they feel like it.

*<How does El Natural's "mud" compare? I know it eventually gets acidic, but is there something that is interesting to know here?>*

*5. Compaction*
AquaSoil is designed to not compact. Still it does compact and flow through the grains is reduced. Some folk have ended up with a seemingly impenetrable mush after a few months of using AquaSoil. That's probably a fluke but ADA suggest using Power Sand (pumice) both as a media to house bacteria + to aid against compaction.

*<How does El Natural's "mud" compare? I know that the cap above the "mud" needs to be with a grain size that allows gas exchange. But how does the "mud" itself avoid compaction? Any additives to the "mud" that could be used (floating Osmocote?)>*

I guess the above 5 answer the question why AquaSoil is so important for the ADA system of a planted tank. With all the Lily pipes in the world hanging from your tank, but without AquaSoil the game will be completely different in at least 5 ways.

--Nikolay


----------



## JeffyFunk

Two additional comments... 

First of all, I think i was a little misleading when I stated that ADA aqua soil is "just" mineralized soil. It is definitely mineralized to an extent, but unlike mineralized soil, ADA aqua soil is said to also contain humic acid(s). (Also, i think the ADA aqua soil is more "fired" than "baked" - i don't think an ordinary oven will get hot enough for you to make it yourself, although it would be neat if someone would try.)

Second of all, the el natural method does nothing to avoid compaction. Instead, Walstad suggests that you simply limit the total depth of the soil sublayer in order to avoid creating overly anaerobic and compacted substrate. In this regards, the el natural method simply accepts that compaction is inevitable; In the ADA nature aquarium system, power sand was created in part to get around this limitation in order to help create more ways to "aquascape". 

To me, that's the beauty of the ADA Nature Aquarium system; it's simply the "El Natural" method processed and packaged in a way to make it "easier" for anyone to have a successful planted aquarium. It's only when we start to cherry pick parts of it w/out understanding the entirety of the system or how each individual part relates to the whole that we have issues. (Relating this to another recent thread, nobody would dream of setting up an "El natural" tank by dumping dirt (without a cap) into an aquarium and immediately start planting it and filling it up w/ water and yet that is what some people do w/ ADA aqua soil and then complain about cloudy, muddy water and other such issues...)


----------



## Michael

I can comment on some of this:

*1. Provide higher levels of Ammonia in the first 3-4 weeks*
Walstad assumes this will happen in her method, which is why she insists on heavy planting from the start. Most aquatic plants prefer ammonia as their nitrogen source, and take it out of the water rapidly.

*2. High CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity)*
In the mineralized topsoil process, clay is added to the mixture specifically to improve CEC.

*3. Sequester nutrients from the water*
This is another function of CEC.

*4. AquaSoil provides acidic environment for the roots from day 1.*
Walstad regards a mildy acidic pH of 6.6 as ideal. This is a compromise between nutrient availability and increased soluablity of toxic metal compounds.

*5. Compaction*
Here I will pass on a suggestion from Phil. After the mineralization process is complete, add about 50% by volume of Turface or some other fired clay product to the soil. Turface does not break down, is very porous, and has high CEC. It provides bulk to the soil and helps prevent compaction.

As a side note to the above, my first Walstad tanks were set up using expanded shale as a cap over the soil. Expanded shale is porous, and the type I used has a rather large particle size of 5 to 10 mm. This allows good gas exchange between soil and water, and I think it helped prevent anaerobic conditions in my rich, highly organic soil layer (Miracle Grow Organic Choice potting mix). Over time, I notice that mulm easily settles into the spaces between the expanded shale particles, creating a new layer of "soil" nearer the surface.

Expanded shale is not an ideal component of tank substrate. The large particles make planting more difficult, and it has virtually no CEC. But it does resist compaction.


----------



## niko

About dirtying up the water using "mud" or AquaSoil;

For some years Amano did demos on how to setup a planted tank that became so standard and predictable that I wondered if the guy had hit a creative black hole. Same old thing over and over again - white sand in the front and the AquaSoil tucked away behind rocks and completely covered with plants.



















At some point I felt like there is a practical reason for that - that standard way to setup a planted tank could have very well been an effort to make things completely trouble free for the new people. No AquaSoil leeching anything, simple and beautiful layout, and so on. But in our discussion here the "hiding" of the AquaSoil is what sticks out.

The idea is very much like avoiding murky water by covering the El Natural "mud" with an inert layer of gravel. Same principle. On videos like the one below you can see that there isn't any bias toward the "white sand in front" layouts. But we will all agree that for a newbie "hiding" the AquaSoil would be a better choice. Without knowing he/she will use the same idea - hide the nutritious soil as it's done in an El Natural tank.






--Nikolay


----------



## Michael

Also note that while the white sand is very striking visually, the planting is very dense right from the start. This comes close to the Walstad recommendation to cover 75% of the substrate with plants.


----------



## niko

Well, today something occured to me and maybe it's worth saying it.

As far as I know Amano is the first person to try CO2 in an aquarium with the idea to improve plant growth. But look how he uses that CO2 - very carefully. It is not a constant maximum concentration. It's linked to the intensity of the light.  At night it's off. To us, accustomed to high-tech tanks, ADA's CO2 levels seem unexplicably low. Once again - the way ADA uses of CO2 does not look like a radical departure from the low tech approach. It leads to striking results, but it is not how we traditionally use CO2.

In contrast our "high tech" tanks have gushing CO2 and sustained 30 ppm concentration. I'm not sure that many people turn off the CO2 at night. I'm not sure many people syncronize the CO2 rate with the intensity of their lights. We basically take the original idea and use it according to the rule "more is better". No wonder issues follow - suppressed biofilter, unstable tanks, explosive plant growth requiring large doses of fertilizers, and large water changes to keep everything running fine. We have created our own imperfect but working system - the "high tech" tank. It has all the standard elements but they work in overdrive. Pedal to the metal. Forced harmony. Without sustained intervention it crashes.

It seems to me now that the "right way" to run a planted tank is a combination of "low" and "high" tech. As low-tech as possible + a reasonable use/amount of "high tech" features.

--Nikolay


----------



## Mr.1978

DYI co2 for crypts september 1962


----------



## niko

Haha! I knew it!

When I typed "As far as I know Amano is the first person to try CO2..." I thought "the Dutch must be first, but for the sake of what I'm trying to say I'll overlook this obvious fluke.

This is such an interesting scan!

Since we are at that for some people it'd be interesting to find a report from 1864 by Robert A. West. He describes a lot of the things that are common in the hobby today - using a hose to change water, pearling, using tweezers, central-centered aquascaping, plant flowers above the surface of the water, short and wide tanks being better than tall and narrow... Yes, that was all written in 1864!

A detailed account of that report is found in "The Aquatic Gardener" magazine - look for the article by Mike Hellweg in this issue:
http://www.aquatic-gardeners.org/TAGIndex/v20n1/index.html

I still wonder why in the 1990's Amano tried to introduce CO2 by using bottled soda water. The Dutch article here describes a DIY yeast reactor very well and as a very easy thing to do.

In any case - it appears that the term "low tech" is too broad indeed. Because it has deep roots and history. But what seems to really matter is that you can't ignore certain rules and still achieve lasting and stable planted tank. With the "high tech" approach (as we understand it) we get exactly that - gorgeous, unstable tanks.

It's good to have understanding where things came from and why they are the way they are now. Why ADA keeps the pH at about 6.8 (way low for our standards), why the light fixtures do not try to maximize the light output, why the fertilizing is so subtle, how come there are no ADA foam filter pads available.

I think that talking about the continuity of things in the planted tank hobby leads us to another point of understanding: ADA's strong interest and belief in certain phenomenons and products that we, the bold "high tech" folk, sneer and make fun of. The Plocher energy system, Penac P, Tourmaline, and the concern to place the pump away from the biofilter because of electromagnetic influences. A hollistic approach gone too far? I don't think so...

So how does ADA appear now, after 2 pages of discussion? "Low-tech" or "high-tech"? Are we redefining some basic understanding here?

** _Definition of HOLISM
1: a theory that the universe and especially living nature is correctly seen in terms of interacting wholes (as of living organisms) that are more than the mere sum of elementary particles_

** _A few words about the Plocher Energy system (all links broken, but the quoted text is enough to get an idea)
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...ano-filters-roland-plocher-energy-system.html_

--Nikolay


----------



## JustLikeAPill

Niko, you mentioned Plocher...

I was given a bottle of Penac-P and Penac-W. Since my substrate was already in place, I tried to inject into the powersand layer under the aquasoil.. I accidentally injected it the wrong way (messed up) and it went under my HC (the Penac-P) and it didn't respond well... it started browning but now is recovering. 

As far as adding Penac-W weekly to my water, I can say I havn't had a film on the surface like I used to, and it used to get pretty filmy by water-change day. I have three shrimp and one oto and don't feed so I don't know why I had film in the first place, but adding Penac-W has eliminated the problem for me.

Just thought I'd throw that in there. My tank is all ADA (Mini-M) except for the filter (Eheim Ecco 2236)... I have crushed tourmaline under the aquasoil as well as a quarter pound of tourmaline in the filter mixed with Bio Rio, with one coarse filter sponge. 



The middle path is usually the answer to most things, and this seems to be the Nature Aquarium method.


----------



## doubleott05

i definintly time my co2 with my lights. at night i inject oxygen. i have had better results with that ever since. i also have my ferts set up to autodose. so i never forget to dose anymore . everycouple of days i check it to make sure its functioning correctly.


----------



## fishyjoe24

what about tomas(tom) barr's thoughts on high tech vs low tech.. 

does more light, mean more c02, means more ferts... where do we find the balance... have having a nice fast growth but not having to do maintence each day, and just enjoy are tanks?


----------



## joshvito

@Mr.1978
who are you? with your one post and it being such a great one at that?


----------



## JustLikeAPill

Here is a question...

Should the co2 come on when the light go on and off when the lights go off...

or...

should the co2 start one hour (or two!) earlier and go off one hour (or two!) earlier?

It seems like the optimal method would be the second option... but why doesnt Amano do this? For convenience?


----------



## MiamiAG

joshvito said:


> @Mr.1978
> who are you? with your one post and it being such a great one at that?


LOL. Hear, hear!


----------



## niko

JustLikeAPill said:


> Here is a question...
> 
> Should the co2 come on when the light go on and off when the lights go off...
> 
> or...
> 
> should the co2 start one hour (or two!) earlier and go off one hour (or two!) earlier?
> 
> It seems like the optimal method would be the second option... but why doesnt Amano do this? For convenience?


You can find the answer to that in the AquaJournal articles online.

The essense is that supposedly the plants slowly ramp up the light phase of the photosynthesis. So ADA believes that while the CO2 is building up the plants are slowly starting to absorb it. Loading the water with CO2 before the plants are ready would be asking for trouble or wasteful.

But from my experience it takes only 30 min for the CO2 to fizzle out of the tank when you turn it off. And 3-4 hours to build up in the morning. But remember - I'm used to be like all high tech people - I build up the CO2 to 30 ppm, which Amano does not do.


----------



## MiamiAG

I think Dupla may have beat Amano to the CO2 but I see that the Dutch knew about it well before that.

Niko, it's common to use a pH meter to control CO2 addition. As such, when the heavy lights turn on, the plants increase their uptake of carbon dioxide. This, in turn, causes the pH to rise and triggers the pH meter to open the electronic valve and release carbon dioxide into the water.

Alternatively, when the lights turn off, the plants stop taking up carbon dioxide and the pH meter stops the flow. Some folks, even Amano in some instances, use air stones during the dark phase to increase the oxygen level in the aquarium. This is especially important in overstocked tanks.

I would call the above setup "high-tech" but it seems to follow your definition of the Amano "low-tech". Also, a very low-tech (as in gadgets) tank can also be very difficult to maintain such as those that use the sun for lighting or very nutrient-rich substrates. 

For these reasons, I've gone away from using the terms low and high tech. I think they are misleading. Instead, I use the terms low or high maintenance irrespective of the technology used.

I've also stopped using the term balance as the quest for it is futile. I now suggest people to focus on satisfying the needs of the plants by having enough of the things that make them grow when they need it. Tom's estimative index is very good for this.

Just my two cents to the conversation. Very interesting topic. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## houseofcards

I think it's really hard to categorize tanks into whether they are high-tech or low. Same thing for lighting. What's high light? What's low light? If I run a tank with 1 hr of 'very high light' what do you call that. Aquarists have incredible tanks with each. You are probably more limited by 'low light'. Does ADA even categorize things this way? I believe they use lighting levels and heights to either be non-limiting or limited to certain plants and setups. I believe their standard light for 60cm is the 150MH. At a distance of 30cm or 12" I believe that would be considered high light for most here.


----------



## JustLikeAPill

From personal experience, it was not. I would consider it medium light. 

Blyxa didn't turn reddish at the center, rotalas stayed perpetually green, etc. The only plant that stayed pretty red was Rotala macandra "butterfly". I played with nutrients, lowering the light to six inches, and even removing the glass cover to let more uv through (it was clean before however) but nothing worked. When the light was six inches above the tank. The rotala "colorata" got the slightest pinkish hue that is nothing to write home about. But the Ludwigia repens and arcuata were still dull brownish. I don't know how Amano gets good color in his plants!

And at the recommended height of 12 inches there was so much light spillage, the plants tried to grow towards the white wall behind it. The light was directly over the tank, I measured a lot to make it perfect so I know it wasn't off center, and the light was also level.

I have no par data, and it grew healthy plants great, and the color of the light was excellent to the eye and for photos, but it was not what I consider high light.

I have been told by people who know more about lighting that the reflector is inefficient for a 150 metal halide because it's too small. If I had tried another brand of light with a better reflector I think I would have seen better results.

ADG did a test and found that the PAR was about 150 at the bottom. Tom Barr at aqua forest found that it was like 50 or 75. There are lot of variables but I am inclined to believe that ADG's results were accurate since they used new bulbs and have no reason to lie. Aqua forest likely used old bulbs or some other factor caused them to have such low results.


If it sounds like I am being too hard on the solar I, I am not bashing it. I LOOOOVE them. I had to sell mine to help pay for my full Mini-M setup for college due to space. One day I want to buy another and get a full 60-P setup, even though I know the light isn't that great for color IME.


----------



## houseofcards

I don't disagree with you. The point I'm making is most would consider that high light here and not necessary grow any plant. Most of the time this light categorization falls apart when we are talking about achieving deep color or an incredibly tight carpet in some cases. In fact in a certain chart on a certain forum that light would be considered super, duper high.


----------

