Michael

Phil, is there a good web site to explain operation of Eheims? I did not get an owner's manual, and am not sure all the internal parts are present. The pump does run.

The manual available from the Eheim site is in German.

Thanks,
Michael

niko

San Marcos.

For those that have never gone or never seen pictures here it is. And read the comments:

http://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/...iverMay172008#

In these 2 pictures one can almost be sure that the water flows in a laminar way. Big flow + little turbulence. Sounds like a Japanese filter maybe?:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/...53071474435426
http://picasaweb.google.com/ddasega/...53075769402738

San Marcos. Wanna go? In my subtle machiavellian engineerings with the goal to increase the activity of our club I think I have become too transparent here

We can organize that trip this coming year. Really, jokes aside, it is a wonderful place to visit. Let's discuss that in a separate thread.

--Nikolay

fishyjoe24

schliterbon is on the way... can we go to the water park too?

Bert H

So would it be accurate to say that the older and the more established a tank is, assuming they have a decent fish load, the water column may be kept leaner? This would assume the build up of mulm, and nutrients in the gravel, again assuming one doesn't gravel vac.

I have no experience with the ADA system, so what I am about to say may be totally off base, and if so, please feel free to correct. From what I have read, it seems that one of the main ingredients that is often added is 'Brighty K', which I assume to be potassium? I don't much see folks adding any other macros. Would the rationale for this be as Phil said, the biochemical breakdown of food, feces etc doesn't provide sufficient K for the plants?

Another point/question regarding the basic chemistry involved in NH3/NO3 etc. One always hears that in a heavily planted tank, NH3 is not a problem because the plants will uptake it before it gets to any dangerous build up. So when the filter microbes change their course and start producing NH3, why wouldn't it get metabolized by the plants? Or are we talking about an extreme which WILL cause issues?

Niko, seeing the pics of the San Marcos really hits something home for me, which I should have been aware of for a while. Living in North Florida where we have tons of springs and crystal clear spring fed rivers, you also see the beautiful lush growth of plants. Rock hard water from a limestone aquifer and very low NO3 and PO4 measurable levels, if at all. So, you're right, where do the nutrients come from -- the soil/sediment in the river bed. But of course, there is also one very major difference in these beautiful spring fed river systems, they have a fairly limited number of plants growing in them. Whereas, we try to incorporate every known type of plant from all around the world into our little mini-environments.

OK, enough ramblings.

Phil Edwards

Bert,

As long as there are ample sediment-bound nutrients to balance out the reduced water column nutrients, absolutely! Here's some food for thought though, the longer the mulm has been in the substrate, the lower the amount of labile nutrients it contains. I'll have to talk with my boss about this for specifics; she's done some substrate and water column nutrient depletion studies using Hydrilla and Myriophyllum. However, based on things I've learned so far, the long term benefit of mulm in an aquarium substrate isn't so much nutrient release as it is nutrient retention.

As all the degradable compounds are broken down the consituents (mineralization) glom onto charged particles in the substrate. Organic matter and clay in particular are good for this. This is where CEC comes into play.

Furthermore, the breakdown of mulm and other organic matter changes the reduction-oxidation (redox) state of the substrate which, in turn, affects the sequestration of mineral nutrients in the substrate. Briefly, the less oxygen in the substrate, the higher the amount of sequestered or plant-unavailable Fe, Mg, and P; up to the point where the anaerobic bacteria begin using those for metabolism.

Potassium can be pretty common in the water column of natural waters and it certainly doesn't hurt to suppliment it in larger doses in an aquarium. I've noticed that Amano seems to replace the substate in his tanks every year or so. Based on my experience with Aqua Soil that seems to be a reasonable length of time for the nutrients to be depleted in the substrate if no water column fertilization is done; especially nitrogen. It's just a guess, but I'd be willing to bet nitrogen is the time-limiting factor in 100% ADA setups. After a certain time AS just doesn't have anything else to give, especially in high growth systems.

I did a little look-see here at the lab using two year old Amazonia that I'd used in a tank where I supplimented the water column as if it were inert and saw very high concentrations of phosphorus. I'd dried and ground the AS into a fine powder, put 10g of it into 50mL of pure water, mixed it and let it sit for an hour. We use a colorimetric/absorbance method for P analysis here and the supernatant from the AS was far far darker than our highest standard of 0.6mg/L.

With that concentration of P in the substrate and water column supplimentation of K; N is the only major nutrient left to consider.

I believe the real trick is to balance light input with nutrient availablility if you're wanting to run a leaner water column. It's certainly doable in a high light/high growth system but there is likely to be a statue of limitations on how long the substrate will be able to sustain that level of plant growth on its own.


All of this being said, we've all seen the results ADA and ADG achieve with the ADA method. Likewise, we all know how effective EI or similar dosing strategies can be. In my mind the differences between the two methods is one of stability. From all I've seen ADA systems tend to be very stable after the initial break in period. I've been using EI/PMDD or a similar strategy for close to 12 years now and have found my aquaria to be less stable or forgiving of change than when I've used Aqua Soil or a soil-based substrate.

Phil Edwards

Taking on the topic of ammonia, I disagree with the assertion that they're not a problem in planted tanks. After lots of observation and a couple limited and not particularly scientific experiments, I believe ammonia to be the main contributing factor to algae growth. Yes, plants to take up ammonia and it is an effective source of nitrogen in non-aquatic systems. However, every time I've seen ammonia supplimented or haven't cleaned my filter for some time I've seen an increased amount of algae.

I think we're both blessed and cursed by our plants. That they do take up ammonia is a good thing; however, that uptake retards or reduces the efficacy of our filters' biological contribution. Bert's observations of getting cloudy water after cleaning his filters hits this directly. Ammonia levels in many tanks are too low to support a robust population of nitrifying bacteria, so every time there's a change to the filter the tank cycles again or algae proliferate as the ecosystem seeks balance.

We can also see this happen when our plants aren't as healthy. Healthy plants are able to take up, store, and modify the TOXIC ammonia. Unhealthy plants aren't able to do so as effectively. Coupled with the reduced microfauna populations in our filters, the increased concentrations of ammonia signal algal spores to germinate. **This is an hypothesis, not a statement of fact based on a focused investigation.** However, my observations over a long period seem to support the hypothesis.

Bert,

The anaerobic or hypoxic zones in a dirty filter produce more than ammonia. It would be my guess that those compounds, in conjunction with increased ammonia concentrations, are what negatively impact the health of a planted aquarium. Remember, ammonia is toxic to plants just as it is to animals. The difference being plants have a mechanism to take up, store, and change the chemical structure of ammonia into a form that is not toxic and usable by the plant. Since ammonia is one of the initial nitrogenous byproducts of decomposition, plants have needed to find a way to capitalize on that source of N before it's used by other organisms. The negative charge of ammonia and nitrate ions keeps them from being sorbed onto soil particles. They both flush relatively easily through soils and are fairly transient compared to phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and iron. It's a "use it now or lose it" situation. That being said, it's easy for concentrations of ammonia to reach toxic levels or concentrations where the plants are unable to sequester it if there's no mechanical or biochemical mechanism for neutralizing it.

Cheers,
Phil

Bert H

Thanks for your comments, and the chemistry explanations, Phil. It's been a long time for me since freshman chemistry. Interesting point about the high phosphorus levels in the Amazonia, and it does speak as to why there is limited water column supplementation in ADA systems.

One question - in your comments, you mention that the nutrients in the ADA substrates deplete after about one year, yet you comment on an increased stability of these types of set ups over EI/PPS (or whatever) types of set ups. Did I miss something? If you have depletion after a year or so, does one then switch to the water column fert routines in order to continue using the same substrate? Or are you saying it is necessary to change out your substrate every year or so with ADA systems? For me, that would be a deal breaker. First, I can't afford it, secondly, it's a lot of work. I can't argue with their results, they're fantastic, but (my analogy here )not everyone can afford to drive a BMW.

If I understood correctly, the build up of mulm in the substrate then would be a good thing over the long term, as long as one doesn't generate anaerobic zones. Several years ago, I was doing a massive replant in a long established 10 gal tank. I pulled up a huge, thick stand of C. wendtii and apparently it was sitting over an anaerobic spot. The smell of H2S which came out was potent, and surprising, considering it was only a 10 gal tank. The roots over that area were black, and probably the whole stand would have died in the near future, had I not pulled it up when I did. MTS to the rescue?

I agree with your comments about the differences between a tank with healthy plants being much more able to 'handle the bumps', so to speak. I am a full believer in 'healthy plants, make for a healthy tank and fish'. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Dielectric

exactly! i think soil substrates have basically the same effect, and are nearly free.

joshvito

I'm searching for this publication, can you let me know if it is available online? thx

These are some interesting numbers you have posted, and I am just trying to get HANDLE on them.
v = tank volume
filter gph = v * 9.2
filter volume = .1 * v

This means that my 250gph, 6L canister filter, rated for up to 150 G tank, is grossly undersized for my 67G of water in my 75G tank!?! CRAZY...

Tex Guy

Niko,

OK, my head hurts. For a simple guy like me maybe we can put this in terms that even I can understand. So my 65gal tank uses an Eheim 2217, which is rated at 220 gph. Here is an illustration from their web site about the proper charging of the filter with media:


As you can see, it is quite densely packed. Would you suggest that completely filling the canister with only bio balls would dramatically increase flow and efficiency of the biological filtration? Or perhaps bio balls with a single sponge type mat on top that gets rinsed occasionally?

Tex Guy

BTW... I was very impressed with your San Marcos photo set. That is from a different trip than the one we took. I think I can speak for Tex Gal that we are ready to go again.

Another BTW... I have tried several times to sprout rice to plant in a tank to no avail. Anybody been successful at that?