Wheeler

The VAST majority of the demographic from the ADA contest is Asian, and certainly not of this forum. Why would you bring up ADA? For that matter, 1 USA applicant placed in the AGA contest in any category in any category except paludarium.

This is about growing plants, not aquascaping as you pointed out. I'm trying to keep this on topic. People can listen to me or not. Bottom line is I don't care except to put a wrinkle in the status quo. I'll carry on regardless.

MY point is that EI is NOT a good place to start and certainly NOT the gold standard. No one said anything about equipment except me when I said:
"The pics of average folks' tanks on forums from other countries FAR surpass ours, and, IMO, the main reason is not technology, or substrates, or any of that garbage"

And my point was that they don't feel like they *need* 30 parts CO2 in order not to have algae, or to grow plants best, etc...

Other forums? AQ and MAC are my main sources. Again, I don't know what you mean about demographics...

Hey, I played baseball... I'm still pretty good at it at this late date. Wanna know, why? Yeah, maybe you don't want to advance the hobby with your questions, but your motivation isn't "fun". I wouldn't call water changes and pruning "fun", nor testing, or leveling gravel, explaining to the significant other where the money went, driving 80 miles to the LFS, etc. We do it because it's stimulating for our brain and easy on our eyes, beautiful for our living room, etc... At least I do. If I'm alone then I'm guilty of being a blowhard. Still... Chasing a ball is "fun". Looking at an aquarium isn't really. There are 1000 other adjectives, but not "fun".

I find Amano's measurements to be pretty consistent. To get back on topic, HAHA... I wonder what *your* sources are because I can't find anywhere that Amano says he has .1mg/l CO2. What is your source? Are you suggesting that Amano's plants don't get enough Carbon?

Further, his water quality certainly doesn't translate to the rest of Japan, nor the world.

I'm really curious what you mean about the ADA contest demographic.

Salt

You're so right... the topic definitely warrants discussion. Wheeler is making good points, and he is being courteous about it as well. I see no "aggression" or "combative" attitudes in his posts. Read what he said above again carefully. He's right. And he's trying to discuss it. Why is he being attacked?

erijnal

Check some TFH magazines that came out during the summer. Would you say that having less than 1 ppm of NO3 is "normal"? If you don't, then I guess you've been "tainted" by EI because that's what Amano lists as his NO3 concentration. Want to know what his PO4 concentration is? It's listed as 0 mg/L. Having 0.1 ppm of CO2 along with these numbers doesn't sound very far-fetched to me.

I brought up that point because of the relationship between pH and kH, something that's relevant to the initial post. Also, some people in the US have had problems with CRS-related products because of the difference in general water parameters, mainly kH if I remember correctly. If CRS-related products are being successfully marketed in Japan (see some posts from users who visited some Japanese LFSs), then I think it's safe to say that Japan as a whole probably has soft water, with exceptions of course.

Sorry, but weren't you the one that brought up the AGA contest in the first place? I'm assuming you first brought that up as an indication of the planted tank world in the USA. If that was the case, and it certainly does seem to be, that explains why I brought up the ADA contest. In any case, you answered your own question in the first sentence of your last post lol..


So if this is about growing plants, then why would you mention the AGA contest, which largely judges the layout of the tank? Sure, plant growth is important in judging, but it's pretty much a given that almost every tank will have healthy plants. For that reason, I brought up aquascaping, since you seemed to be going in that direction. This thread was initially about Amano's advice on CO2 levels. You didn't comment on whether or not you agreed with the advice in your posts. All you did was say how great and untouchable Amano was.

I really hate to do this to you, but I'm going to have to post a definition of the word "fun".

fun (fŭn)
n.

1. A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure.

Gee! That sounds exactly like what you just described!


And yet, many people seem to do very well with 30 ppm of CO2. I don't think people are going around saying it's an absolute necessity, and if they are, they're going on their own experiences, and depending on how they convey that advice, it's perfectly acceptable.

If the beginner has access to the best resources possible, he's going to have great success and will likely go further in the hobby. In the same light, many people have great success with the EI method of fertilization, and if they're willing to, will be more likely to experiment and see if they can create their own methods. Of course it's not the gold standard, but so far as I know, EI is easy to do (very important), and gives results (also important). The ADA method of fertilizing is just as easy, if not easier, in fact. I think the directions tell you to do a certain number of "squirts". Sounds simple to me. Why start off the hobby in a complicated fashion? Do you teach someone how tag a runner before they know how to catch a ball?


Anyway, I hope you don't mind bro, but I'm not going to reply to anything else you might have to say in this thread.

Laith

Take a deep breath everyone... please!

I never really understand why people get so worked up about one method of growing aquatic plants over another method.

Admit it folks: people have success using various different methods. Some people do great with the ADA "system", others using PPS, others EI, others using the Dennerle "system", others even without a specific method, just using their eyes and "instinct" to judge their dosing needs.

There are way too many variables that differ from tank to tank to be able to say that because one method worked (or didn't work) "for me" that means that this is the only viable method (or in the opposite case, that the method is no good)!

People will naturally defend what worked for them... this doesn't mean that any other method is wrong. Whether it's a method promoted by a blowhard or not .

Ok, people, another deep breath...

dennis

What was this dicussion about again? Oh yeah...


Focusing on this question and on this alone- Amano seems to base his articles and recommendations on his experience. This experience is largely now based on the ADA system of substrates and fertilizers. This comes into play in a couple of ways.

First, we need to consider the CO2/kH/pH relationship. When kH is very low, ie ~1degree or less, the addition of CO2 can translate into a large shift in pH. This is one of the reasons why pH controllers are not used with tanks using Aqua Soil. Aqua Soil has the effect of removing a lot of the kH buffer from the water, especially in newer setups. The buffering effect of the carbonates (measured in kH) dictates the start end end pH given a certain CO2 concentration in the water. It is pretty complicated chemistry and I won't try to explain it here, but basically adding CO2 to low kH water means low pH. Low pH can be fine in a planted aquarium but only within reason. Crank the CO into an Aquasoil tank and you could see pH values in the low to mid 5's. That is a bit acid and dangerous to play with as far as fish and plants are concerned.

In general, because of many factors involved with AquaSoil and ADA fertilized setups, adding 30mg/l would give a super low pH, which is bad. In addition, because of the ways in which nutrients are available based on pH (among other things) a pH in the low to mid 6's is generally ideal for the plants and fish.

So, the first part of Amano's comment is obvious. If the pH raises during the photoperiod, the plants are consuming the CO2 faster then you are injecting it so you need to increase your rate of CO2 injection. If the pH has a small shift then you will be in what ADA consideres "optimal pH" and if your adding a lot of CO2, the pH will be very low.

Now, obviously this method works for these particular setups. There is no question about that. The crux to this though is that this technique may not work on other types of setups, say with Eco-Complete substrates that actually add buffers to the water.

The biggest thing to remember, IMO, is that we spend a lot of time trying to force part of a system to work in our particular setup. Amano says to only add a little CO2 and since it works for him why does it not work for me. Well, are you using the system? (rhetorical you here, no one in particular). I completely agree that EI is not the be-all end-all for how to grow plants, Neither is ADA, Dupla, Seachem, PPS, etc. If you want an easy, no though-no hassle way to grow plants that removes all the scary science, then go for a full ADA system; at least in regards to the substrate and fertilizers. This system seems to have the most room for error and the system is pretty user friendly.

EI and PPS are actually good methods also. Both have their pluses and minuses, their parts I agree with and part I modify for my own use. They are also more similar than many realize. I also know that neither developer of each respective system is very good at conveying the subtle parts or benefits of each. The math behind both is almost genius but it is up to the user to understand and apply it to their particular situation.

For me, the science is fun and I can even enjoy a water change. I like testing and playing with nutrients. I realize I got way off topic here and I apologize. I guess my response to the original poster is that Amano's advice is suitable if you consider the situation behind the advice. Super soft water, Aqua Soil, ADA ferts and lots of patience and cleanliness is the ADA way and his advice works beautifully for that. One system or method or combination if methods do not give the ultimate answers to growing plants. The ultimate answers is to give the plants the nutrients they require for the particular setup and be neat and clean.

jeff5614

Dennis' post just leads me to ask something I've been wondering about lately. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong and I'm not bashing anyone's methods, just curious. Amano's tank parameters are < 1ppm NO3 and PO4 and he says sufficient NO3 and PO4 are generated in a planted tank. The ADA ferts seem to be geared towards adding K and traces back which, in his view, are depleted in a planted tank. His lighting also seems to be a bit over 2 wpg on his tanks. So I guess what I'm wondering is #1- is EI geared toward higher light setups, #2- are NO3 levels of 10-20 ppm necessary, # 3 - what role if any does KH play in any of this?

I've been using EI very successfully for the last year but after reading some posts regarding lower NO3 levels and noticing Amano's levels it has me wondering. We have very soft water, KH and GH are both <1 out of the tap. I plan on beginning a gradual decrease in the amount of NO3 and PO4 I'm dosing while continuing with K, Mg, Ca and traces at current levels and see where it goes.

hoppycalif

You can grow plants using several methods, including the EI fertilizing method. EI is meant for those using 2 watts per gallon and more, lots of CO2, weekly water changes, and who want vigorous plant growth. If you want something else, you can find methods that are more compatible with that. Using the EI method means keeping more than enough fertilizers in the water at all times, so none will ever be short, but using a weekly big water change to get rid of any excess that builds up. Other methods may not require such big water changes, but big water changes generally are beneficial for both plants and fish anyway.

Amano uses his method extremely successfully. If I were wanting to try his method I would have to buy all of the ingredients he uses, and follow his directions on how to use them. Then, assuming he hasn't left out something in describing how he is so successful, I might be able to be equally successful. I can use EI with far less expense, with extreme simplicity, and get results that please me, which is my goal. Others who have different goals will follow different paths.

turtlehead

Ok, here let me break this down.... I have used both methods and I am currently using the ADA method.

EI:
When I first started planted tanks, I used this method with all the Seachem products. The plants grew great, it was high tech setup. Everything was much more controlable, such as more N with out having to worry about also adding in too much P.

ADA:
After I got a job I switched over to ADA and followed their recommended doses to the finest detail with most of their fertilizers. It's working out great. It has worked great with a low tech and high tech setup. It's macros come packaged together so you can't control them separately, but there should be no need to since it should be the amount that your plants are needing anyway. AKA the ratios are set for you with ADA. You just need to add right number pushes each day. You can also combine EI method with this ADA method because tank conditions alway vary from tank to tank. It is recommended that I push step 2 twice a day, but due to my plants need I push three instead.

So you see, one does not have to follow ADA strictly, the user ends up deciding how much to dose the tank.

Edward

Agree, this is hard to understand. In my opinion the statement was simplified to fit the wide range of KH buffering in aquariums.

Personally, I would recommend using bubbles per minute as a linear regulator of plant growth for each aquarium. Plant growth will slow down to stall at no CO2 addition. With very high CO2 addition plants may accelerate growth beyond ability to grow properly and fish may become stressed. So it is up to the grower what the amount is going to be.

BryceM

The best advice I ever got was from an organic chemistry lab instructor:

"There are many right ways to do a thing. Pick one that works for you and use it."

All of this posturing and chest-pounding about one's particular fertilizing technique is pretty funny (and pointless) if you ask me.

With regards to the original intent of this thread, it is quite essential to understand the context of the statement. If one runs an airstone at night, it changes things. If one runs the CO2 full-time, that also changes things. If the CO2 comes on an hour before the lights, it different from a setup where it comes on with the lights. Obviously, Amano is describing a technique that works in the context of his setups.

The "best" CO2 level is also an empty idea. Best for what? The best CO2 level for the sake of simplicity is atmospheric. There are plenty of nice tanks that aren't CO2 injected. The "best" for algae control might be a little bit lower than toxic levels for the fish. The "best" for plant growth is probably "enough" so that something else is the limitting growth factor.

It all comes down to what your goal is. To win an ADA contest? To find a quiet, relaxing hobby? To make a better environment for your fish? To enhance the look of your house? To sell books, photographs, and a line of aquarium products?

It would be foolish to think identical techniques would be ideal for each of the above situations.