ADA why and how...

[ccLansman]

I keep reading about these ada tanks and just found some website were the journal the tank and list its specs here goes::

Aquarium:

Cube Garden Clear, W90 x D45 x H45 (cm)
Lighting:

Green Glow/903 (NA lamp 32W x 3) x 2 units,
turned on for 10 hours per day
Filtration:

Super Jet Filter ES-600 (Bio Rio, NA Carbon)
Substrate:

Aqua Soil, Power Sand Special L, Bacter 100, Clear Super,
Tourmaline BC, Penac W/for Aquarium, Penac P
CO2:

Pollen Glass Beetle Series 40 mm, 3 bubbles per second via CO2 Beetle Counter (using Tower/20)

Aeration:
14 hours after the light is turned off using Lily Pipe P-4
Additives:

Brighty K; Green Brighty STEP2; ECA
Water change:

1/3 twice a week
Water quality:

Temperature: 25ºC; pH: 7.0; TH: 50 mg/l; NO2:

 

[JDowns]

TH is Total Hardness which is a combination of GH and KH.

As for lighting look at Tom's thread about ADA lighting. There seems to be a common trend with ADA lighting being under driven. So determining the relative PAR to watts value may be skewed here.
Also looking at ADA's tanks it seems to be common that lighting is at least 12" off of the water surface. So you have under driven light raised high enough to get good spread of lighting across the whole tank. So a straight watt to watt comparision isn't that cut and dry.


AS is a nutrient rich sediment. So your only seeing the NO3 value from the water column, not the sediment. Also what value of N are the plants getting from fish waste and feeding.

Another thing to note is the water change cycle. I seem to be seeing alot of this with ADA and others with "show" quality aquariums. At least 50% weekly or less and bi-weekly. Others also before a final photo shoot will do larger water changes and more frequently with good pruning, fluffing, and care at least a month just prior to a competition type photo.

BPS really is a poor measuring component for evaluation from tank to tank. I can swap out a bubble counter on my regulator, one with a built in check valve and another without. Completely different size bubbles. Not all bubbles are the same.

So you have lower lighting levels then you would expect, consistent CO2 and probably more than adequate, and frequent water changes to export organics.

 

[ccLansman]

So if we match their routine should we get results along the same lines? If i did say 2x 50% weekly changes would i be better off? Also any comment on the gh/co2 question?

 

[Gerryd]

I am not smart enough to comment on your c02/gh issue but I think 2x a week water changes is better than 1 a week.

I can say that when I did my gravel swap, I did 2 or 3 50% wc a week for several weeks to avoid nh4 issues and fish stress. Growth was great, algae was non existant, and fish health was superb......

I think that 2 40% per week is better than 1 large 50-60%

 

[JDowns]

Its more about balance then matching a set routine. If you have too much light and not enough CO2, no amount of water changes is going to solve that issue. When a water change is done think what gets exported, its not just nutrients.

I thought I addressed the CO2 question already? So not sure what the specific question is, and not sure what your asking for about GH.

Light, CO2, circulation/filtration IMHO are going to be any persons greatest tipping point for success or failure, and determine a balanced system. From there nutrients are easy. This is a fundamental basis of EI. Nutrients are taken care of right off the bat. It gives the hobbyiest a solid starting position, a position that is not required to be set in stone. Some common sense has to be applied that any method can be tweaked. Now what does that leave you with to diagnose if you have issues. You can start to see why Tom harps on light and CO2 so much. If that tank can have success with lean water column nutrients and a fertile substrate, and another tank with the same substrate and heavier water column nutrients has success what does that leave you with. On the same coin, other side. Two tanks have the same substrate and lean water column nutrients. One succedes, the other fails. Where is the failure and success. Smart money would point to light, CO2, circulation/filtration, and more often than not, to much light and inadequate CO2. This should also show why people can have success and failures with any dosing routine, since any dosing regimen cannot determine each individuals light and CO2 levels. Now a nutrient rich substrate makes this easier, while a inert substrate will rely on heavier water column based nutrients and less room for errors.

As for routines. Tom and others have mentioned consistantly. Don't uproot large areas at once. Do any rescaping in stages. Large water change after any sizable uprooting. Also realize scapes that you are referrencing are well thought out and very often have little to no uprooting. So the beneficial bacteria in substrate are kept intact.