AS growth rate

[hani]

does AS have a much better growth rate than flourite black sand? i have no problem ordring any of them, but am concerned about the cloudenses effect that AS will do with WC? I see Tom using AS on his new setup, what do other people think about AS?
thanks

 

[Homer_Simpson]

does AS have a much better growth rate than flourite black sand? i have no problem ordring any of them, but am concerned about the cloudenses effect that AS will do with WC? I see Tom using AS on his new setup, what do other people think about AS?
thanks

I don't know about Fluorite Black sand vs ADA Aquasoil. In the past, I had set up a tank using regular fluorite and my understanding is that there is not a huge difference in composition between regular fluorite and fluorite sand other than grain size. Growth was not spectacular but so...so... and a little disappointing considering I got equivalent growth planting the same types of plants in Scultz Aquatic Soil, which was about $30 cheaper.

Don't get me wrong, fluorite is a decent substrate, but not in the same league as ADA Aquasoil. With all other things being equal, you will never get the type of growth from using fluorite that you will from ADA Aquasoil. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

With respect to cloudiness, I never saw more than a couple of days of cloudiness when I set up my ADA Aquasoil II tank. I believe that a lot of this probably had to do with the use of Seachem Purigen and polyester floss in the Aquaclear 150 HOB filter that I was using. I also did 50% water changes daily for the first week, 50% water changes twice a week the second week, and then 50% weekly water changes once a week thereafter. I believe that this helped counter the cloudiness issues. Also, I believe that using ADA Aquasoil II vs ADA Aquasoil original helped as ADA developed ADA Aquasoil II in response to cloudiness and water hardness issues caused by the original/regual Aquasoil.

To give you an idea, you can check out the progress of my 15 gallon high ADA Aquasoil II Experimental tank via the link below. Keep in mind that the plants that I started off with were in the most pathetic condition imaginable. I had pretty much written them off and was highly skeptical that planting them in Aquasoil would make any difference what so ever. The turnaround that the plants experienced after being planted in Aquasoil II, being given enough light and co2 and a dosing of EI, is nothing short of miraculous IMHO and IME.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...-15-gallon-high-aquasoil-ii-experimental.html

 

[ceg4048]

Hi,
It's not clear to me why you would attribute the growth rate to AS alone and not to EI + CO2. I can get amazing growth rates using inert sand + EI + CO2, so from that standpoint the performance of the AS would be overrated.

According to the most recent Barr Newsletter, AS performs about as well as lake sediment and not a well as the combination of garden variety potting soil+sand. In fact, the test results indicate that of the 6 substrates tested in the study, AS Amazonia came in 5th.

Enriched soils perform better than inert substrates, obviously, but a better test of AS or any substrate would be to grow the plants with minimal water column dosing as discussed in the Newsletter.

Cheers,

 

[Homer_Simpson]

Hi,
It's not clear to me why you would attribute the growth rate to AS alone and not to EI + CO2. I can get amazing growth rates using inert sand + EI + CO2, so from that standpoint the performance of the AS would be overrated.

According to the most recent Barr Newsletter, AS performs about as well as lake sediment and not a well as the combination of garden variety potting soil+sand. In fact, the test results indicate that of the 6 substrates tested in the study, AS Amazonia came in 5th.

Enriched soils perform better than inert substrates, obviously, but a better test of AS or any substrate would be to grow the plants with minimal water column dosing as discussed in the Newsletter.

Cheers,

First of all and with all due respect, I did not attribute growth rate to AS alone. Please reread by post carefully and you will see the reference to EI+c02 along with use of ADA Aquasoil.

The post was someone's question about how ADA compares to Fluorite. While i have not grown plants in the other sediments mentioned and don't doubt Tom Barr's findings, I have grown plants in fluorite with equivalent plants lights, c02, water column fertilization and the plants in ADA Aquasoil fared better, so I was merely relyng my experiences. Other peoples' experiences and mileage may vary and I don't purport to speak for other peoples' expereinces. Second, it is a well known fact as reported by other users of ADA Aquasoil that they have seen better growth with ADA Aquasoil vs other Substrates without the use of water column fertilizers(with all other things being equal - lighting and co2 levels) when they planted in ADA Aquasoil.

The person who posted asked a question. I answereed based on my experience. If you want to offer your own view fine, but I would appreciate you not reading into my posts what I did not say. This forum is allegedly set up for people to learn and share their collective experiences, so try and be mindful and respectful of that whether you agree or disagree. Thank you.

***In other words you appear to be communicating the message: save your money and use lake sediment or a combination of potting soil plus sand.*** I think you could have easily said this in a response without all the drama.

 

[Tom Barr]

While ADA As came in 5th, it was under a much more controlled set up, zero nutrients in the flow through water column.

The water was also harder.

In practice, the EI(or EI lean, does not matter really) + ADA As combo is nice and provides better growth attributes that most hobbyists like, and it's more consistent and less mess than lake mud.

Lake mud will have more and a wider range of nutrients, which is important in a controlled limited enviroment.

In our tanks, we can add K+, traces etc, PO4 etc, some comes from our dosing and some comes from fish etc.

Having nutrients in both locations, even in the sediment experiment, we'd expect to find higher/highest rates of growth where non limiting nutrients exist in both places.

While some plant species does well with pure water column, others might not.
Adding both locations seems wisest, then the plants have ample nutrients both locations and if you mess up the water column dosing here and there, it's not as critical.

I freely admit ADA AS +EI is better than EI and inert sand alone.
But both work well and can be done to a higher level.

But EI+ADA AS is easier to do and allows wider ranges of dosing routines to the water column. ADA also looks nice and works easier for most than mud.

Nothing wrong with mud though.
It might be more complete but needs labor to clean it and the amounts of N and P etc are not always known etc, ADA should be fairly standard and does not muck the tank up nor require a 2 part layer like soil.mud.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[hani]

i think i will go with AS and suffer with the WC, am thinking getting ocean clear filter an pump, does any one know if they will help with the initial cloudeness issues?
thanks

 

[Tom Barr]

I've not really had cloudiness issues except in one case.
Once the plants get estbalished, then it's not an issue either way.

Regards,
Tom Barr