It does not give any difference.
If you do not add anything to the water column, and nothing else tothe sediment, then yes, adding PS will improve growth .........it has nutrients............mostly NO3........which is very mobile and ends up in the water column.
If you add KNO3 instaed, now both tanks have
the same nutrients, then you get no differences. Most of the nutrients are locked in the ADA aqua soil, not the power sand(PS).
You have to be careful how you compare differences and make sure they are fair.
If you take 2 things and add more nutrients to one than the other, obviously you should get/would predict more growth.So knowing that, simply adding some KNO3 etc and not adding PS addresses this. KNO3 cost a lot less also and does not get pulled up and looks tacky later.
If you claim something works, then you need to compare them to other methods, and understand why it works. If you make unfair comparisons and do not add the missing nutrients, say in another form like KNO3 instead of PS, then you relly make a poor arguement.
I dose the water column with KNO3, GH booster, Traces, and KH2PO4.
This means there is less draw from the sediment and the PS does not last for long, the nutrient run out rather quick, unlike the ADA aqua soil.
I've had no issues growing any species at very fast rates using ADA AS, I would not want faster growth nor find any use for PS. I gain nothing by adding it. It does not last long as a source of nutrients and it's not cheap, nor is it aesthetically pleasing later on when you uproot or move any plants.
I've heard all sorts of claims about it, but this "other site" claims often do not test the same situation fairly with and without the powersnd.
Unless that is done and several times, and fairly, their argument for it is weak at best. I ran 5 tanks and one long term with PS.
It's no trouble for me to dose a little KNO3 in any ADA system set up because you have to dose Traces, K+ anyway
Adding one more thing, say KNO3 instead of brighty K, which is just K+, I do not have to do anything and save myself $, aesthetics and replanting issues, and get the same results if not better.
ADA AS does help, but many add both and think the other does something without testing it fairly.
I am critical of both, but one was proven to do a better/good job with aquatic plants, whereas the other really offered no benefits that anyone, even a newbie could not do themselves.
So it's not like I'm bias about the ADA sediments. I fully support use one one product and say there's little need if any for the other if you add ferts to the water column, which every one does anyway(just switch to KNO3 instead of Brighty K+).
Saves you 30$ for a little bottle of brighty K, and another 25-50$ for the PS, and no hassle later on with it coming up. So now we have saved on say a 60-90 cm tank, about 100$ over the first 3-4 months.
The results are the same.
Waste your money, no big deal to me, but don't claim it without havign compared it fairly on more than tank.
Plenty of folks use ADA AS and have great results.
Nutrients are not everythign either, CO2 and light play large roles and can change a lot. Unless they know they have good CO2 when comparing two tanks, nothing can be said.
That alone can cause 5X difference in growth rates or more.
It's no so simple.
You need to look at this closer and make sure, confirm what you see, run several tanks etc. Attacking me, as many wind bags often do, does no good if they lack any evidence themselves
Who has the better argument and results? Who has tested it fairly? Which has the most logic and has addressed the stickng points?
It's also difficult to argue when you have not seen the actualy debate and argument you speak about, so I can only assume based on what has been stated here.
Regards,
Tom Barr
