# Amanos dosing regimen



## Ian Holdich (19 Aug 2011)

Whilst reading Amanos complete works the other night, it struck me that he hardly doses anything. Maybe a bit of K and some trace. Only on a few tanks does he appear to dose special lights, which is the NKP. Do you think this is his true dosing regimen?


----------



## Tom (19 Aug 2011)

Yeah, he doses pretty lean. With the amount of N and P in Amazonia, he would probably only dose Lights in extreme tanks, or tanks with Malaya or Africana. I used his regime first time round with Malaya, Brighty K, Step 1 and Spec Lights and it worked well. I didn't get on so well with Amazonia, K and Step1 only though, but that's probably my own fault.


----------



## Ian Holdich (19 Aug 2011)

Most of the time he's just using power-sand though. The only reason i had a close look was because i'm using special lights at the moment (ps this doesn't make me a fanboy!lol), and i wanted to see what tanks he used it on and there was about 3 or 4 tanks. He claims to be doing once a week water changes as well, so the N can't be coming from the new water. 


ps I must admit, the special lights seems to be doing the job.


----------



## viktorlantos (20 Aug 2011)

Yup that's the true dosing.

I think i did not used the lights and shade ferts before. But used all others.
Worked perfectly to me in many tank including the HC beast with Amazonia and PS
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktorlant ... hotostream

And an interesting thing about the upper scape. We kept this tank with ADA ferts for 6 months. None of the stones had any algae on it. Never had to brush etc as this looked super clean. We switched to our mixed EI ferts. Plants did well as with the ADA ferts too, but all our stones turned green super quickly. Since then we had to brush it every week. Same light, same maintenance, same water (RO), same pollution by fishes, food. How's that sound?


----------



## GillesF (20 Aug 2011)

AquaSoils are generally rich in fertilizers because they absorb the fertilizers dosed in the water column. Moreover, it has been proven by someone on BarrReport (maybe Tom Barr himself, I forgot) that the reflectors used for his lamps are quite bad, so basically he uses much less light than we think.


----------



## Ian Holdich (20 Aug 2011)

yes, i think it was Tom, that proclaimed that Amano doesn't use as higher light as once thought (i'm sure he'll come along and tell us). However, yes his light may be lower than we think, but he still doses C02 which in turn, will put more demand on the plants, and the need for the N and P...

Viktor, what lighting and C02 was you using over the scape in the pic? and were you dosing any N and P at all?


----------



## viktorlantos (20 Aug 2011)

ianho said:
			
		

> yes, i think it was Tom, that proclaimed that Amano doesn't use as higher light as once thought (i'm sure he'll come along and tell us). However, yes his light may be lower than we think, but he still doses C02 which in turn, will put more demand on the plants, and the need for the N and P...
> 
> Viktor, what lighting and C02 was you using over the scape in the pic? and were you dosing any N and P at all?



We do have 6x54Watt above that Iwagumi. But using 4x54W mainly. Still pretty decent with ATI lights.
We're dosing there only Brighty K and Step 2. At trimming Green Gain.
Adding Easy Carbo daily too. 10ml/day. CO2 injected with AM1000 reactor.

Their fert regine works excellent with low and high light too. Does not matter you use Solar or T5 with super reflectors.


----------



## nayr88 (20 Aug 2011)

Good info, I done the Ada thing and had great success with it, but I always thought wouldn't cause that much agg to step right onto step 2? What's the difference between the 2?


----------



## Ian Holdich (20 Aug 2011)

so, why the no N and P??


----------



## nayr88 (20 Aug 2011)

I think the idea is that aqua soil is loaded with n and p


----------



## Ian Holdich (20 Aug 2011)

as said though, a lot of the time he's just using powersand (that's a different argument!lol) and sea gravel??, sea gravel surly can't be packed with N and P can it?


----------



## nayr88 (20 Aug 2011)

Good point, I did notice the mention of sea gravel and thought it was a bit odd.


----------



## Ian Holdich (24 Aug 2011)

anyone have anything else to add on the lack of N and P in amanos tanks?


----------



## ceg4048 (24 Aug 2011)

Well, I mean, are people mostly interested in drawing conclusions based on real data or are they mostly interested in supporting an attractive cache based on legend?

All dosing schema have to be compared within the proper context, and the relative advantages of each scheme must be assessed. Reality cannot be based on "I heard this" or "I think someone said that". Lets get real facts and then perform an analysis based on these facts. Then lets look at all factors associated with the tank in order to assess absolute performance  - and to assess value based on performance.

As had been pointed out by several posters, Amazonia Aquasoil and Powersand (for a much lesser duration) are packed with NPK + traces, and the concentrations within the sediment are up to 100X EI concentration levels. The long term stability of these concentration levels are excellent. That's what makes Amazona a champion sediment, because it does via substrate feeding what water column dosers do with powders and liquids. As far as I'm concerned, it is THE substrate by which all other substrates are judged. As a result, it hardly matters whether you later add Special "X", or Special "Y" or Brighty This or Brighty That. The main horsepower for growth performance is resident in this soil. Essentially you are just topping up the nutrient levels with the liquids. 

I don't understand why people have so much difficulty with this concept. _Who cares_ if "Lights" only delivers less than 3ppm per week of PO4 - when there's about 100 ppm PO4  in the sediment? Therefore, someone dosing with these liquids can hardly be said to be dosing "lean" if using Amazonia and/or Powersand. Besides, are there fish in the tank? Do they get fed? Do people not consider that fish poop and uneaten food are packed with nutrients and that they work their way down into the sediment to accumulate? This supports and maintains the nutrient store. If the tank does not have Amazonia, then nutrients have to come from somewhere other than the fish, unless the tank is a non-CO2 or very low CO2 enriched. Growth rate demands MUST be met by an appropriate nutrient loading. This fact is irrefutable.

As long as we have a nutrient store somewhere in the tank, whether that be in the water column or in the sediment then the plants will be fed. The question is this: Do you want to pay a unit price of over £500 per liter for the same stuff you can get at the nursery? EI Freedom Fighters  say "No!" to high prices. EI fan boys do not have a showcase with awesome scapes, or star power with celebrities carrying tremendous marketing appeal - HOWEVER, we will compare the health of our plants and tanks against ANY. Then we will compare our monetary expenditures in order to determine value per dollar.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether you use ADA, TPN, Dry Powders, Tobi's Spezial Pumped Up Domination Mix, Seachem, whatever - just as long as you use enough of it to satisfy the plants needs for your particular CO2 and lighting level, because these are all exactly the same stuff. You just have to decide how much money you want to spend.

Cheers,


----------



## Ian Holdich (24 Aug 2011)

cheers Clive...I did mention that the substrates weren't Amazonia. They were power sand and caribbean sand, and i was under the impression that power sand didn't actually contain anything special. To quote Francis Xavier (ADA)



> Powersand isn't a substrate to grow plants per se like Amazonia. It's large and porous - the primary purpose of it is to serve as a great biological filter by offering more surface area for it to grow in and as a method to keep the substrate oxygenated (since most soils like amazonia get compacted over time and can lead to oxygen being cut off and anaerobic bacteria growing (which is really bad!)), it also serves as an excellent substrate level for roots to get nice and rooted. Ideally you'd place a thin layer over the entirety of the tank.



^^i know all sands do the last bit, but that's another discussion.

I think we all also know that fish waste and food produce N and P, but surely not in the proportions needed in Amanos tanks. This is why i started this discussion.



> Well, I mean, are people mostly interested in drawing conclusions based on real data or are they mostly interested in supporting an attractive cache based on legend?



I can only go on what i have read in a book. There no reason or need for the book to lie as Amano produces both products, trace and NKP.


----------



## ceg4048 (26 Aug 2011)

Hi mate, 
              Well you see, the marketing departments of companies lie all the time. Just have a look at any advertisement on the tele or in magazines. How about that latest shampoo & conditioner? Will it make your hair really look like that of a supermodel, or did they just hire a supermodel and spend thousands of dollars at a famous hair designer and then shoot the scene of that lovely flowing hair with top notch photography? Is that top notch toothpaste brand really any better for your teeth than the Tesco brand, or does it simply come in a prettier, multicolored, sparkling tube?

The world is built on a foundation of lies. So much so that people are no longer able to discern fact from fiction, and this confusion is a perfect breeding ground for selling product. Since the consumers are presumed imbeciles I can lay any marketing idea out there and because it's on a fancy label paraded down the runway by a Top Model then it must be true.

Look at this excerpt of a clever product description from Profitos Trace mix fertilizer:


> The supply of nutrients in ProFito is so optimal, that plants will grow fast and strong. Thus unwanted compounds in the aquarium, like certain nitrogen and phosphate compounds, will be taken up by plants quicker. Nitrate, phosphate and ammonium are removed faster out of the aquarium water by the plants. This way the water quality is well supported by the usage of ProFito. Moreover it improves and maintains a better biological balance in the aquarium.
> 
> Of course ProFito does not contain nitrate or phosphate...


So NO3/PO4 are described as "unwanted", and their "removal" from the water column is advertised as some sort of fringe benefit of using this product. The Ad implies that it's the trace elements alone that are responsible for growth performance. I mean, we know this to be total rubbish. We know that it is NPK that are responsible for growth performance.

OK, so in the case where the substrate was not Amazonia, is there any indication of what specifically the dosing program was? Do we actually have a factual account of whether the tank was, for example dosed with extra pumps of "Lights"? Do we know what the CO2 injection level was? How about the content of the water, was it tap or RO? How long did it take to produce the resutls that are being advertised. If you look at some of the brilliant low tech tanks by Dusko it's easy to see that a lean dosing program can produce exxcellent result - but not at the speed of a high tech tank. It's simply not possible.

Barr independently tested Powersand, which is just Pumice. his results show that Powersand is packed with nutrients, but that due to the high porosity, the nutrient load dissipates within a matter of weeks. Other than the nutrient boost there is no demonstrable evidence that Pumice is any better of a biological filter substrate than any other porous clay. If that was the purpose then you should be able to use activated carbon or sintered glass media as a substrate with superior results, because these materials have orders of magnitude more surface area than pumice.

Additionally, the method of soil oxidation is a direct function of the plants. How do we assume that oxygen gets to the substrate? Because of pumice? How about the fact that plants produce oxygen in the leaves and that they send oxygen to the roots, which then disperses the oxygen into the substrate thereby feeding the aerobic bacteria. I don't use pumice and I've never had compacted sediment. Any clay sediment will be fine.

If you think that the explanation given is true - or even if you think it's just marketing, then the best way to be sure is to actually go and test this yourself. It's easy to do. You don't need a large exotic scape, a couple of small nanos will do. Setup the tanks with everything identical except that in one tank use the suggested Powersand. In a third tank, use some other material such as activated carbon, Zeolite or sintered media in place of the Powersand. Check the results over time and see what the differences are.

You know, in the past, for years, people were told about the benefits of undergravel heating cables, how it was vital for flow in the substrate to avoid compaction and anaerobic areas. When challenged, it was discovered that there was zero benefit to heating cables. I also remember how Latterite clay was supposed to be THE substrate for plants because of it's Iron content and how plants needed soft water, how special "plant bulbs" were necessary for optimum growth. In the end, we discovered that these were all marketing ploys. Veterans of the psychic wars are immune to modern day marketing hype. The only defense we have against the barrage of marketing hype is our knowledge of the truth and our experience. We had to learn it the hard way.

Again, we're not saying that any of this stuff is necessarily bad, just that they are not as important as other things. So the idea is to figure out what things are important and to concentrate on those while ignoring the things that don't make much of a difference. So if you can afford Zimbabwean Sand and Powersand, then sure, go for it. They won't hurt, but you had better be keenly aware of the nutrient requirements of your tank within the context of your lighting, flow and CO2. Then make the adjustments from there.

Also, have a look at JamesC's UG - Utricularia graminifolia grown with nothing but clay substrate and which many others using mega price substrate often have difficulties...

Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain (26 Aug 2011)

ianho said:
			
		

> anyone have anything else to add on the lack of N and P in amanos tanks?



ADA's tap water has 0.5ppm PO4.........and with frequent large water changes..............
ADA AS also is loaded with N and P, N runs out after maybe a year or so...........
Light is relatively low compared to what the W/gal ranges may suggest.

So this seems to all fit fairly well to me.
As long as there is enough ferts SOMEWHERE, it makes sense.

MTS, worm castings etc, can achieve similar results, but why brag or something over not adding N or P to the water when it's clear that we gain nothing from it? A method does not define an aquascape, many have tried and failed to play that card.

If you wish to slow the growth, then it makes sense to use light, not ferts to do so. It is far more stable and easier to adjust.


----------



## plantbrain (26 Aug 2011)

Perhaps in the past, but the UK seems not to use much rich sediments. I would strongly encourage folks to use them in addition to good water column dosing. This might be a function of the added cost, but combining both sediments and the water column affords the best management no matter if you use non CO2 set ups of very high light CO2 enriched methods.

Then the ferts are not an issue and you rarely worry about them. Then light and CO2,once that's mastered, then it's all aquscaping and gardening. Which was most of you folk's goal to begin with.... no?


----------



## plantbrain (26 Aug 2011)

viktorlantos said:
			
		

> ianho said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's 2x the light I use, I guess I know why I do not get any algae on my rocks or wood and you do
I do not use Glut either.........that alone can keep things clean, ADA does not use glut. This suggest that too much light and not enough CO2, rather than ferts was the issue.

I can add gobs of ferts to any of my tanks without any algae response of any kind......till I run them too lean, but this takes serious no dosing and about 1-2 week's time before plants respond. The soil provides most everything, and the high fish loading provides enough N. I still add 15 ppm 3x week, but I could add less, since I know there's no risk, doing so does not matter.

So I have less draw from the soil and far more plant biomass, and uptake from the water as well. If I forget to dose? the sediment is the back up as well as the fish waste.

I cannot lose this way nor get algae.














Fish breed like flies, Fire shrimp breed like flies, Cards are larger than anyone's I've seen......I've got a massive pack of 300 darting about........

This is a non nutrocentric view, you must consider plant physiology as the entire plant and all of it's needs, not merely the nutrients like N and P. Light and CO2 must be measured and considered as they are far more responsive to growth and algae. Frankly, nutrient worries are for folks that are stuck in the past myths of planted aquariums of yesteryear.

I also extend this approach holistically to the fish as well, their culture and health are given the same priority as the plants and the scape. This is a different philosophy and one I am not marketing as a business or a brand. But then again, I do not eat Whale meat


----------



## plantbrain (26 Aug 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> All dosing schema have to be compared within the proper context, and the relative advantages of each scheme must be assessed. Reality cannot be based on "I heard this" or "I think someone said that". Lets get real facts and then perform an analysis based on these facts. Then lets look at all factors associated with the tank in order to assess absolute performance  - and to assess value based on performance.
> EI Freedom Fighters  say "No!" to high prices. EI fan boys do not have a showcase with awesome scapes, or star power with celebrities carrying tremendous marketing appeal - HOWEVER, we will compare the health of our plants and tanks against ANY. Then we will compare our monetary expenditures in order to determine value per dollar.
> 
> At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether you use ADA, TPN, Dry Powders, Tobi's Spezial Pumped Up Domination Mix, Seachem, whatever - just as long as you use enough of it to satisfy the plants needs for your particular CO2 and lighting level, because these are all exactly the same stuff. You just have to decide how much money you want to spend.
> ...



Well, the point of the facts are no method defines the aquascape. Algae/growth are factors.........and can detract from the aquascape...........but art is not beholden to any one method, any method can be forced and with enough effort, made to work for a particular aquascape. The real questions are is there Risk? Correlative vs cause? What is the bets management for a given goal/s?  I am not an EI fan boy..........I freely suggest non CO2 methods, or hybrid methods. If some wishes to explore lower nutrients...........I'm fine with it, but as logn as they under stand the best management approaches. Some of us simply have to try things ourselves to be convinced of the results, I gladly welcome doing this. Such honest approaches and repeating the test often builds support for such things like knowing "excess" has no impact if the light and CO2 are well managed.

I would prefer folks spend more time on light and CO2 measure and tweaking, use both sediment and water column sources, use less light in general.............then focus on their original goal. I'm not here to hoke a brand or sell something. Well, I do sell wood.......but that's part of the end goal of finding good high grade aquascaping materials.

Still being too much one way or the other is generally not good. While I know Excess does not algae.or issues, larding it on also I know does little good as well


----------



## viktorlantos (26 Aug 2011)

plantbrain said:
			
		

> That's 2x the light I use, I guess I know why I do not get any algae on my rocks or wood and you do
> I do not use Glut either.........that alone can keep things clean, ADA does not use glut. This suggest that too much light and not enough CO2, rather than ferts was the issue.



You're right more light gets more algae. We still can keep the tank algae clean with many stuff including a tons of amano shrimps etc. So we're choosing this way sometimes to see some plant in much better shape. And we're succcessfull in that of course.  

But at some point i recognized that the same tank with same light, same filtration, same CO2 injection get's algae on the decor with EI. So i can fault the light because of that, of course still this light is very far from the ones you see in the nature. So the nutrients gets more than it's needed in my reading with this much of light. I have dosed ADA ferts (which we all know is weaker contain less stuff then our EI mixes), but i did not get algae on decor.

I know you say "do use less light", but that HC carpet will not be the same with low light for sure.
Stauro in your tank not require high light so you're right not using more there. 

I am not saying EI is bad or cause algae. EI gives us very healthy plants of course (we're using that in many of our tanks). This works wonderful in many conditions. It is just an experiment that same system cause different things with more nutrients and probably less nutrient sucker plants. Luckily we're using different kinds so we can experiment this in person.

I have to add that we're using the full PS, Amazonia stuff for soil.

Before i got shot because of the ADA promo from the science guys  I have to add that it's not the brand, it is the experiment of the weaker fert vs the rich fert in the same system with a specific plant. Probably HC is not a nutrient sucker and that's all the explanation (need more CO2 than nutrients for this plant). But still an interesting stuff that you can see algae on rocks with one and no algae with the other.


----------



## Ian Holdich (26 Aug 2011)

cheers again Clive, it's worth having a look at the book if you haven't already got it.



> OK, so in the case where the substrate was not Amazonia, is there any indication of what specifically the dosing program was? Do we actually have a factual account of whether the tank was, for example dosed with extra pumps of "Lights"? Do we know what the CO2 injection level was? How about the content of the water, was it tap or RO?



heres just an example (and theres many many throughout the book)

page 26
60 ltr
Lighting - 27w x 3 units, on for 12 hours
substrate - sea gravel and powersand
c02 - 1bps
ferts  - *brightly step 2*
water change - a third a week
water quality - RO, Ph 6.8, TH 20mg/l
plants - riccia, mayaca fluviatilis, cambomba, microsorum, diplis dandra, Rotala macandra, rotala wallichii, limnophila aquatica

there are loads of scapes with just these additives, and i get what you are saying about marketing blurb and i know people get taken in by it...you only have to look at the marketing team Apple have, they rule! If it wasn't for them Apple would most certainly have gone under.

I was just always led to believe that if you dosed C02, to get the best out of you tank, the supply of N and P would have to be there. If you weren't so savvy, and just bought Amanos book, and did the things Amano did/does, you surely would end up with a disaster in a tank.

Ian


----------



## Garuf (26 Aug 2011)

Is it worth considering that these compendiums of tanks are from before he knew any better or is this on modern tanks too, also remember amano's ocd maintainance team only carry out what he would do himself on a tank, I bet these early tanks had lower light than we'd imagine and any algae was ushered out the way prior to the final shots.


----------



## Ian Holdich (26 Aug 2011)

it is in the older tanks and the newer tanks. Still, they look brilliant looking tanks.


----------



## George Farmer (26 Aug 2011)

What's very interesting for me is how soft the water is. 20mg/l Total Hardness is incredibly soft.

Purely anecdotally I have experienced better plant growth since diluting my hard tap water with RO.  Pearling is considerably higher and I'm dosing the same nutrients and CO2 as before.  Of course, I have no proof and offer myself to be heckled to pieces by Clive and Tom...


----------



## Ian Holdich (26 Aug 2011)

I saw Mark last week and we got talking about RO water and how planted tanks tend to look better in RO, i have now actually started using RO, i started in the week, just changing 25% at a time, i hope to end up with it all RO. In Lincoln we have really hard water, it run direct off of Limestone, i expect yours will be hard as nails as well George. Obviously i'm yet to see a difference, but hope to do so. Although i am also noticing more pearling after 100ltr change. It did cloud when i first added it though!


----------



## viktorlantos (26 Aug 2011)

George Farmer said:
			
		

> What's very interesting for me is how soft the water is. 20mg/l Total Hardness is incredibly soft.
> 
> Purely anecdotally I have experienced better plant growth since diluting my hard tap water with RO.  Pearling is considerably higher and I'm dosing the same nutrients and CO2 as before.  Of course, I have no proof and offer myself to be heckled to pieces by Clive and Tom...



We do use pure RO on all of our display tank with great success. http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktorlant ... hotostream
So even the softest water could work without any issue. No large pH swings with active soils and CO2 injection. Of course in some tanks the hardness goes up because of the decors (Seiryu etc), but we do not have problems on others too. We keep and breed CRS easily in these tanks and even apistos are breeding. So this should not be bad 
I had good success with hard water too, but there's a visible advantage of the soft water for sure.


----------



## Tom (26 Aug 2011)

George Farmer said:
			
		

> What's very interesting for me is how soft the water is. 20mg/l Total Hardness is incredibly soft.
> 
> Purely anecdotally I have experienced better plant growth since diluting my hard tap water with RO.  Pearling is considerably higher and I'm dosing the same nutrients and CO2 as before.  Of course, I have no proof and offer myself to be heckled to pieces by Clive and Tom...



I know when I used 100% rainwater (funnily enough, for all successful tanks to date!!) I used a fraction of the CO2 I use in our tapwater. I couldn't go that low now. I was dosing very lean too (ADA with Malaya, not Amazonia), maybe the rainwater had lots of goodies in - I don't know.


----------



## Ian Holdich (26 Aug 2011)

it just doesn't have the crap our water companies put in our water. Again you here the old saying about doing water changes at the weekend because the water boards tend to flush the systems with all kinds of rubbish. I mean sometimes i can have bath and it smells like a swimming pool, it's that bad.


----------



## flyingfish (26 Aug 2011)

What is the ph of rain water? might consider using it in my crs nano im setting up. How do you collect it and stop parasites getting into it like you find in water butts.


----------



## Tom (26 Aug 2011)

Mine was bang on pH 6. I just got it from a water butt though.


----------



## flyingfish (26 Aug 2011)

What is this like in shrimp tanks, and should you only use this or as an extra?


----------



## Tom (26 Aug 2011)

I lost count of how many Cherries I had in those tanks. I didn't buffer it at all. All I added were ADA ferts.


----------



## flyingfish (26 Aug 2011)

during your water changes was it just rain water you used? and how did you stop larva from living in your water and other nasty's? Considering it, just want to make sure!


----------

