• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

The science behind ADA additives

Hi all,
Do not ever loose that thinking. The corporate overlords in the USA have tried and done a very good job beating it out of people here. This crap has entered agriculture also here in CA, often called Biodynamic farming, organic farming and sustainable methods I STRONGLY advocate like a holy man preaching redemption.........(But I have some facts, not a holy book), but they take this and add some spiritual Gia type baloney and ruin all the good factual business aspects and toss in the quackery.
and the entire GMO debate. Researchers are leary of all this stuff and how it's marketed and controlled as intellectual property(Monsanto, Cargill etc).

Unfortunately we are rapidly going the same way in the UK, where it is difficult to have any form of informed debate on science generally or agriculture & GM crops in particular. We still have some of the press that makes an effort, but the stuff printed in the popular press, and particularly the "Dail Mail", is just incredible.

I recommend "Bad Science" <http://www.badscience.net/about-dr-ben-goldacre/> to our students.

cheers Darrel
 
BigTom said:
Radik said:
And worst of all CO2 climate change propaganda.

I don't think opening that can of worms will be of any benefit to this thread (unless you were refering to the dificulty in having any sort of reasoned conversation about it, in which case ignore me :lol: )

I am ignoring you :)
 
Penac W:
SiO2 99.2% Al2O3 0.42% Fe2O3 0.021% TiO2 0.03%
K2O 0.11% NaO2 0.01% CaO 0.02% MgO 0.02%
-> more than 99% is silica powder

Penac P:
Calcium Carbonate (98.1% + 0.9% MgCO3 = 99%)
-> 98% calcite + 1% magnecium carbonate

ADA Powersand:
porous volcanic stones
-> pumice

ADA Powersand special:
porous volcanic stones + ADA clear super + ADA Bacter 100

ADA Clear Super
highly refined activated carbon powder mixed with several nutrients

ADA Bacter 100
Containing more than 100 different kinds of micro organisms in a dormant state.

ADA Tourmaline BC:
iron, aluminium, sodium, boron, lithium and magnesium

source from ADA catalogue and google

analysis for ADA soil, Step-1, Step-2, Step-3, green brighty, green shade, Brighty-K, you can get in Barr Newsletter (only for exclusive member in barrreport)
 
See those other 2 topics from DW and T. Barr above to get idea. If still nothing then read more than once. If that does not help then just watch TV.
 
Radik said:
See those other 2 topics from DW and T. Barr above to get idea. If still nothing then read more than once. If that does not help then just watch TV.

It's pretty obvious I'm following the general trend of the thread, being the person who started it. I wasn't sure which angle you were coming from in terms of "climate change propaganda", it's an accusation levied at both sides.
 
Selling cat for rabit is as old as humankind. It's up to the individual to make their mind about these products and stuff.

The climate change though... It's on top of the day among the scientific community. In fact, the scientific community is not discussing whether it's a fact or a myth anymore. No doubt there. They are now focusing on predicting its consequences. (http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/cr-home/)

cheers,

GM
 
Hi all,
The climate change though... In fact, the scientific community is not discussing whether it's a fact or a myth anymore. No doubt there. They are now focusing on predicting its consequences. (http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/cr-home/)
I'm not entering the climate debate, but this is what I mean, despite overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming, those with a vested interest in obscuring the facts are being ever more successful in confusing the public.
Public conviction about the threat of climate change has declined sharply after months of questions over the science and growing disillusionment with government action, a leading British poll has found. The proportion of adults who believe climate change is "definitely" a reality dropped by 30% over the last year, from 44% to 31%, in the latest survey by Ipsos Mori.
from <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/23/british-public-belief-climate-poll>

This is another one current in the USA:
It's not yet lights out: Republicans have revived their effort to crush energy-saving lightbulbs, with a vote in the House of Representatives as early as Friday.

Just days after losing their effort to repeal a law promoting more efficient lighting, Republicans – who claim the new standards are an assault on personal freedom – have revived their effort.

The latest offering, put forward by the Texas Republican Michael Burgess, would seek to tack an amendment onto a broader bill cutting funds for environmental protection.

Like the original, the bill to hinder the take-up of energy-saving bulbs would stop the federal government from enacting the provisions of a 2007 law raising efficiency standards of incandescent bulbs by 25%, starting from 2012. But it would not block city or state governments from promoting energy-saving lighting.

Republicans – including presidential contender Michele Bachmann – have championed the cause of old-fashioned 100-watt bulbs as a fight for personal freedom and the legacy of Thomas Edison, who invented it
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/15/republicans-energy-saving-lightbulbs>

cheers Darrel
 
Personally, I grew a lots of orchids, aroids, houseplants, and vegetables (in containers and hydroponic systems) before I ever maintained a planted aquarium. Coming from a more traditional horticultural background, I assure you that scientific evidence is often at odds with the current practice of commercial and hobbyist plant growers.

One of the best examples of the discord between scientific research and practical application in horticulture (as it applies to hobbyist and commercial growers) is the use of high phosphorous fertilizers. In general, the majority of plant growers, particularly growers perennial flowering plants, believe that high P fertilizers induce flowering and contribute to better overall plant health. However, reports published by the scientific community conclude that ornamental plants do not benefit from phosphorous provided in excess of the 3:1:2 N-P-K ratio (given that nutrients exceed limiting thresholds and environmental conditions are conducive to growth). I used to side with the hard science and therefore the 3:1:2 club, but I was eventually persuaded by a local nursery owner to experiment with 1:2:2 ferts on a few orchids and anthuriums that were giving me trouble. In short, the results were so excellent that I now seldom use 3:1:2 formulations on my terrestrial plants.

I can't provide any hard evidence as to why I've had better results fertilizing with higher P ferts (relative to N and K), but I'd rather go with what my eyes and plants are telling me instead the what's written the science journals.

The same applies to what I see in my aquariums. I was initially very skeptical of the real value of aquasoil given its price and lack of scientific backing. However, I gave it a try after seeing lots of fabulous aquasoil tanks and, given the great firsthand results, I'm now more than happy to pay over $30 for what essentially amounts to a bag of clay and humus. Moreover, the results I've had with other ADA products like power sand and Green Brighty Step 2 have definitely converted me from an ADA skeptic to a believer.

The reality is that the scientific community isn't going to provide much help to planted tank hobbyist until the hobby starts making a lot of people a lot of money; only then would the kind of grant money that attracts the best minds follow. So, given the current paucity of research and my general experience with horticulture, I think most hobbyists should go with what their plants are telling them instead of the Ph.Ds.

The market is always going to be full of snake oils, magic bullets and egregious marketing practices and blogs/forums will always be laden with poor or misconstrued information that's somehow passed off as 'science'.

So basically, trust no one, and use your eyes as well as your head.
 
The type of science required for testing these projects isn't complicated, nor overly expensive. Anyone with a basic understanding of the scientific method could test these products. Maybe as individuals it wouldn't be so affordable, but there's no reason a magazine such as PFK couldn't perform some tests. Maybe I'll post something on the PFK forum as a suggestion for an article.
 
Morgan Freeman said:
but there's no reason a magazine such as PFK couldn't perform some tests.

That would be cool. But PFK have to pick their words very carefully when criticizing products. They wouldn't be allowed to flat out say, "there is no point in this product as no positive effects were observed". Manufacturers wouldn't be very happy about that :woot:
 
Fred Dulley said:
Morgan Freeman said:
but there's no reason a magazine such as PFK couldn't perform some tests.

That would be cool. But PFK have to pick their words very carefully when criticizing products. They wouldn't be allowed to flat out say, "there is no point in this product as no positive effects were observed". Manufacturers wouldn't be very happy about that :woot:

Why not? Plenty of other mags across all other subject areas are allowed to slate products or services which they find no benefit in.
 
No idea. I just remember reading a thread on the PFK forum (which I won't use again) that described how...lenient and appropriate they had to be with this sort of thing.
Obviously they can list some flaws that a product might have (we can see this in their tried and tested sections) but flat out saying a product is worthless is something they'll try avoid.
 
Morgan Freeman said:
The type of science required for testing these projects isn't complicated, nor overly expensive. Anyone with a basic understanding of the scientific method could test these products. Maybe as individuals it wouldn't be so affordable, but there's no reason a magazine such as PFK couldn't perform some tests. Maybe I'll post something on the PFK forum as a suggestion for an article.
You could also try emailing Jeremy Gay, the editor, or Nathan Hill, their technical writer.

jeremy.gay@bauermedia.co.uk
nathan.hill@bauermedia.co.uk
 
Back
Top