Well, there should not be any algae in a nenw tank, that's just nothing but
poor planning.
Does not matter what method you use.
Most do not add enough plants in the start.
If you do, they cycle the tank, actually short circuit it and pump all the O2 down into the substrate.
I've never bought the idea of better flow through the substrate, all substrate clog up with mulm fairly rapidly.
Bacter etc, well if you use mulm from another tank, a friend's, LFS's, another tank your own etc, then that add precisely what is missing from a new tank. What's the sdifference from an established tank and new tank's substrate?
Nothing except bacteria and organic matter.
What's mulm? Bacteria and organic matter.
So add that and that deals with the bacteria.
If you add the NO3, K, PO4 right away to the water column, this allows for the plants to grow right away.
This also provides lots of O2, which....bacteria use to grow and respire/oxidize.
As Nick suggest, the NO3 is in the water column, this is from the PS.
The mulm also adds a nice organic carbon source, much like us, they need some form of reduced carbon that's labile(peat is not particularly labile).
Tourmaline sand is a
very non bioavailable form of trace elements. While the Boron etc are in the mineral, the bioavailablilty is critical and they are not bioavailable here.
That's like saying coral, CaCO3 is a good source of oxygen.
There's some Oxygen in there, but it's not available.
"including aluminium, boron, lithium" , what is Al used for agian in plants? Flourite has this, so does laterite, is it useful to plants? Or is it toxic under reducing conditions?
You think about that........do some searching........
Lithium? Is this an essential plant nutrient?
Boron is, but..........it's not even remotely available in this mineral.
This product is not really an aquarium product. They sell it for all sorts of things, trying to market it for other fields, even if it does not work other than to make you believe all the marketing BS. There's no merit to it and I've been unable to find anything in agriculture, aquatic, geologic, botantical research fields that shows any evidence that it does. Having used it, I see no significance differences.
They said similar BS about heating cables.
Does not mean they where even remotely right.
Dupla did market something that did work well, CO2..........and there was/is support for that, but noth for this nor the cables. Nor Penac. That stuff is a hoot and pure pseudo science marketing.
Search Tourmaline sand... google etc.
You may get my point. I have a Geology reference manager, you can bet it's not very available to the plants, and if it's so long term, what good is it?
Even if I got 5-10% more production per year, the ag folks are all over it, that means 200K$ is now another 10-20K$ profit -minus the cost. That's a lot in that field. Theyn spend $$$ for GM crops to get that much out of it.
If something takes 6-12 months to add a tiny fraction, how is that going to help significantly?
You'd never been able to show that in a test.
If you have a Boron limited system, adding boric acid to the water column vs adding this? muhahaha. I can tell you without running that test which would work better and be a much better delivery method. Anyone knowing beans about agriculture would as well. If you question an aquatic vs a terrestrial sediment: rice cropping is one I specialize in as well as weed control. Rice soils are silimiar abnd very similar in newly flooded fields, like a new tank.
Bacterial colonization is on the plants, on and in the gravel, clay has far more surface area than pumice does. Bacteria is not a larger player in a new tank because there is liittle waste to be broken down yet.
Plants remove the NH4.
You can and ADA does, add activatred carbon, you can use zeolite as well to remove the NH4 and other amino acids that are source of NH4 in new tanks as things settle in. Some do, soem don't, I';ve not found a need, I'd rather add more plants from day one than messing with these other things.
Clays also have far more CEC than pumic.
Another question: have you use these products over time?
The powersand(PS) comes up when you replant and is a royal PITA as it's this big white colored hard sand against the black soft soil, this looks ugly and tacky.
Perhaps you do not uproot(most do), but when you have layered two tone substrates, this invariably mixes and looks bad after awhile.
I'm still trying to get the pumic out of two of my tanks.
Wait, you'll see soon enough
You should not see any NH4 with PS, it's mainly NO3............which is extremely mobile and is an anion, typically is not retained in any soil, which is why we see in well water/drinking water etc.....not NH4........
So since it's so mobile, may as well add it to the water column.
KNO3 is a bit cheaper than PS................
The point is not to buy into the brochure and parrot what ADA says, rather, test this stuff, look things up to see if they are worthwhile and help the plant growth, why/why not. See if they work, see if they work individually, not all tossed together, you cannot make any sense out of that potpourri.......
Then you'll know if it does what it claims rather than speculate based of their marketing.
I don't need a mass spect to know what's in these products. The liquids ferts are easy.
Simple sediment test tell you what's in the soil.
You do not need to do a big research production to test a soil BTW, a quick test will tell you if the claims are true or not and give you a relative feel.
I don't need precise data, because of the variability between tanks/routines etc, much of that precision will be lost........
Regards,
Tom Barr