[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [APD] An observation

I think what you are saying is true. George is possibly 
referring to tanks with high fish loads? But it seemed as
much a question as a statement, taking into consideration
the comment attributed to Tom Barr, that algae do a darn
fine job of grabbing ammonium.

Unfortunately, I didn't get to see Tom's Focus Group at the
convention -- I was video taping Neal Frank's and then
Ghazanfar Ghori's Focus Groups -- so much to do and so
little time to do it.  I'm hoping therre will be good
prtions of those focus Groups on the Video Tape that comes
out -- Although it will be hard to squeeze everything onto
two tape cassettes much less one. 

Scott H.
--- Jim Seidman <js5 at seidman_net> wrote:
> George Booth, perhaps playing the troll, writes:
> >Current aquatic lore holds that biofiltration is not as
> necessary in a
> >planted tank as it is in a fish-only tank. Indeed, some
> authors go so far
> >as to say that biofiltration is a bad thing and
> outcompetes the plants for
> >critical ammonium. Everyone "knows" that plants prefer
> ammonium over
> >nitrate since it takes less energy to use it.
> >
> >However, recent advances in nutrient management as
> promulgated by Tom Barr
> >have shown that some level of nitrate (and phosphate) is
> good for plants
> >and proper ratios of N and P are even bad for algae.
> >
> >While listening to Tom's Forum at the AGA 2K3
> convention, I believe he
> >also mentioned that algae can utilize ammonium very
> easily and that a
> >dearth of ammonium may hold algae at bay.
> >
> >Hmmm, what better way is there to reduce ammonium and
> increase nitrate
> >than biofiltration?
> This argument makes the assumption that a lack of
> biological filtration will
> somehow lead to high ammonium levels. In a well-planted
> tank, I can't see why
> this would be true. In my filterless 125-gallon, I
> *never* reached a measurable
> level of ammonium, even during the first week.
> Research has shown that, at least for some species,
> ammonium is preferentially
> used over nitrates. This means that if you're adding NO3,
> and it's being
> consumed, your plants are probably already sucking up all
> of the NH4 that's
> being produced.
> How many tanks do you have that accumulate nitrates from
> fish wastes? That is,
> do you have tank where you don't add any NO3 and the NO3
> levels keep rising
> anyway? If not, I imagine the ammonium is being dealt
> with just fine.
> Unless the argument is that ammonium at levels that are
> undetectable by
> hobbyist test kits still produce algae. I suppose one
> could make the argument
> that a wet/dry would lower the undetectable levels even
> lower. However, this
> would hardly make a noticeable different in nitrate
> levels.
> Keep the suit away from the tank, George. The fibers
> could clog your wet/dry
> filter. :-)
> - Jim Seidman
> _______________________________________________
> Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
> http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants

S. Hieber

Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com