Re: [APD] pearling after water changes Vol 2

[Vaughn Hopkins <hoppycalif at yahoo_com>]

Why couldn't you "prove" that it is "growth inhibitors" in the water  
by collecting the water from a tank with the growth slowed by the  
inhibitors and put it in a tank that has been drained, as the  
replacement water.  If your "growth inhibitors" exist, wouldn't you  
see at least a very much decreased amount of post water change  
pearling?  Then, as a control, repeat the test using 3 day after  
water change water in place of the "growth inhibitor" water.  That  
should give much more post water change pearling.  But, if it is the  
exposure to atmospheric CO2 that is the cause of the pearling there  
should be little difference in the two test results.  And, if you did  
the test again with fresh tap water for the change water, and the  
post water change pearling was much greater, it could be argued that  
dissolved gases in the tap water was the source of the pearling.

Since I only have one tank, not counting my nano, I can't try this,  
but I will gladly be the lead cheer leader for who ever wants to try it.

Vaughn

On Jan 28, 2007, at 7:47 PM, Rory O'Brien wrote:

> So, is it accepted now that plants go bananas after a large water  
> change and
> what we observe is genuine pearling?
>
> I'd always put it down to the removal of growth inhibitors that  
> build up in
> the water column, but that's pretty hard to prove ;)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
> http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants

_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants