>T'was me that removed the biowheel. The plants are going like crazy and the
>fish seem very happy - the empirical (anecdotal?) data is supportive. I am
>under the assumption (or misassumption?) that the plants can use the
>nitrogen in amonia, nitrite, and nitrate form. Now I'm curious too.
> "Please, comment".
Empircal but your conclusion about causality may not be correct.
All biological filters do what a biowheel would do so everyone should, by
your reasoning, get better plant growth by removing their bio
filters--canister, sponge, biowheel, UGF.
Biological filters convert ammonia to nitrites and then to nitrates. Plants
can use nitrates. They can also use ammonia before the biological filters
get to them. (Although my current theory is that the pumps draw more
ammonia into the filter than the plants get by standing around waiting.)
When you removed the biowheel, did you also stop the waterfall? The
splashing is likely to dissipate more CO2. By stopping the waterfall, you
keep more CO2 in the water for the plants. Was the biowheel your only
San Francisco, CA, USA
gtong at sirius_com
"Every infinity is composed of only two halves."