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

Auto-reply: Aquatic Plants Digest V2 #613

I am going to be out of the office until April 7, but I will be reading my email on a daily basis,
and I'll try to get back to you.


Eric Schoville                  eschovil at us_oracle.com 
Technical Recruiter             voice # 972.401.5767 
Oracle Resource Services        fax # 972.401.5658  

-- BEGIN included message

Aquatic Plants Digest      Friday, March 28 1997      Volume 02 : Number 613

In this issue:

	The algae farmer
	Nice Post Dan
	Magazine writers
	Some CO2 Figuring

See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the
Aquatic Plants mailing list and on how to retrieve back issues.


Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 10:22:40 -0500
From: Greg Letiecq <GLETIECQ at fcc_gov>
Subject: Osmocote

I have recently conducted a test with Osmocote on dwarf sag, and with
the debate currently going on, I thought you might like my results.
Non-osmocote: 55 gal w/various plants & community fish, standard
aquarium gravel, lit with 2 x 24" gro-lux fluoro bulbs on timer with 12 hrs
of light/day.
Osmocote: 10 gal w/warious plants & fry from the community tank,
standard aquarium gravel, lit with 1 x 18" gro-lux fluoro bulb on timer for
12 hrs of light per day.
Dwarf sag was removed from the 55 and planted in the 10 gal, and
several pellets of osmocote were embedded in the gravel with the
replantings.  The test was condicted for 5 weeks.
Observations: some very minor algae growth occurred in the osmocote
tank, but the dwarf sag showed twice as much new growth.
IMO Osmocote is a winner.  Thanks to Dan Quackenbush for his
excellent work!



Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:12:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Miles Morrissey <mmorriss at sophia_smith.edu>
Subject: The algae farmer

		We are all algae farmers to one extent or another,
eradicating it is not the goal, controlling it is.  It is not at all
unusual to have the tank "cycle" through different stages during the first
six months or so where different forms of algae seem to be present and
then decline.  I set up a tank recently with similar spec's as yours
although with somewhat less light. (i.e. 100watts of T-8 fluorescent in a
50 gal compared to your 160 watts of T-12 florescent in a 70 gal)  Here
are my thoughts:

	1) find the Sae's if you can, put 4 - 7 Otto's in even if they're
small. Also I have had very positive experience with Red Ramshorn snails
as detrivors and hervivors.
	2) don't feed the fish at all for a week or so and then very
sparingly.  I don't know what other fish you have in there but most fish
are herbivors to some extent and will graze on algae esp. when they are
hungry.  We'd all eat more spinach and cabbage if that was all we could
	3) I would nip the green water in the bud by 20 - 30% daily water
changes with no light and a shrouded tank for a day or two.  This will
bother the plants some, but you said they were doing well and two days of
dark is going to bother the green water algae much more than the plants.
The daily water changes (with water sans nitrate and phosphate of course)
will dilute the green unicellular organisms and reduce the liklihood that
their massive die off from lack of light won't cause O2 depletion.
	4) I would consider turning off one of the tubes for a month or so
for the following reason:  I am assuming that you are somewhat of a newbie
and your learning curve at present is very steep, you are learning a lot
as you go.  This is my situation as well.  The more light you use, the
more energy you put in the system the better you need to be about keeping
the system in balance.  Your range of acceptable water parameters (i.e.
nutrients like ammonia, phosphate, nitrate, iron) balanced with other
micro nutrients is more exacting the more light you use.  Being
conservative to start, I think gives you more room to screw up and
recover.  Once the plants are growing and better established, and you have
a experience and understanding of your particular system you can add more
light.  120 watts on a 70 gal is still a good deal of light and the only
difference you would see for all but the most demanding high light plants
is reduced rate of growth.
	4) lastly, I would set up a Co2 infusion system.  Algae can take
C02 out of the water better than some of the plants you mentioned thus
giving them the edge currently with the amount of light and lack of Co2.

These are my thoughts.  These are not truths. Use them or discard them as
you see fit. 

Miles Morrissey   Easthampton, MA - USA
mmorriss at sophia_smith.edu


Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 09:19:02 -0500 (EST)
From: STDIXON <stdixon at bechtel_com>
Subject: Nice Post Dan

>It's DQ again. Some may take issue with that and find it even harder
>to believe it's me, because I'm going to apologize. :-)  Before I do, I
>would like to suggest a few things so I can avoid having to ever do this
>again. I also promise to use the most delicate words I know.

Very nice post Dan.  This is how we will all get better at growing aquatic
plants.  But don't just lurk.  Keep telling us about your experiences and
views and let us take it all in.  The more (I think) I know, the happier I
am.  (I made the same comment to Craig Bingham.  Now what was the color of
that water? ... uhh ohhh!).  

Steve Dixon


Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 12:49:41 cst
From: mark.fisher at tpwd_state.tx.us
Subject: Magazine writers

     I've noticed that two individuals who were subject to a lot of 
     controversy on this list are both magazine writers.  DQ mentioned an 
     article he wrote in FAMA, while Craig Bingman is science editor of 
     Aquarium Frontiers magazine.
     Do writers use this forum as a means of garnering ideas for articles, 
     or do they participate like the rest of us--to gain knowledge?  I am 
     not comfortable with the notion that some of my postings may end up in 
     an article somewhere, without my permission.  What are the rules on 
     this topic?  I am guessing the various internet discussion groups are 
     extremely fertile for a writer looking for ideas. 
     I am not being judgemental; I am merely curious.  If I were a writer I 
     would probably surf for materiel.  Any other magazine writers out 


Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:29:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Mullins <tmullins at telerama_lm.com>
Subject: Some CO2 Figuring

I constantly bubble CO2 at 62
bubbles/minute into my aquarium filter. I
measure about 26 bubbles/cc so that's
around 2.4cc/minute or 3.46 ltr/day of CO2.

Surprise#1: Those little pockets of
undissolved gas under my filter/diffuser
foam pad are no big deal considering I'm
delivering liters of CO2 each day!

I have a 90 gallon tank with a 300 ltr water
column. CO2's density at 75F is about
1.817 G/ltr. Making two simplifying arguable
assumptions: 1) 100% delivery, 2) no
depletion in darkness;

Surprise#2: In 12 hours of darkness at my
injection rate into my 90 gallon, I ought to
elevate CO2 levels by about 10.5mG/ltr
(3.46ltr/day/2*1817mG/ltr/300ltr). That's
close to being consistent with what I
measure after a night of "stoking" CO2 into
a fairly CO2 depleted tank at day's end!

I have a 5 lb cylinder of CO2. So, at 1.817
G/ltr that's about 1147 liters or 41ft3 of

Surprise#3: At my bubble rate, that cylinder
ought to last about 332 days. That's about

(Irrelevant factoid; compressed liquid CO2
density at 80F is about 42.2lbs/ft3)

Tim - Pittsburgh
P.S. Please post corrections


End of Aquatic Plants Digest V2 #613

To unsubscribe to aquatic-plants, send the command:
    unsubscribe aquatic-plants
in the body of a message to "Majordomo at ActWin_com".  Archives are
available on the web at http://www.actwin.com/fish/aquatic-plants
or via FTP to ftp.actwin.com in /pub/aquaria/aquatic-plants.

-- END included message