[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CO2 or not CO2
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Steve Pushak wrote:
>
> I disagree with not using CO2 because you should make the nutrients in
> the substrate the rate limiting factor. To dramatize the advantages of
> the nutrients in the substrate making a BIG difference in growth, you
> should ALSO fertilize each tank completely with all nutrients
> (N,K,S,Mg,Ca,Fe,other trace) in solution. I think its going to be
> important to maintain good circulation in each tank. I think you should
> also add a small dose of phosphate, about 0.5 ppm each day. I think one
> treatment should be reserved for a fertilized substrate, either with
> clay balls or with Jobe's sticks (perhaps a soil one?). You could also
> fertilize only one side of a tank, to observe how much difference there
> is when the plant gets its nutrients at the roots, even though the
> plants on the other side of the tank still get a boost from the
> fertilized side by diffusion into the water column (and by sneaking
> their roots over the line).
>
Wasn't Jame's original intent to compare different substrate recipes? If I
remember right, some of these recipes are part of a more comprehensive
fertilizer regimine. Tetra, for instance, sells Initial (substrate
amendment), Hilena Crypto (substrate fertilizer) and FloraPride as a
complementing set of substrate and water additives. To test the recipe
James would have to follow the whole course prescribed by the substrate
proponent or manufacturer, not mix and match fertilizers with substrates.
Few if any of the aquatic plant fertilizers carry much N or P, as those
are provided in abundance by fish food. Maybe N and P are all that James
should add to make up for the lack of fish. If a substrate/fertilizer
combination is lacking in something other than N or P, then it should
appear in James' tests.
Roger Miller