[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
> Roger Miller wrote:
> I prefer *not* to describe laterite as "clay".
> I think there are ample differences in these products, and
> instead of reading more arguments about their similarities or
> differences, I'd much rather read people constructively
> comparing successful methods for using them in their aquaria.
Roger I hope my generous snipping didn't loose too much of your intent.
My apologies if it did. I have expressed similar views on this subject
Instead of reiterating, I'll just include a recent post:
" ... regards definitions, I believe clay has two important
properties which distinguish it from laterite:
1) Size. Two (2) micrometers or less. This causes it
to remain in suspension in water.
2) Mineral composition. Rich in silicate clay minerals.
The laterite for planted aquaria fails the definition of clay
with regard to point 1 ( it is generally larger than 2 micrometers
and does not remain in suspension after being allowed to settle )
and point 2 (most of the silicates and 'tropical' nutrients are by
definition leached out ) "
I would express that the interest in laterite and clay substrate materials
is high and one of APDs more timeless issues. I think the discussions will
continue to include comparisons, both of technical properties and practical
results. What I would hope is that the technical side of the debate would
resolution so as not to add confusion.
christopher.coleman at worldnet_att.net