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

RE: Profile vs pumice

To: <Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com>
Subject: RE: Profile vs pumice
From: "James Purchase" <jpurch at interlog_com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:53:53 -0600
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200002112048.PAA26890 at actwin_com>

> James Ourdhase quotes Shultz:
>
> > "The Clay Soil Conditioner and Aquatic Plant Soil are both 100%
> arcillite
> >  clays mined from various sites in the southern United States. Both are
> >  kiln-fired in extremely high heat (up to 1400 degrees F) ovens
> that turn
> >  the clay granules into porcelain like materials with thousands of tiny
> >  pore spaces,which hold water, air and nutrients.
>
> So what makes this stuff functionally different than pumice, which is
> basically a natural form of "sintered glass" ?
>
> Bob Dixon

I don't know Bob, other than perhaps one is manufactured (fired in a kiln)
and the other is natural (fired in a volcano).

Last September, you posted a few times about your efforts at making am
"Amano-style" substrate, using a mixture of pumice and peat. Did you
continue with that line of thought? I'd be interested in hearing how it went
(or is going).

James Purchase
Toronto

Prev by Date: Re: Aquatic Plants Digest V4 #87
Next by Date: PMDD precipitation
Prev by thread: Re: Aquatic Plants Digest V4 #87
Next by thread: Re: Profile vs pumice
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread