I would like scientific evidence, sadly ony few people can/wil do that in the environment of an aquarium. And even then some data are skewed to put a product./firm in a positive light.
My recent tests suggest this, but I have to do other tests to verify it. After that I publish my results and methods. Also I consult this matter with some scientists to be sure I do it correctly. Although these are not any precise scientific analyses, I believe they can shed some light on nutrient uptake in planted tanks. I wish I could do some laboratory measurements of photosynthesis rate at different levels of different nutrients with different kind of plants, but it seems like there are just a few facilities doing these kind of analyses, and the cost would be super high (like €160 per hour!). As I know even Tropica don't want to invest into it. But still there are other methods to find out some raw numbers for our tanks. And these methods are maybe of better value for us then the precise scientific numbers for compensation or saturation points.
I don't think that your kind of explanation explains anything. Each plant begins to pearl at different conditions. The plants pearl when there is too much oxygen present in their inner atmosphere, and the inner gas concentration (O2 + N2 + CO2 + CH4) begins to be higher then the outer concentration of dissolved gas in water. True aquatic plants which can utilize HCO3 can pearl much easier then plants which are able to use only free CO2. So pearling depends to great extent on the plant species you have in your tank. Some kind of plants grow very slowly and produce little oxygen so its very hard to see them pearl at all. Besides this, ADA substrate (as I already said) has nearly no P content, so it may leach N (whether in NH4 or NO3 form) but it has too little PO4 to support any substantial plant growth by itself. Also, please, can you give me some link to materials which prove CO2 bubbles are more effective then dissolved free CO2? I doubt it a lot, but you probably have some better information if you claim this. Don't take it harsh. I just try to discuss it, and if you say it's easy explanation, then you should have no problem to give me some proofs (when you yourself want me to do the same).
I am not going to defend any brand but I have to admit that it is not easy at all explaining to a customer all this in a 5x3 cm label... even in a website. IME only a few hobbyists are really interested in discussing about this, searching for other information sources, asking for advice when they do not understand something...We all have seen people at our LFS asking interesting questions and obtaining trustful advice, but I've seen also people that just want to buy miracles and that are happy to pay miracles.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this sentence... but do you mean that tanks using diffusers including ADA, Tropica, Viktor Lantos, etc.do not reach this 1 pH fall (except Tom Barr and a few others thay can achieve)? Wow... I really doubt it.
Yes this is what I mean. I once read a post on thebarrreport where he said Ammano normally aims for 18 ppm CO2 or so.
I was really just kidding here🙂. I dont have a statue of Amano to pray to in my room either (I promise).
Yes, I do believe that a 1 ph drop is not a unique skill reserved to Tom Barr and that thousand of hobbyists in this world achieve it with normal diffusers.
Seeing a fine stream of bubles don't mean a thing, there are many parameters that may influence CO2 dissolution and distribution in a planted tank.
Sorry, but this doesn't sound as a very solid evidence of what Amano does.
True. Ill stop now and add the link to Toms observations once I finde them.
Great link. Thanks.
Hi Darrell, You can have this issue when rocks and sometimes the substrate seems to adsorb the PO4 in the initial stages of tank establishment. Later you only need small amounts as you state.
This is another big topic and there is a thread about red plants in this forum. Have a look at that one.
