A look at GH and magnesium.

Exhaled air is only about 4-6% CO2. The trashbags are unlikely to be airtight and within a few hours will have diffused back pretty close to atmospheric concentrations.

DIY/Pressurised is reliable and controllable. Putting sugar in the tank would be silly as the yeast produce alcohol as well as CO2 (99.999999...% of human induced fermentation is for this purpose, and very properly so) - fish one over the eight* and fast approaching two over the sixteen** anyone?

Atmospheric CO2 is quickly depleted by the plant densities in planted aquaria (this is why adding CO2 is beneficial in tanks whilst plants in the wild manage on atmospheric CO2 in the water).

*British slang. Eight (20oz) pints would be considered sufficient down the pub. Drinking more would be pushing it.

**From an intro to the 50s UK radio comedy "The Glums" which always started with Pa Glum at the bar, generally somewhat inebriated.
 
I would find it quite amazing to find anyone that would want to kiss my butt:o
If you have common sense and can think and reason through things, I'll like you lots more. :thm:



Regards,
Tom Barr
 
WinstonCourt said:
Impressive, high sierra snow melt. Perhaps it falls from the realms of the gods?
Click to expand...

Or from the salt brine of Santa Barbara, GH was 24, KH 11, Davis well water? GH 17, KH about 15, Mg++ is about 52ppm within 5ppm error over the year's course. Foul limy stuff.

But plants do very well in this tap also, just a few limited species did poorly at such KH's, the GH was independent.

Anyway, CO2 is simply carbon dioxide. I could expel my breath, through a hose, into the tank, and supply an over-abundance in my tank to satisfy the most demanding plants.
Click to expand...

This article is something you might read.
:
http://www.tropica.com/advising/technical-articles/biology-of-aquatic-plants/co2-and-light.aspx

Plants will grow, but they will not grow fast, or get the best use out of the light. In mixed communities, some plants will outcompete the others for CO2 and also go after the HCO3/KH. We add CO2 to address poor/weak competitive species so that there are no limitations for them as well as the more aggressive weeds. This also increases light use efficacy and growth rates.

If you can produce this type of growth with these species together without CO2/Excel, I'll be impressed:

Redsized20galmred.jpg


resized120Feb16.jpg



I could add any of many types of sugars, into the tank, those sugars then broken down by micro-organisms, and carbon dioxide released, to satisfy the hunger of those plants.
Click to expand...

So what do those bacteria use to OXIDIZE those reduced carbon compounds to give off CO2 as a waste product?

O2.

You have 5-7ppm of O2 available and it's not that soluble, CO2 saturation points for most plants is about 20-40ppm. See any problem with getting enough CO2 via the natural way to get to non limiting levels?

If CO2 is limiting, then you have dependency, in other words, CO2 is more limiting than say Ca++.

This is Liebig's Law of the minimum.
Basic agriculture and plant Science stuff here.

CO2 must be included with Liebig's Law in submersed planted systems since CO2 diffusion rates at 10,000X slower and can become limiting with dense plant growth which aquarist typically desire.

In terrestrial systems, CO2 is rarely if ever limiting.
So it's not included there.

I could have a cylinder of CO2 feeding the water column with the gas, feeding this hunger. I could ferment yeast with sugar, and the gas released feed the need. There are chemicals I could add. I could use dry ice in an enclosed container, vented though tubing to an air stone or diffuser, to the tank. Yes, I can do all these things, and so can you.
Click to expand...

I actually have/do.

Or, fish waste, excess food, and the air can supply it, carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide as a miracle, as scientific, as difficult to supply? No, indeed, a neglected aquarium can, quite easily, kill the occupants with an abundance of carbon dioxide. Decaying vegetation can raise levels of CO2 to well beyond toxic.
Click to expand...

So do any of these supply a non limiting amount?
What is a non limiting amount of CO2?

Enough, or macros taken to just below toxic levels? A good thing. Micros taken to the same extreme? A good thing. CO2 in plentiful supply? A good thing. High calcium? A good thing? High Magnesium? Already covered, I consider it nothing more than a micro, a good thing. High Sierra snow melt supplying anything even resembling a nutrient? I think not.
But, if it flows over granite, perhaps. Ground and powdered granite is one of the form of minerals used in agriculture to provide micro-nutrients to the crops we eat. The net will provide all you need to verify this.
Click to expand...

I think about 15 years ago, plenty of folks already knew me in the hobby addressing rich dosing as a beneficial method, I think we have a common view there today, which 15 years ago, would have been rare.

I dose 15ppm NO3 and 5ppm of PO4, .5-.7ppm of Fe as a proxy for all traces 3x a week, I do not just add pure water.

I also have rich sediments, which would provide another source reagrdless of the water column, but I like both locations for nutrients. Adds a redundant back up and synergistic method least I forget to dose the water column, I have a back up. Also allows the sediment to last longer as a source of ferts.

And you, you are not even a messenger of god. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I am but a humble fool :worthy:

Regards,
Tom Barr
 
One warning folks...be civil or don't post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom