Red Sea Root Therm 160

[novafish]

Has anybody used this product? It is a substrate heater for up to
40g. Freshwateraquariumplants.com says they use it in their nursery
and it makes planted set-ups last longer.

Any thoughts on the subject?

 

[plantbrain]

Makes what last longer?
their electric bill? The added set up cost?

Cables do not help the tank, they also do not hurt either.
I've never seen any evidence nor arguments to suggest that they do work and I've done numerous sets up test show and illustrate this.

Low, no, and high flow through the sediments of several types, heated and unheated water etc.

I'm sorry, but the products utility is a myth, to date no one has even remotely show any hard evidence, other than belief alone, that they offer anything worthwhile to the planted hobby.

They have been sold for some 25 years now and nothing has ever surfaced suggesting they offer anything.

You be the judge of that.
I've used them for 10 years, that ought to be long enough to see something don't you think?
7 different tanks, and several other tanks with no and high flow sediment systems to compare against.

Those that support their use have not done a good analysis nor set up to show that they do offer some significant benefit.

You also will not many folks that used them back in the 1990's noted that during the summer, they shut them off due to hot temps and they noted no differences in growth.
Some claimed cold feet in the colder months, so all we had to do was turn them off then and observe.

Again, no changes.

If something claims to be "very subtle and something over the long term, adds stability over several years" then it's really not a significant treatment to add to your tank to begin with..........what does stability mean?'
How is that measured over say several years given all the possible things that can go wrong over that time frame?

I think the burden of proof is upon those that claim cables do something positive.

To date not one person has ever show that to be the case and Tropica, the largest Aquatic plant grower in Europe, disagrees, Claus, Ole and Troels all said that they produce a flow rate that is too high for optimal plant growth.

I study aquatic plants for a living, Ole, Troels, Claus, myself all did our grad work and research on aquatic plants. If we are all wrong, someone needs to show it. Research suggest otherwise however. I've been waiting 25 years so far for anything that says it works as claimed. Nothing, nada, zip.

I've met plenty on the web that claim it works but all they ever have offered was mere belief and they had perhaps one tank only and had never done any testing to know one way or another.

I can put crystal orbs in my tank and get the same results based on that line of reasoning.

Regards,
Tom Barr












Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Mgamer20o0]

another thing they try to sell thats useless. i need to come up with a few of these.

 

[geofied]

Maybe this is what FreshwaterAquariumPlants is referring to.

Walstad, when describing substrate heating cables used in high-tech setups (not hers), says that it may help reduce the gradual buildup of allelochemicals in the substrate (generally a bad thing) because in essence it is helping to constantly "wash" the substrate. It is suggested that this may help keep the substrate viable for a longer period of time in high-tech setups. This is going on the premise that when allelochemicals build-up too quickly to be released/decomposed, they can poison the substrate after a few years and inhibit plant growth.

This does not in any way sound definitive, however, and as plantbrain has stated, does not appear to be based on scientific evidence.

 

[Rex Grigg]

And Walstad never tested that theory.

I have a theory that the Sun is just a big light bulb. And that if we fly to close to it we might break it and then die.

 

[Quartermain]

If allelochemicals are being released too quickly then they will begin affecting plant health immediately, not only after a long period of time. Some plants have evolved signaling compounds that affect the health of other plants in order to out-compete them for sunlights or nutrients. The only compounds that are going to cause you problems are the ones that are especially aggressive. And in that case time isn't really an issue. If these compounds are not being removed by regular water changes then you need to reconsider the type of plants you're mixing together in the same tank... not the type of heater you buy. That's just silly. :dive:

 

[plantbrain]

Walstad, when describing substrate heating cables used in high-tech setups (not hers), says that it may help reduce the gradual buildup of allelochemicals in the substrate (generally a bad thing) because in essence it is helping to constantly "wash" the substrate. It is suggested that this may help keep the substrate viable for a longer period of time in high-tech setups. This is going on the premise that when allelochemicals build-up too quickly to be released/decomposed, they can poison the substrate after a few years and inhibit plant growth.

This does not in any way sound definitive, however, and as plantbrain has stated, does not appear to be based on scientific evidence.

Well, neither myself no Ole nor Troels, nor Claus from Tropica believe any of that allelopathy baloney, nor does George Bowes, the Dept chair at the Botany Dept at University of Florida who's spent most of his career dealing with aquatic plants as his model.

I've pummeled that argument.

Here's an example:

Given that we see the same excellent tank stability with over 300 species of aquatic plants, all of which make a vast array of different chemicals, many do not make the same or even similar chemicals what others make, or large differences in concentrations, or vast differences in species size/biomass levels between wide arrays of tanks, all over the planet....... what are the odds that all 300 species of aquatic plants illicit the same intensity and response to algae?

I'll tell you, the odds are about as good as winning the lotto.

So how might you design a test to show that there is this effect on algae in situ?

Simple. Activated carbon is a highly effective absorbent and is used as a standard control in terrestrial systems. We add that to the test tank, and we should see algae if we assume that Alllelopathic chemicals are holding the algae growth back.

Results: No algae after adding this treatment.
No one has ever noted such a response using activated carbon(AC => induces algae).

So..........some simple specific test for our tanks have suggested that it does not exist.

You can add Carbon to sediment if you believe that is where it occurs.
I have grown all sorts of plants together, I've yet to ever to encounter any such evidence that suggest interaction.

Anyone suggest that there exist such an an interaction , pony up!
Tell us and then we can test(or likely several already have that combination or had it without issues in the past). Every time someone claimed that, I tested it and never had an issue. Still looking.

Now let's also look at the research, Gopal etc al, 1993, did an exhaustive review article on allelopathy in aquatic plants. There has never been a single example of any evidence that it occurs in a natural system.

Never.

What does Ole say about it?
http://www.bio-web.dk/op/pdf/TAG_2002_15_7.pdf

Tropica?

http://www.tropica.com/article.asp?type=aquaristic&id=531

I also reported that Chara had the best potential, which is another alga.
But perhaps Ole, Tropica, UF aquatic plant research center, myself don't know what we are talking about and are wrong, it is possible, but like the 300 species all yielding the same intense anti algae response, I'd not bet the farm on it :dive:

However, Diana Walstad to date has not offered the support for her contention, a key part. She is speculating. Speculation is still speculation.

I can speculate about those golden orbs folks should be adding to their aquariums as well. My hypothesis is every bit as valid as hers is too.

She was careful to explain that she was speculating about many things in the book, but folks often read it and think "that's right!"

They do not read that preamble that says caution and they really do not know etc and are speculating etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[plantbrain]

If allelochemicals are being released too quickly then they will begin affecting plant health immediately, not only after a long period of time. Some plants have evolved signaling compounds that affect the health of other plants in order to out-compete them for sunlights or nutrients. The only compounds that are going to cause you problems are the ones that are especially aggressive. And in that case time isn't really an issue. If these compounds are not being removed by regular water changes then you need to reconsider the type of plants you're mixing together in the same tank... not the type of heater you buy. That's just silly. :dive:

Yea, I've heard this argument also. Easy to inject such doubt, but it's not been shown.......we can speculate endlessly.

Activated carbon removes it. You can add it to the sediment and then it's instant, as it's produced, the carbon removes it.

A simple test well can show which compounds are "aggressive".
when you grind up a plant and then add the extract into a sample test well, is that anything like our tanks with live intact plant tissue?
Not one bit.

If you are talking about a rate of chemical release and target, then you are talking flux.

It takes a concentration, a distance(thus time), a diffusion coefficient for flux. It's a rate.

It might happen fast, but many so called allelopathic chemicals have been tested as algicides and herbicides, they do not work well except in these tiny little test wells with ground extract.
Even then, they do not kill it, they generally inhibit some.

Now............since you brought up current and exporting these toxic chemicals out of the system near the roots, why don't we use UG or RFUG filters then?

That would increase the rate of export out for these aggressive alleopathic chemicals.

Yet we do not see better growth using those either, like the cables.
I do not see any supporting evidence for this argument.
I've done a lot of testing in this area many years ago.
I've not met anyone that's tried the high(RFUG's)/low(cables) and no flow methods for substrate flow for comparisons.

That addresses the waste build up or toxic allelopathic chemical reasoning as well as adding things like organic matter*(which binds such chemicals), activate carbon etc.

Quartermain, you know I'm after the idea here, not you
II agree that it is just silly. :thumbsup:

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[geofied]

Yeah Tom, you missed the point of my post. Possibly a little too eager to "pummel" another argument? I was actually agreeing with you.

I was simply providing a possible reference point for where novafish got his/her idea, not stating that it was valid. Walstad didn't back up the substrate heating theory, because it was referring to other folks claims, not hers.

As to Allelopathy, she provides a lot of research to support her claims, but I'll leave that for learned folks like yourself to pummel each other about. Maybe you can provide a point-for-point on that chapter in her book. For now, I'll just hope all my plants get along.

Regards...

 

[plantbrain]

Yeah Tom, you missed the point of my post. Possibly a little too eager to "pummel" another argument? I was actually agreeing with you.

I know/knew.

I was simply providing a possible reference point for where novafish got his/her idea, not stating that it was valid. Walstad didn't back up the substrate heating theory, because it was referring to other folks claims, not hers.

Yep, saw that too.
I added the rest as some are not willing to look things up or review the past work. There are many lurkers.

As to Allelopathy, she provides a lot of research to support her claims, but I'll leave that for learned folks like yourself to pummel each other about. Maybe you can provide a point-for-point on that chapter in her book. For now, I'll just hope all my plants get along.

Regards...

Well, you can provide a lot of research that appears to support your claim, but nothing she said proves anything in an aquarium or a natural system.
She used the ground up extract data for references, hardly applicable. These are high concentrations mashed plant extracts, it does suggest that these chemicals nor effects occur in natural system, or that the plants give these off, just that they are present in the plant's tissues.

These are radically different senarios.

Using the right references, having working knowledge of the experiments, knowing what is really going on etc, that's a lot more relevant than mere references that are misapplied to your conclusion and offer no support.

But back to cables......Dupla suggested toxic waste/chemicals etc, but they likely meant to prevent the sediments from going anaerobic.
More flow= more O2 down there. H2S is the main issue, or at least was suggested to be back then.

But without any organic matter, the reducing conditions will never achieve those highly reducing levels required and without a continuous load of it being added, it's not going to happen. Laterite is/was added for Fe but also to prevent higher reducing levels.

Cables will increase the exchange, but that argument is flawed as RFUG shown no differences and addressed the cold feet issue as well.

What happens is that over time, the pore spaces get clogged in cable tanks and that flow is greatly reduced. Thus the flow rates are hardly even over time.

Same with a normal UGF, a pre filtered RFUG filter is a better option over time however.

regards,
Tom Barr