Joined
·
2,072 Posts
Do you have a reference for that UF study? I work here at UF and know everyone at the Aquatic weed center andn in the Botany Dept.
I'd be interested in seeing who did the study.
I think you mean MW's "carbonator" and not the "vital" stuff?
The Vital is a bottle of enzymes and does nothing for planted tanks near as I could tell over the course of several years that I tried it off and on.
As far Excel/Carbonator products, they cannot grow plants faster than CO2 alone. That is what plants and algae prefer over intermediates and what plants can use best as the CO2 is much smaller and easier to assimilate in the Carbon fixation/reduction pathway.
From what I've seen, the products do not go beyond about 2w/gal without help and CO2 is still better and more able to produce better plant growth under non limiting conditions.
If you cannot use CO2, it's better than nothing but it's not going to replace CO2 and cost a fair amount over time.
As far the usefulness etc of Marc's product the carbonator, it does the same pretty much as the Excel. So while many poo poo him for some things, the product in question here does work, not as claimed, but it is a decent product like Excel.
In order to find out if the Excel is better, you need to try several light intensities, different concentrations. For CO2 to be non limiting at most light intensities, the concentration needs to be about 30ppm for most species of plant.
If the study used something like a bicarb user like Hydrilla, measuring how much CO2 came from the HCO3 vs the Excel would be a very interesting question. Using a plant that has to use CO2 only like mosses would perhaps be better.
Gas exchange studies are not easy and tend to require substantial work to give significant results that are of use and really answer a question well.
Regards,
Tom Barr
I'd be interested in seeing who did the study.
I think you mean MW's "carbonator" and not the "vital" stuff?
The Vital is a bottle of enzymes and does nothing for planted tanks near as I could tell over the course of several years that I tried it off and on.
As far Excel/Carbonator products, they cannot grow plants faster than CO2 alone. That is what plants and algae prefer over intermediates and what plants can use best as the CO2 is much smaller and easier to assimilate in the Carbon fixation/reduction pathway.
From what I've seen, the products do not go beyond about 2w/gal without help and CO2 is still better and more able to produce better plant growth under non limiting conditions.
If you cannot use CO2, it's better than nothing but it's not going to replace CO2 and cost a fair amount over time.
As far the usefulness etc of Marc's product the carbonator, it does the same pretty much as the Excel. So while many poo poo him for some things, the product in question here does work, not as claimed, but it is a decent product like Excel.
In order to find out if the Excel is better, you need to try several light intensities, different concentrations. For CO2 to be non limiting at most light intensities, the concentration needs to be about 30ppm for most species of plant.
If the study used something like a bicarb user like Hydrilla, measuring how much CO2 came from the HCO3 vs the Excel would be a very interesting question. Using a plant that has to use CO2 only like mosses would perhaps be better.
Gas exchange studies are not easy and tend to require substantial work to give significant results that are of use and really answer a question well.
Regards,
Tom Barr
