Will Dwarf Hairgrass Grow In 1.25 Wpg And No Co2

[Nick16]

as helpful as google can be, imagine how many american results there are to the UK

99% of americans think you need 2+WPG to grow anything, this is false, you can grow anything with 2 tubes the length of the tank

bit of a sweeping statement there!!!

where did you get the data that 99% of americans believe this??

so you are also saying, if the tank was deep with 2 x t12 tubes or even 2 x t8 and no co2 addition you can grow anything............

that silly really, T8's are known as the standard tubes (i know they are being replaced by T5's) but they are still considered the standard. So therefore truck means T8's unless otherwise stated.

Now Lets Clear this Up.

Hairgrass tends to struggle more in nano's than it does in tanks 60L or more (that doesnt mean it cant be grown, it just doesnt get the same results)
With no Co2, only TPN+ as a fert and an inert substrate i say good luck to you!!!!
Im 90% sure it will just rot away and wont grow, even with a few ferts you will massively struggle. Its a plant that you can either get to grow amazingly or not at all. Its like P.hlferi and HC in that sense

Baron i think you are getting to carried away with arguing, Diana Walstad uses a totally different method to grow her plants, the regular potting soil she uses, may be 'regular' but there are many do's and donts in that respect. (As she explains in her book)

As the OP is using an inert substrate and using Fert tabs they are going to struggle as these are about as good as a chocolate teapot.

 

[baron von bubba]

did i say americans dont know how to keep a planted tank? surely those words were presumptuous,
it doesnt necessarily mean you would need CO2, but i said it would be preferable, whereas a liquid carbon supplement ISNT CO2, so therefore i never said it is needed.
how tall is the average 125? i can tell you that...at maximum 50cm from lights to substrate, so wouldnt really make a difference IME.
duration, yes a factor, yet i didnt mention anything about it so how a sweeping statement could come from that im not really sure.
same as above

no what you said was

as helpful as google can be, imagine how many american results there are to the UK

99% of americans think you need 2+WPG to grow anything, this is false, you can grow anything with 2 tubes the length of the tank

now if i got the idea you were somehow saying that 99% of americans had the wrong idea on certain aspects of keeping a planted tank when you said the above, then its possibly because that's exactly what you inferred, exaggeration or otherwise.

obviously 2*T8's would need ferts and atleast liquid carbon with Injected CO2 being preferable

and if i got the impression you were saying you NEED co2, its because, to me you did. we could argue over whether "liquid carbon" is co2 or otherwise.
it fullfills the role of co2 and is classed as "co2 supplementation" surely?
but i can see i may have got the wrong end of the stick there.

but your statement is still not correct, 2 x t8s do not NEED any form of co2, ("liquid carbon" or co2 injection)

you can grow anything with 2 tubes the length of the tank

so you are also saying, if the tank was deep with 2 x t12 tubes or even 2 x t8 and no co2 addition you can grow anything............

that silly really, T8's are known as the standard tubes (i know they are being replaced by T5's) but they are still considered the standard. So therefore truck means T8's unless otherwise stated.

k so i probably shouldn't have brought t12s into it, but regardless of that i was mearly pointing out at that time that the statement was incorrect, besides truck had already mentioned "WPG" which, correct me if i'm wrong is based on t12?

taken in context and as it stood in the thread, CO2 of any sort had only been mentioned because the OP was NOT using any. so in that scenario, "you can grow anything with 2 tubes the length of the tank" is correct is it? a nice HC carpet maybe?

if i was argumentative i do apologize, but it seems i was mearly correcting some things that could well have been taken as they were written, that were as they stood, fundamentally wrong and the "argumentative" part came in with truck trying to defend the "incorrect" things he'd clearly written
i wont even bring being racist into it!! ;0)

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind!!! According to mr prattchet anyway, who am i to argue?

Sorry Off topic, but what a response, Terry Pratchett is a legend.

the guy is pure genius.


and yeah sorry to the OP for rattling on a bit.

 

[Truck]

2 T8 tubes running the length of the tank with CO2 addition and ferts would get a HC carpet going on the tank in context.

but your statement is still not correct, 2 x t8s do not NEED any form of co2, ("liquid carbon" or co2 injection

IMO, that is a sweeping statement, because it depends on how deep the tank is

and CO2 is only a liquid at -78 to -59 degrees C, and liquid carbon is not CO2 as ed seely explained on ukaps.

im going to with draw from this debate now as i think its pointless and isnt helping the OP at all

 

[wackystarfish]

Dont listen!!!! Mine does in my tank! Took a while to get rooted, and is kinda brown, but slowly briht green shoots are shooting up everywhere
It should be fine

 

[baron von bubba]

2 T8 tubes running the length of the tank with CO2 addition and ferts would get a HC carpet going on the tank in context.

but your statement is still not correct, 2 x t8s do not NEED any form of co2, ("liquid carbon" or co2 injection

IMO, that is a sweeping statement, because it depends on how deep the tank is

and CO2 is only a liquid at -78 to -59 degrees C, and liquid carbon is not CO2 as ed seely explained on ukaps.

im going to with draw from this debate now as i think its pointless and isnt helping the OP at all

lol. one minute you say you NEED something (no if's or buts) then the next statment you're saying it depends on other factors also!
which was in fact my exact point in the first instance, so thank you for finally agreeing!

i noticed recently you posted in your profile you were no longer going to post here because of the useless moderators, personally i dont see the problem with the mods but i do see a problem with ppl answering questions in an uninformed, uneducated and incomplete way, with single line answers that really dont help in any way and in some cases confusion could quite easily arise over is really not really being that helpfull.

but maybe thats just my opinion, i rather help ppl than just get my post count up!

co2, liquid carbon, however you try and define them are both carbon sources to the plant.
and seeing as you bring ukaps into it, this is what clive said recently about liquid carbon
"Liquid carbon products are, in effect CO2, or it's more accurate to say that they are converted to CO2 internally" but i guess he is american so...............

 

[aaronnorth]

You should be fine, if the tank is above 10gallons.

and liquid carbon is not CO2 as ed seely explained on ukaps.

true, but it does get converted into CO2.

 

[shrimply]

Hi Aaron, or anyone else, not sure if I should ask here but since its come up, do you have any more information (or documentation) on how the liquid carbon is used by plants comparatively to CO2 and why certain aquatic plants are unable to use, or detrimentally effected by liquid carbon, any scientific papers etc.

Is it the plants themselves that convert it to CO2 or is it a reaction with the water, or chemicals in the water.

 

[aaronnorth]

This thread should answer most of your questions:

http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...calvin&st=0

 

[baron von bubba]

Hi Aaron, or anyone else, not sure if I should ask here but since its come up, do you have any more information (or documentation) on how the liquid carbon is used by plants comparatively to CO2 and why certain aquatic plants are unable to use, or detrimentally effected by liquid carbon, any scientific papers etc.

Is it the plants themselves that convert it to CO2 or is it a reaction with the water, or chemicals in the water.

this may answer some of what your asking!

The route through which Flourish Excel™ is used by plants involves two main processes: a) adsorption and b) transformation. Because the active component of Flourish Excel™ (see Figure 2, polycycloglutaracetal) is charge neutral and of relatively low molecular weight it is readily adsorbed directly across the cellular membranes of most plants. Once present within the cell there are two possible modes of action. It may be biologically converted into CO2 and then utilized in that fashion. Or, it may be converted into any number of more complex organic compounds needed for the life processes of the plant (e.g. sugars, starch, amino acids, etc). These conversions (in either mode of action) are mediated by any of a variety of enzymes present (oxygenases, carboxylases, phosphorylases, etc). In order to determine the precise mechanism (i.e. down-conversion to CO2, or up-conversion to longer chains) further studies involving radioactive C14 tracers would be necessary. However, with that said, our studies to date show that Flourish Excel™ imparts a measurable, quantitative growth benefit to plants. Thus, it is clear that the plants are utilizing the Flourish Excel™.

[URL="http/www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumap...d-aquarium.html"]http/www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumap...d-aquarium.html[/URL]

This thread should answer most of your questions:

[URL="http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...calvin&st=0"]http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...calvin&st=0[/URL]

nice link arron, post two is somewhat interesting! :0)
"if the tank is getting daylight, algae is going to be a problem for you. "

 

[Nick16]

why? sunlight is a major cause of algae...

 

[aaronnorth]

why? sunlight is a major cause of algae...

daylight & sunlight are 2 different things

 

[Nick16]

i know i know

but surely that is why tubes are a specific K rating. To help prevent massive algae growth?

 

[aaronnorth]

i know i know

but surely that is why tubes are a specific K rating. To help prevent massive algae growth?

Lots of peoples tanks recieve daylight, unless they are in a cupboard or garage etc. they dont get algae growth. however if one tank was to get a small spot of sunlight, the high intensity compared to daylight gives algae the edge.
DW method suggest using daylight if possible.

K rating is to do with colour temperature. Colour temperature doesnt play a part in algae growth - except actinic - now i say that but i am not sure (a question i should ask!). the theory behind it i think, is plants do not use much of the light available, so "more is left over" for algae.


should we use K or should we use nm? nm is more specific to the spectrum which is more reliable to get data to say blue wavelengths (450nm) cause algae. I have grown plants under 18 000k quite happily, these werent actinics so there wasnt as much blue compared to actinics, they also had peaks in 650nm & 550nm - So you can see the difference.

 

[baron von bubba]

i know i know

but surely that is why tubes are a specific K rating. To help prevent massive algae growth?

i think it makes very little difference, from what i've picked up the k rating of the tubes has very little bearing on what causes algae.
i for one have my doubts if this statement applies to actinics, but ppl far more knowledgeable than me would say even these would not cause algae.
i personally am not prepared to test the theory tho! :0)

and as for the sunlight thing, even saying "sunlight is a major cause of algae" is a bit of an over exaggeration i feel, saying direct sunlight "could" or "can" cause algae would be more correct.
but that statement would also apply to ANY lighting ppl use in their tanks wouldn't it?

 

[Nick16]

maybe but you cant regulate how much sunlight will come through your window, whereas with lighting you can.

also the inconsistency of the sunlight will be a major factor, as it will be intense one day and cloudy the next with no sun.
now unless you want to sit permanently in the dark, this become an issue.