Tom, I would be careful with uttering such statements. No one is saying you should stop using sugar or a similar form of DOC. Although Randy Holmes-Farley has fairly pointed out that questions remain to be answered regarding the biochemical processes that occur on or around the pellets, many hobbyists have successfully used this product on their aquarium.
I never disputed that claim either.
I agreed with Randy.
Tom, calling Jean-Paul ignorant and having a lust for $$$ is simply unfair.
You are going off topic by playing this
personal Troll card here. End it now or should we get the mods to baby sit for you?
I have never said that he nor anyone
specifically was ignorant nor suggested he was anything, nor "lust" of any sort. These are false claims you assumed and came up with all on your own.
The man has a Ph.D. himself and is not just fooling around. Of course more information about the causal effects of the pellets are more than welcome, which will slowly be released when this is available.
A degree does not imply it is a wise management decision nor did I suggest it was "fooling around". Great, he is doing something that can potentially help, I'm just questioning is it really worth the tradeoff/cost benefit vs sugar.
That is on topic.
See the difference?
Attack the idea, not the person.
This method is simply less time-consuming, and restricts bacterial growth to the filter rather than causing an aquarium-wide bloom.
Is it really less time consuming?
A dosing drip for sugar is easy to add.
Time management issue trade off removed, for a few $.
Aquarium wide blooms are likely due to the loading rates, pulsed too much.
Folks get a little whacky and lard things on at times, just add too much carelessly, we are human and do stuff like that and get over zealous.
That's a human factor I'd argue.
We could also add sugar to things like agar, pellets for a slow rate of diffusion, Sugar infused clay also would provide slow release + provide high surface area for bacterial colonization.
Likely would not last as long as say a polymer and not be as localized, but would be cheaper. Adding sugar to these products above would release more C than this product. Aquarist own errors and pulsing too much and then not waiting for settling seems more likely to me.
Cost is a factor.
Cost benefit is also a factor.
Adding sugar at a steady low rate works well and avoids the tank wide issue, that has been demonstrated. Dosing it steady at a low rate is all that is needed to relieve the C limitation for the bacteria.
I'm certain tank to tank differences occur, and the rates of dosing folks will add will vary(sugar/this product, booze etc). A product that is steady in it's rate diffusion and low, would allow the user to add more/less to suit and monitor their NO3 levels carefully (assuming they know how and can use calibration standards to make a confident management decision). Some might buy that.
I do not argue that and it might lead to other better methods/info along the way. I just want to see how the trade offs are somehow better than say a sugar drip dosing might be.
So far I remain unconvinced.
It's more localized, but is there really this implied real risk to tank wide issues if some C is floating around(and how much C is required for that to occur? You think it is the same for all aquariums? (I don't) Or is that merely a function of poor aquarist usage/loading rates? For the latter, this product might help.
I might agree with that.
Still a drip with sugar should also be able to achieve the same result for most any tank. Start slow and do so progressively, not add tiny amount, then get impatient and add too much etc. I think if you go stepwise and add the sugar slow and progressively, you should not get a tank wide bloom.
This product would make that process potentially easier.
Regards,
Tom
