• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Glut Bashing

rebel

rebel

Member
Joined
4 Aug 2015
Messages
2,270
Hi everyone,

Just wanted for you to read this article via JBL. [ It is long(ish) ]
https://www.jbl.de/en/blog/detail/123/the-story-of-liquid-co2-fertilisation

It is a somewhat biased article against 'liquid CO2' which I think gives a wrong idea about the nuances involved.

I think a beginner reading this article would be misled etc somewhat. I have mixed feelings about it...

Summary: I reckon he is using his knowledge of the chemistry to deliberately mislead. I am happy to be corrected on my conclusions etc..

Any thoughts on this?
 
Nice read thanks for sharing.. Well in the end one might think this is just a pro JBL article bashing the credibility of any brand producing this product and stating it as safe and effective.

I also always kinda thought it is a fishy and not very healthy smelling product..

Once bought a can out of curiousity, but used it up by now and not planning to buy a new one. But i noticed it does work productive for some plants as it is counter productive for others again. I've used it as algaecid in my low tech the first few months starting it up and fight of the initial algae boom i created.. Had a Pogestemon stellatus in it, growing ok, till the day i stopped using it and the plant slowly died and is gone now. But regarding algae in a mature tank, i see no benefit of using it, there are other ways to deal with algae. And regarding plants, choices enough in low tech plants so not realy a need to choose something to difficult.. :)
 
I have to agree with this guy, as he makes clear, glutaraldehyde is an industrial cleaner in the same family of chemicals as formaldehyde. This in my opinion makes it well worth the scepticism about pouring it into aquariums without a second thought. At the moment, it doesn't really seem as though there is enough research out there on the chemicals evolution, action and implications within an aquarium to make an educated decision on it's use, so far JBL provides reasonable doubt of it's effectiveness and I see no hard evidence suggesting otherwise.

Particularly, I never liked how I can't find anything concrete which describes how it works, does it enter the plant? if so, how it is metabolised in plant cells? how it is broken down, and how might the plant deal with the waste products? - indeed if it even enters the plant cell at all - which I personally feel is unlikely due to it's large and complex molecular structure. He mentions as it degrades in the water it forms CO2 which may be taken up, but at negligible quantities so it doesn't really add up - potentially there are more chains to the reaction or more participants that make it more profitable for the plant - or perhaps it just kills enough of the (single celled) competition to allow plants to enjoy a larger share of the dissolved CO2 - who knows? That's the problem.

Luckily for me, whatever it may or may not do, I've stopped using any liquid carbon products for over 2 years now in my low tech tanks and the only thing that's changed is that I've spent less money!
 
Now you know why I do not want to work all day with my hands in this...............:rage:
 
Finn said:
I have to agree with this guy, as he makes clear, glutaraldehyde is an industrial cleaner in the same family of chemicals as formaldehyde. This in my opinion makes it well worth the scepticism about pouring it into aquariums without a second thought. At the moment, it doesn't really seem as though there is enough research out there on the chemicals evolution, action and implications within an aquarium to make an educated decision on it's use, so far JBL provides reasonable doubt of it's effectiveness and I see no hard evidence suggesting otherwise.

Particularly, I never liked how I can't find anything concrete which describes how it works, does it enter the plant? if so, how it is metabolised in plant cells? how it is broken down, and how might the plant deal with the waste products? - indeed if it even enters the plant cell at all - which I personally feel is unlikely due to it's large and complex molecular structure. He mentions as it degrades in the water it forms CO2 which may be taken up, but at negligible quantities so it doesn't really add up - potentially there are more chains to the reaction or more participants that make it more profitable for the plant - or perhaps it just kills enough of the (single celled) competition to allow plants to enjoy a larger share of the dissolved CO2 - who knows? That's the problem.

Luckily for me, whatever it may or may not do, I've stopped using any liquid carbon products for over 2 years now in my low tech tanks and the only thing that's changed is that I've spent less money!
Click to expand...

I think Tom Barr may have done some work comparing growth rates between nothing vs glut vs CO2. I thought glut gave 4x growth compared to nothing and CO2 gave 10x growth. Don't quote me on it though.

The argument that it's an industrial cleaner doesn't really hold. Warfarin is "rat poison" but thousands all over the world take it as a very effective (life saving) drug. The poison is in the dose and the dose in the aquarium and as a cleaner is very different.

In my view, his discourse is a sophisticated method of bashing another product and creating a paranoia and fear.
 
The Author has a Master of Science in Marketing Information.. :rolleyes: So what do you expect? I think from that point of view he did a great article on the comparison Liqiud Carbon versus Pressurized Carbon..

Imho i also thought after doing some reading "Why is this stuff offered as liquid carbon?" It has the propperty to encrease plantgrowth without anybody knowing how it realy does that. Bottom line is it doesn't contain nor add carbon nor carbon dioxide and it supossedly does something to the plant to make it work more sufficient with the low carbon dioxice availlable in the water column. Or does trigger a plant to internaly create his own bit of extra co2. Naming it Liquid Carbon (dioxide) is then again also a very sophisticated method of marketing and selling a product.

As the author states himself "The subject is diverse and can be viewed from varying perspectives"

Maybe he should have linked also to the scientific studies researching the negative impact of long time adding (Unnatural) high amounts pressurized co2 to fish health.. Which is as questionable as adding glut, we do not know yet, more research needs to be done.. But that is not the subject, it is about how do both compaire and the end conclussion is "Not good enough to make JBL sell at as product". It's a piece of smart marketing probably make jbl sell a few more pressurized co2 sets.
 
Last edited:
rebel said:
I think Tom Barr may have done some work comparing growth rates between nothing vs glut vs CO2. I thought glut gave 4x growth compared to nothing and CO2 gave 10x growth. Don't quote me on it though.

The argument that it's an industrial cleaner doesn't really hold. Warfarin is "rat poison" but thousands all over the world take it as a very effective (life saving) drug. The poison is in the dose and the dose in the aquarium and as a cleaner is very different.

In my view, his discourse is a sophisticated method of bashing another product and creating a paranoia and fear.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is, but as someone who only rarely uses glut (generally to kill things :eek:), never bought anything JBL brand and who has no major interest in CO2 injection I didn't approach the article as though I had a horse in this race. The points he brings up are legitimate concerns and most importantly, are left unresolved - at least to the majority of hobbyists. It makes glut an easy target for criticism and really, that's a very healthy thing to do if we want to see progress in how we keep our tanks. If glut is a valuable asset to the hobby then surely there will be science to rebuke this guy's article and we can all walk away better educated on it's use and application, otherwise I would argue that putting faith in products such as Seachem flourish excel is just falling for a different company's marketing strategy.

Also I have to disagree with your comparison to warfarin, as the key difference (and the problem we face) between the two is that we know how one of them works and we don't with the other! :)
 
Hiya, you make a valid point about Warfarin about the mechanism of action.

Consider paracetamol for example. Mechanism of action unknown but widely used. The science for it pain relief properties is actually not that strong.

You (and Zozo) have piqued my interest about whether long term injection of co2 is safe on critters.... As well as whether there has been any studies done on the efficacy and safety of glut/excel.

Your concerns can be extended to the 10x flow rate etc etc in the hobby.
 
rebel said:
my interest about whether long term injection of co2 is safe on critters
Click to expand...

There is a thread here at ukaps about this from a while ago linked to studies done in this field.. :) Studies revealed something like calcium or carbonate diposites in some internal organs in fish sp, kidneys if i remember correctly.. Alledged caused by unusual high amounts of co2 in the water.. The thread was presented as "Do we make our fish sick with putting them in high concentrations of co2".. The thread had in a sence the same feel as this one, where in a way one could say it's co2 bashing.. Because high co2 still only is (or was) under suspicion of beeing the cause with only circumstantial evidence..

Maybe it is for some sp. but the way the story was pressented i also had kinda the feeling it was yet unfounded bomshell dropping. :)
 
This is why I use neither co2 gas or liquid carbon anymore...no poisoning, or fish calcium deposits lol.

In all seriousness, I've been able to grow many plants now with lower lighting, generous ferts and large water changes, granted this can be variable with really challenging plants; but I'm willing to suggest a lot more can be done without co2 and LC than people think, if growth speed isn't a factor and lighting can be tweaked
 
Histopathology of nephrocalcinosis in some ornamental fishes

Nephrocalcinosis is a granular deposit composed mainly from calcium phosphate (Smart et al 1979) may involve part of the kidney tubules and ducts, which become
sclerotic (Harrison & Richards1979). Etiology of this disease is still uncertain and it is believed that it is related to dietary factors and or alteration in water physical an
d chemical parameters (Ferguson 1989). Bruno (1996) presented that there are two circumstances which are considered to cause or exacerbate nephrocalcinosis. Firstly, a prolonged exposure of fish to high levels of carbon dioxide at levels greater than 10 to 20 mg/L
Click to expand...
 
Hi all,
Finn said:
Particularly, I never liked how I can't find anything concrete which describes how it works, does it enter the plant? if so, how it is metabolised in plant cells? how it is broken down, and how might the plant deal with the waste products? - indeed if it even enters the plant cell at all - which I personally feel is unlikely due to it's large and complex molecular structure. He mentions as it degrades in the water it forms CO2 which may be taken up, but at negligible quantities so it doesn't really add up - potentially there are more chains to the reaction or more participants that make it more profitable for the plant - or perhaps it just kills enough of the (single celled) competition to allow plants to enjoy a larger share of the dissolved CO2 - who knows? That's the problem.
Click to expand...
There is a discussion from a while ago, <"about citric acid">, that might be of interest.

cheers Darrel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top