Glutaraldehyde and aquarium

[vahegan]

Which seems to be a typical Seachem assertion lacking any evidence. I’m personally skeptical that water plants take up gluteraldehyde for use.

An evidence in support of this notion is that the amount of carbon added as a result of Seachem Excel supplementation is negligible compared with the amount of CO2 that is typically supplemented to planted tanks. Moreover, even when added to tanks with plenty of CO2, glutaraldehyde provides a noticeable boost to the growth of plants. We can argue whether this is due to more energy-efficient supply of carbon, or due to suppressing the algae growth and thus making more nutrients available to the plants, or maybe both mechanisms work together, yet the effect is there. I was actually thinking, long time ago, to run an experiment with two similar planted tanks, dosing glutaraldehyde to one, and a similar amount of carbon in the form of sugar to the other. If the positive effect on plants was due to bacterial consumption of glutaraldehyde being converted to carbon dioxide, both tanks would show similar results. However I doubt that would be the case, otherwise we would have heard of many planted tank enthusiasts using the sugar-vodka-vinegar method, or dosing something like NOPOX, instead of the more expensive glutaraldehyde (which is also more dangerous to handle).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

How then to explain the growth of plants when there were no fertilizers at all, except gluteraldehyde?

I do not know the data nor do I even understand the question. no plant or animal can grow without a source of N, P, and various trace elements, regardless of whether it can metabolize gluteraldehyde or not.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

An evidence in support of this notion is that the amount of carbon added as a result of Seachem Excel supplementation is negligible compared with the amount of CO2 that is typically supplemented to planted tanks. Moreover, even when added to tanks with plenty of CO2, glutaraldehyde provides a noticeable boost to the growth of plants. We can argue whether this is due to more energy-efficient supply of carbon, or due to suppressing the algae growth and thus making more nutrients available to the plants, or maybe both mechanisms work together, yet the effect is there. I was actually thinking, long time ago, to run an experiment with two similar planted tanks, dosing glutaraldehyde to one, and a similar amount of carbon in the form of sugar to the other. If the positive effect on plants was due to bacterial consumption of glutaraldehyde being converted to carbon dioxide, both tanks would show similar results. However I doubt that would be the case, otherwise we would have heard of many planted tank enthusiasts using the sugar-vodka-vinegar method, or dosing something like NOPOX, instead of the more expensive glutaraldehyde (which is also more dangerous to handle).

Ok, I’ve not seen any data bearing on this, but I continue to be skeptical of what seems a rather unusual claim. I can’t prove it wrong, but Seachem has an unreliable track record of understanding their own products, and their assertion means nothing to me.