Excel use and potential cross contamination

Well, see... glucose is converted to pyruvate, and that leads to the citric acid cycle, so when you are adding glucose, then you are converting that to pyruvate in your body or plants-if you want the most energy possible out of it. So, it is just skipping the process of glycolysis, which doesn't produce much energy in respiration. So, it is increases the metabolism of organisms, and energy capabilities, this increases the amount of CO2 as byproduct. Another way you can do this is by exercising a lot, this increases the bodies efficiency in these processes. So, when you have more CO2 available, then the plant can photosynthesize more, which would mean the plant could then use this to have strong growth.

Basically, the plant, fish, and, bacteria would take that up in the water and use it to make ATP.

And then when O2 gets low and usually CO2 is high, then, organisms will switch to the less energetic glycolysis first step of the process. So, you are very right that it can be started at glucose, but here we are introducing the step later, which is more energetic, and are missing that step between glycolysis and citric acid

 

Well, see... glucose is converted to pyruvate, and that leads to the citric acid cycle, so when you are adding glucose, then you are converting that to pyruvate in your body or plants-if you want the most energy possible out of it. So, it is just skipping the process of glycolysis, which doesn't produce much energy in respiration. So, it is increases the metabolism of organisms, and energy capabilities, this increases the amount of CO2 as byproduct. Another way you can do this is by exercising a lot, this increases the bodies efficiency in these processes. So, when you have more CO2 available, then the plant can photosynthesize more, which would mean the plant could then use this to have strong growth.

Basically, the plant, fish, and, bacteria would take that up in the water and use it to make ATP.

And then when O2 gets low and usually CO2 is high, then, organisms will switch to the less energetic glycolysis first step of the process. So, you are very right that it can be started at glucose, but here we are introducing the step later, which is more energetic, and are missing that step between glycolysis and citric acid

So, in a nutshell, increasing the efficiency of sugars in the growth process, and increasing the CO2 levels accordingly, allowing the carbon to be recycled faster?

I think that's what I've already gotten, just putting it a different way. It may be a wonderful supplement to a low tech tank.

 

Yeah, it is introducing the most efficient step in processing glucose. Not against religion! But evolution is not an engineer and so we first evolved to have anoxic conditions (glycolysis), which led to oxygen being available and then we used the second process. But we keep both because it is beneficial, not all organisms have them both. The body cannot convert those chemicals in any other way, this is just how it does it. Or it may have a better process. This means it has to get pyruvate from the less energetic process to go further to get more energy. It would be better if it could just use pyruvate, to make more energy, and if it needed to, then only use glycolysis, but that is not readily available, so this is not how it developed. This just shows the developmental timeline well.

So, yep, increasing the metabolism, utilization of the converted sugar in the product, and it probably provides additional enzymes and other intermediates to accelerate it. And then it is recycled into CO2 more quickly. yes it is an ingenious idea. I wish I made it lol

 

Yeah, it is introducing the most efficient step in the process processing glucose. Not against religion! But evolution is not an engineer and so we first evolved to have anoxic conditions (glycolysis), which led to oxygen being available and then we used the second process. But we keep both because it is beneficial, not all organisms have them both. The body cannot convert those chemicals in any other way, this is just how it does it. Or it may have a better process.

So, yep, increasing the metabolism, utilization of the converted sugar in the product, and it probably provides additional enzymes and other intermediates to accelerate it. And then it is recycled into CO2 more quickly. yes it is an ingenious idea. I wish I made it lol

The only issue I see with the product, is the fact that there's gas exchange in the aquaria setting. I wouldn't see the extra CO2 as a large benefit, rather than the ability for plants to more efficiently process sugars.

That's where my need for carbon comes in, the rather limited supply that's exhausted within the first couple hours in a non injected tank. I would think that this product would increase growth in tandem with a product like Excel in a low tech setup to have the most optimal growth within the limitations.

What's the dosing instructions on this anyway?

Edit: bible never debunks evolution or dinosaurs. It's also taken out of context a LOT, which saddens me a Christian.

 

Well, Excel provides photosynthetic intermediates, but with the other product, you are providing the energy, so that the plants do not need to have as much photosynthesis and this creates more CO2. The only way photosynthesis is any good is through respiration. This is how plants actually grow and things like us. However, being plants, what they will actually do is increase their growth and reproduction like bacteria with that product, so they will continue photosynthesizing (and use this extra CO2), fish continue growing throughout all life as well too, but not as much as the others.

The only issue I see with the product, is the fact that there's gas exchange in the aquaria setting. I wouldn't see the extra CO2 as a large benefit, rather than the ability for plants to more efficiently process sugars.

That's where my need for carbon comes in, the rather limited supply that's exhausted within the first couple hours in a non injected tank. I would think that this product would increase growth in tandem with a product like Excel in a low tech setup to have the most optimal growth within the limitations.

What's the dosing instructions on this anyway?

Edit: bible never debunks evolution or dinosaurs. It's also taken out of context a LOT, which saddens me a Christian.

 

Well, Excel provides photosynthetic intermediates, but with the other product, you are providing the energy, so that the plants do not need to have as much photosynthesis and this creates more CO2. The only way photosynthesis is any good is through respiration. This is how plants actually grow and things like us. However, being plants, what they will actually do is increase their growth and reproduction like bacteria with that product, so they will continue photosynthesizing (and use this extra CO2), fish continue growing throughout all life as well too, but not as much as the others.

The product acts more like a catalyst. The photosynthesis creates the sugar, requiring the excel past the first couple hours.

Edit: more sugars produced, thus allowing more growth

 

uncclewis How long have you been using this product? Can't be more than a month or so - you just switch off Excel after overdosing.

 

About a month. Going well.

 

The only moonlight I've ever used were on the 24/7 and I really like having the dI'm blue light. It's just bright enough you can see the fish but it's apparent they're in sleep mode. I'm a fan but not so much so I'd go of and get them. It's okay, but most of the time they're sleeping I am too so I don't care what they look like. Haha! I haven't used the blue light setting in probably 6 months. Just a pain to switch it

 

The only moonlight I've ever used were on the 24/7 and I really like having the dI'm blue light. It's just bright enough you can see the fish but it's apparent they're in sleep mode. I'm a fan but not so much so I'd go of and get them. It's okay, but most of the time they're sleeping I am too so I don't care what they look like. Haha! I haven't used the blue light setting in probably 6 months. Just a pain to switch it

Lol. That's the idea behind the second light on a timer. No fuss and total dark for a period

 

Not after just overdosing... I just didnt know it was toxic, especially not that toxic. If I knew I was putting in a fixative, I would not have used it. I would use those for animal or brain dissections, not in my pets.

Excel belongs here.

 

Not after just overdosing... I just didnt know it was toxic, especially not that toxic. If I knew I was putting in a fixative, I would not have used it. I would use those for animal or brain dissections, not in my pets.

Excel belongs here.

MultI purpose application, each with different instructions and care.

It's kind of like certain drugs, like caffeine. You can die from too much, but there's acceptable amounts

 

Yeah, well, items can have multi-purpose, but ingestion of these chemicals for reasons other than their purposes is not one of them. Like what you are saying- is a small nuclear explosion could have multiple purposes. It could provide land for the other people who survived to then move there once the radiation has cleared. They would then grow better and their population and would not have to compete for their resources or you could just have a large nuclear explosion and kill them all.

So you are saying that small amounts of disinfectant which do not kill the organism, but harm them, and may lead to death later in life, is fine, because it has the additional purpose of providing photosynthetic intermediates or CO2 (its other purpose).

You do not ingest disinfectants because they are so toxic; Like do you ingest hydrogen peroxide, hand sanitizer, formaldehyde, or anything like that? And if you were to do it, would you do it for a reason other than trying to kill a strong infection? This is the issue, I am having and I am looking out for the fish. ;-)

MultI purpose application, each with different instructions and care.

It's kind of like certain drugs, like caffeine. You can die from too much, but there's acceptable amounts

 

Yeah, well, items can have multi-purpose, but ingestion of these chemicals for reasons other than their purposes is not one of them. Like what you are saying- is a small nuclear explosion could have multiple purposes. It could provide land for the other people who survived to then move there once the radiation has cleared. They would then grow better and their population and would not have to compete for their resources or you could just have a large nuclear explosion and kill them all.

So you are saying that small amounts of disinfectant which do not kill the organism, but harm them, and may lead to death later in life, is fine, because it has the additional purpose of providing photosynthetic intermediates or CO2 (its other purpose).

You do not ingest disinfectants because they are so toxic; Like do you ingest hydrogen peroxide, hand sanitizer, formaldehyde, or anything like that? And if you were to do it, would you do it for a reason other than trying to kill a strong infection? This is the issue, I am having and I am looking out for the fish. ;-)

Nuclear can provide power, but can in turn kill. Water gives life, but can kill. Salt is required for our bodies, but too much will kill.

It's not that I'm introducing large amounts that could cripple the livestock, then say screw it and keep it up. The amounts needed to deal damage are in concentrations greater than what I will introduce and remove with my weekly water changes, too. I've done far too much research on plants and ferts and the effects on fish. We just may have different views on which amounts are fine. You also have to factor the different ways fish deal with water and toxins that we do

 

How do you know proper doses of Excel is harming or killing our fish?

 

How do you know proper doses of Excel is harming or killing our fish?

Here it shows as low as about 2 ppm is lethal for eggs hatching.

https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/fulltext/2005/20050003.pdf

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/reports/tr/400s/tr490/index.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574205000049

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003497504023264

https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/11474730

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/joh/48/2/48_2_75/_article

It is also toxic for you and has a tendency for some of it to vaporize.

 

@TexasDomer - in tandem with reports there's this. I believe that excel is 1.7, and not the 2.5 in the initial post



Edit: there's another post on page 4 that has similar thoughts. I can't find the page where I found the 1.7. It may have been too long ago before a history wipe, sorry

Those sensitive species, like algae, need a higher dose to deal with, hence the overdose to kill something like BBA. I'm personally going to nix the initial and water change doses in favor of a longer lasting bottle.

Don't mean to sound rude, but I've done research, even if I can't find the initial pages to back me up. Some of my more intimate questions involved much more searches and those pages get lost really quick. I also don't bookmark things.

 

Here it shows as low as about 2 ppm is lethal for eggs hatching.

https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/fulltext/2005/20050003.pdf

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/reports/tr/400s/tr490/index.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574205000049

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003497504023264

https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/11474730

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/joh/48/2/48_2_75/_article

It is also toxic for you and has a tendency for some of it to vaporize.

I don't have time to read through all of these links at the moment, but do any of these say that at the dosage Seachem recommends for maintenance dosing, that Excel is harmful to fish? I know in higher concentrations it is harmful; that's not my question.

@TexasDomer - in tandem with reports there's this. I believe that excel is 1.7, and not the 2.5 in the initial post



Edit: there's another post on page 4 that has similar thoughts. I can't find the page where I found the 1.7. It may have been too long ago before a history wipe, sorry

I didn't see anything on there saying that following the proper dosage (maintenance dose - I don't do the initial dose) is harmful to fish.

 

Well, I found some references to a patent for this use by a different aquatic and it was 4PPM. Nearly all uses are for disinfection that do not involve any living organisms, with the exception of the cosmetics and treatment for diseases only that I put here. There were like 50 for disinfection/killing things.

Here is a reference that in the UK a Cosmetics. Glutaraldehyde is allowed as a preservative in cosmetics in Europe at concentrations up to0.1%. It is not allowed in aerosols and sprays.

Aquaculture. Glutaraldehyde is used, generally in conjunction with wetting agents, to control viruses andother micro-organisms in fish farming.

Plus, I do hope you realize that if you are only introducing 1ppm of it at max you are increasing your total CO2 by 1PPM, this is extremely low. In contrast, all of the organisms in the tank would produce far greater CO2.




Water treatment. Aqueous solutions of glutaraldehyde at 10-50% are used for the treatment of water incooling towers, air washers and other water recirculating systems to prevent corrosion and the build-upof microbial growth. The solution is administered in slugs as shock kill doses, either manually or by useof automatic dosing equipment, to give 50-100 ppm glutaraldehyde in treated water


Cold disinfectant in the health care industry. Glutaraldehyde is used in the form of a 1% or 2% aqueoussolution which has to be activated by an alkaline buffer, for example, sodium bicarbonate. The activatedsolution can be used for up to two weeks and it is used in the chemical disinfection of instruments such asendoscopes, bronchoscopes, dental equipment and other clinical instruments. Disinfection involvesimmersion of the instrument in glutaraldehyde solution using either closed troughs, trolley systems orautomated washing units.

So 2PPM = .0002%
5PPM = .0005%

 

This is all when used at a higher concentration or in conjunction with other chemicals. If you can find a study that shows that Excel use at the concentration recommended by Seachem is toxic to fish, please share. What you're sharing isn't helpful and has the same issues you had with the AC debate - you're sharing studies that aren't addressing what I'm asking, and you can't make those sort of leaps and bounds.

 

I didn't see anything on there saying that following the proper dosage (maintenance dose - I don't do the initial dose) is harmful to fish.

That's the point. All the studies start showing harmful effects are at higher dosages than the daily dosing of Excel. This is just showing that the Glutaraldehyde concentrations in the bottle of excel, when dosed at the recommended 1ml/10gal, is below the harmful threshold of even sensitive species.

 

You guys are not accepting that there is not safely ingested form of this toxin... It is a disinfectant. The reason why CO2 is produced is because it is broken down by the organism.

I am not making any leaps or bounds! This is from seachem excels data sheet. Seachem will not release what percentage their product is of the toxin... That is why I cannot tell you. It is proprietary. However, given the warning label and this other research, you can deduce that it is between .25PPM and 2PPM. And this is how much it would increase CO2, not much, at all...

https://www.nap.edu/read/5435/chapter/14#280
"

Route(s) of Entry: Inhalation, Skin, Eyes, Ingestion

Health Hazards (Acute): Inhalation-Irritation to respiratory tract; Skin-Itching, pain; Eyes-Conjunctivitis;Ingestion-Moderately toxic

Carcinogenicity: NA

Signs and Symptoms of Exposure: Inhalation-Stinging sensation in nose or throat, possible bleeding fromthe nose, coughing, difficulty with breathing; Skin-Itching, redness, swelling, pain; Eyes-Redness,swelling, discharge; Ingestion-Irritation of digestive tract, pain, nausea, vomiting

Medical Conditions Generally Aggravated by Exposure: Dermatitis, asthma, inflammatory or fibroticpulmonary disease

Emergency and First Aid Procedures: Inhalation-Remove to fresh air; Skin-Remove contaminatedclothing, wash with soap and water; Eyes-Flush with water for at least 15 minutes and seek medicalattention; Ingestion-DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING, do not give water to drink, seek medical helpimmediately. NOTE TO PHYSICIAN-Due to the moderately irritating or corrosive nature of the material,and the potential for lung injury from material aspirated during vomiting, the stomach should beevacuated carefully, with a method least likely to cause aspiration (e.g., gastric lavage after endotrachealintubation.)"

This is all when used at a higher concentration or in conjunction with other chemicals. If you can find a study that shows that Excel use at the concentration recommended by Seachem is toxic to fish, please share. What you're sharing isn't helpful and has the same issues you had with the AC debate - you're sharing studies that aren't addressing what I'm asking, and you can't make those sort of leaps and bounds.

 

Ahh okay, I was misunderstanding what you were trying to say. We agree then!
uncclewis - you can't assume anything at all. And again, the info you're providing is not proving your point. Throwing random studies around does not prove your point. As a grad student scientist, you should know better haha

 

Ahh okay, I was misunderstanding what you were trying to say. We agree then!

You asked what my basis on it not being harmful came from, lol. All good.

Lewis- it's not raising CO2 at all. It's introducing carbon in compounds. Even if my sole betta and the plants increase the CO2 in my tank by a whopping 10 ppm overnight, less than 1/3 of that amount is actually carbon. Not to mention, 1/38000 = 0.0000263157% and that's at a full uncut Glutaraldehyde concentration at 1ml in 10 gallons.

 

You asked what my basis on it not being harmful came from, lol. All good.

That was directed at @ since he was saying it was harmful I should have been more clear!

 

However, this is a toxic substance... Any amount that you introduce, is going to cause harm, therefore, use non-toxic alternatives. This is not the anything will be toxic situation. This is taking a very toxic substance and putting it into the tank, it just so happens that when you get to around 2-5PPM of it, it becomes lethal, which shows you how toxic the stuff really is...

Also, you are only increasing CO2 ppm in accordance with the final PPM that you injected into the aquarium of the substance. When the normal CO2 level is around 3PPM, that is almost nothing. Something like the other product could potentially have far greater effects, or even adding sugar itself would too. Through bacterial action.

 

However, this is a toxic substance... Any amount that you introduce, is going to cause harm, therefore, use non-toxic alternatives. This is not the anything will be toxic situation. This is taking a very toxic substance and putting it into the tank, it just so happens that when you get to around 5PPM of it, it becomes lethal, which shows you how toxic the stuff really is...

Sadly, there's a lot of toxic substances, just not with the toxic label. The concentration just varies on the harmful effects. Again, I point to caffeine. Not needed, but useful.

I'd use vitamins, like potassium, too. Too much and we kick the bucket.

And to get to 5ppm, that's over 6 times the daily dose

 

However, this is a toxic substance... Any amount that you introduce, is going to cause harm, therefore, use non-toxic alternatives.

Definitely disagree with this.

And you had no problem with Excel until you overdosed it and killed some of your fish. You were overdosing it to solve an algae problem. Don't overdose and it should not cause issues.

 

Ha, do you know how much caffeine, potassium, etc... it would take to be toxic? It is definitely not 5 parts per million

This is one of the industrial disinfectants. It kills algae, bacteria, viruses, and animal cells. therefore, it is a toxic vector to all DNA carrying and organisms. It is not that it does not produce toxic effects, it is just that either you do not see them and the cells just die and are replaced fast enough, or that you attribute the illness to something else.

And adding sugar would add 6 molecules of CO2 per molecule of glucose. That is a far cry higher than e.g. .5PPM.

 

This is one of the industrial disinfectants. It kills algae, bacteria, viruses, and animal cells. therefore, it is a toxic vector to all DNA carrying and organisms. It is not that it does not produce toxic effects, it is just that either you do not see them and the cells just die and are replaced fast enough, or that you attribute the illness to something else.

Still not seeing any proof for this. Don't overdose. It's that easy.

 

However, this is a toxic substance... Any amount that you introduce, is going to cause harm, therefore, use non-toxic alternatives. This is not the anything will be toxic situation. This is taking a very toxic substance and putting it into the tank, it just so happens that when you get to around 2-5PPM of it, it becomes lethal, which shows you how toxic the stuff really is...

Also, you are only increasing CO2 ppm in accordance with the final PPM that you injected into the aquarium of the substance. When the normal CO2 level is around 3PPM, that is almost nothing. Something like the other product could potentially have far greater effects, or even adding sugar itself would too. Through bacterial action.

But sugar can feed a slew of bacteria with negative effects when dosed in the water column, not to mention the effect of sugar on the livestock.

Not to mention, the other product does something that's rather unrelated to Excel. One increases the efficiency of the plant metabolism to encourage growth, and the other uses carbon compounds and other intermediates to promote the production of the sugars. It's like comparing a potato to a grape.

 

Well seachem cannot make money off of selling sugar water and if they did do that, then people would just make it themselves. You get much more benefit from doing that, however, because it produces so much CO2 do not just add a ton. Do like 1% dilution on your tank size. Like the other product some of the bacteria will use some of the CO2 created and turn it into O2, as well. This is why it cannot be all utilized by plants.

If you do a 1% dilution or less, the appreciable effect on bacteria will be small. Most of these bacteria will not be pathogenic, nearly all of them will not be.

Usually most disease bacteria cannot grow at dilutions below 1%. 99.99 x10^ 100

The risk of harm would be far less, if you do not use too high of a dilution. The fish are constantly bombarded with bacteria, and they are accustomed to handling it. Most of the bacteria that are pathogenic are accustomed to growing in higher glucose concentrations, that are in the organisms that they infect.

 

Well seachem cannot make money off of selling sugar water and if they did do that, then people would just make it themselves. You get much more benefit from doing that, however, because it produces so much CO2 do not just add a ton. Do like 1% dilution on your tank size. Like the other product some of the bacteria will use some of the CO2 created and turn it into O2, as well. This is why it cannot be all utilized by plants.

If you do a 1% dilution or less, the appreciable effect on bacteria will be small. Most of these bacteria will not be pathogenic, nearly all of them will not be.

Usually most disease bacteria cannot grow at dilutions below 1%. 99.99 x10^ 100

You're proposing that the rates of the CO2 are produced is going to be greater than the CO2 lost in the gas exchange.

Bacteria will also cultivate where the food is, and in a tank environment, it'll be the filter where it'll be common in one spot. The food comes to it. It'll consume the oxygen starving the nitro bacteria too. If it doesn't work this way, the bacteria wouldn't take off due to the sheer dilution in moving water. Adding sugar to my tank still sounds like a bad idea

Edit: You're also adding far more variables than just dilution with sugar. Is there something to base this theory on you can link that's relevant to the home aquarium?

 

Well, these bacteria which utilize this glucose will be ubiquitous bacteria and they are generally the bacteria that are akin to your fish, just sitting there, trying to live too and getting whatever scraps, that they can get. Most of the pathogenic bacteria are inside your fish and or are trying to get in there because they have higher metabolisms and are accustomed to having 50-100 ppm of glucose. When outside this, often it is very foreign to them and they have to be inactive. These scraps just aren't enough for the bigger and less efficient ones. But they also have a benefit of higher reproduction when glucose levels are higher... Adding sugar, is essentially the same thing as the other product that I showed you, but, the other has additional intermediates that allow organisms to do it faster. Most bacteria is not pathogenic. Generally bacteria cultures are grown at 10% glucose (average).

 

Well, these bacteria which utilize this glucose will be ubiquitous bacteria and they are generally the bacteria that are akin to your fish, just sitting there, trying to live too and getting whatever scraps, that they can get. Most of the pathogenic bacteria are inside your fish and or are trying to get in there because they have higher metabolisms and are accustomed to having 50-100 ppm of glucose. When outside this, often it is very foreign to them and they have to be inactive. These scraps just aren't enough for the bigger and less efficient ones. But they also have a benefit of higher reproduction when glucose levels are higher... Adding sugar, is essentially the same thing as the other product that I showed you, but, the other has additional intermediates that allow organisms to do it faster. Most bacteria is not pathogenic. Generally bacteria cultures are grown at 10% glucose (average).

Proof of this working in the home aquarium with inhabitants?

 

" There are approximately ten times as many bacterial cells in the human flora as there are human cells in the body, with the largest number of the human flora being in the gut flora, and a large number on the skin.[SUP][11][/SUP] The vast majority of the bacteria in the body are rendered harmless by the protective effects of the immune system, and some are beneficial. However, several species of bacteria are pathogenic and cause infectious diseases, including cholera, syphilis, anthrax, leprosy, and bubonic plague. The most common fatal bacterial diseases are respiratory infections, with tuberculosis alone killing about 2 million people per year, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa.[SUP][12][/SUP] In developed countries, antibiotics are used to treat bacterial infections and are also used in farming, making antibiotic resistance a growing problem. In industry, bacteria are important in sewage treatment and the breakdown of oil spills, the production of cheese and yogurt through fermentation, and the recovery of gold, palladium, copper and other metals in the mining sector,[SUP][13][/SUP] as well as in biotechnology, and the manufacture of antibiotics and other chemicals.[SUP][14] " [/SUP]

Unfortunately, there is no money in it for anyone to research this. But, this is the closest I can get to it.
Wikipedia.
Glucose is a ubiquitous fuel in biology. It is used as an energy source in most organisms, from bacteria to humans, through either aerobic respiration, anaerobic respiration, or fermentation. Glucose is the human body's key source of energy, through aerobic respiration, providing about 3.75 kilocalories (16 kilojoules) of food energy per gram.[SUP][8][/SUP]Breakdown of carbohydrates (e.g. starch) yields mono- and disaccharides, most of which is glucose. Through glycolysis and later in the reactions of the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation, glucose is oxidized to eventually form CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and water, yielding energy mostly in the form of ATP. The insulin reaction, and other mechanisms, regulate the concentration of glucose in the blood.
Clarification: I do want you to understand that the some of the bacteria which are normally denitrifying, will instead be using this glucose. Therefore, nitrate levels would be expected to increase, however, this will be offset by higher numbers of them and the others will be denitrifying. The net effect should be lower on nitrates*. These denitrifying guys will make nitrogen gas instead of CO2, from nitrate, but they will switch to glucose absorption additionally, for whatever is available... This is how you can get reductions in nitrate from adding sugar and more CO2. But also the plants will be using more CO2 and nitrate for photosynthesis. But other bacteria will be the ubiquitous. It will also have algae uptake of it too,which will be making some of the CO2. So, it is not just bacteria, but I want you to be fully informed.

Also, most nitrifying bacteria can use glucose directly instead of ammonia/nitrate/nitrite.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_by_Bacteria_and_Algae_in_Aquatic_Ecosystems

The aqueous glucose would just cross the gills and I would see no harm in this at all because the body naturally has glucose inside the cells. I would also imagine that fish have also grown accustomed to minute levels of it in the water.

I will see if I can give you the actual bacteria names

 

That quote you provided does nothing to support what you are saying. Please don't add sugar to your tank.

 

That quote you provided does nothing to support what you are saying. Please don't add sugar to your tank.

I'm not, lol. The article at the end only says about forcing algae and plants to do exactly what they have been in my tank. It also doesn't show glucose or acetate levels individually or the source of the waters and other vital parameters. It's just not concrete enough to utilize, or on subject enough for me to bother with. Thanks for the help Domer! Hope I at least answered the blue light question and anything else you may have asked. Placing the order for a fugeray planted plus tomorrow and swapping substrate with driftwood and starting excel.

Lewis, please stop. My thread has gone far off topic. I haven't dismissed that product, just the evidence against excel and sugar

 

That comment was also not directed at you, just to clarify

Thanks for the help too! Pics when you get the new light! I so wish I could get a Planted Plus for all of my tanks. My favorite fixture, by far.

 

Glucose is naturally in lakes and that was an example!
"indicate that the algal uptake of glucose and acetate in Lake Erken, Sweden, is always less than 10% of the bacterial uptake, even though the algal biomass may be orders of magnitude greater than the bacterial. Two new types of bioassay employ the kinetics of bacterial uptake systems as the measuring reaction. Acetate and glucose were found in 1-10 @mg/liter concentrations in the several natural waters tested.

These bacteria utilize the glucose to make CO2. That is what you wanted. You can also just simulate this by adding sugar yourself.

I was pre-medical, so, may be these things make more sense to me. I do not know. Either way I did enjoy and wish you would trust sugar over toxic substances, but, I digress. Good luck to you both.

Also, I ended up with 3 planted + on my 75 gallon because of my really really thick forest. And yes I do dose sugar once every 3 days. I do recommend them! But, I am waiting for some better LED next time, higher wattage... Wish they made a planted + like that!