Prime Stops ‘melt’ ?

Using Seachem Prime might solve the problem of melting Java Moss.

 

Using Seachem Prime might solve the problem of melting Java Moss.

how?

 

how?

It removes nitrates, nitrites, ammonia and so many other things that other products just cannot do. So it will prevent the melting of Java Moss.

Thanks I appreciate the info, especially about placing and letting it be. Sounds like it’s a hardy plant.


You can pry my Seachem Prime from my cold dead hands.

Please stick to your own thread for that debate. Thanks.

It's just an honest opinion I have about melting Java Moss. Prime worked for me.

 

It removes nitrates, nitrites, ammonia and so many other things that other products just cannot do. So it will prevent the melting of Java Moss.

What does that have to do with java moss melting...Melting is caused by plants adjusting to a new environment. Removing Ammonia, nitrite, nitrate has nothing to do with it.

 

What does that have to do with java moss melting...Melting is caused by plants adjusting to a new environment. Removing Ammonia, nitrite, nitrate has nothing to do with it.

In hard water plants melt twice as faster. And it is the unwanted elements in water which causes melting. The lesser you have the better it is. If you want your plants to melt less, its better to have less ammonia, nitrite, nitrate etc.

 

In hard water plants melt twice as faster. And it is the unwanted elements in water which causes melting. The lesser you have the better it is. If you want your plants to melt less, its better to have less ammonia, nitrite, nitrate etc.

I don’t think that’s true..even if it was, that would make everything much easier since the faster they melt then the faster they can grow, considering most aquarium plants are sold emersed. But it takes the same amount of time to melt in any water parameters.

 

Prime does absolutely nothing for plants. I have rinsed a 6 liter container full of java moss in plain tap water and let it sit for a few weeks and it did not die or melt. In fact, plants actually use ammonia, nitrites and nitrates as food. They also benefit from minerals in tap water. Prime doesn't take anything out. It detoxifies chlorine, chloramine, ammonia, nitrites and heavy metals.

Your fish needs tap water treated with Prime (or other dechlorinator), your plants do not.

 

I don’t think that’s true..even if it was, that would make everything much easier since the faster they melt then the faster they can grow, considering most aquarium plants are sold emersed. But it takes the same amount of time to melt in any water parameters.

Problem solved. It's true, excess ammonia can kill plants.

 

Hmm if that is the case then why did all my Java moss melt extremely badly when I got it.. even though I used prime??

 

Ok first of all, plants melting have absolutely nothing to do with ammonia, nitrite, or nitrate.

And second, Prime doesn't remove any of those things.

 

Using Seachem Prime might solve the problem of melting Java Moss.

In hard water plants melt twice as faster. And it is the unwanted elements in water which causes melting. The lesser you have the better it is. If you want your plants to melt less, its better to have less ammonia, nitrite, nitrate etc.

Problem solved. It's true, excess ammonia can kill plants.

What are you basing your statement on. Do you have any evidence to back it up

 

It removes , , and so many other things that other products just cannot do. So it will prevent the melting of .

Prime doesn't actually "remove" ammonia: it only temporarily binds the free ammonia portion of total ammonia into iminium salts (the ammonium portion is left unbound). In addition, it's contested whether Prime actually reduces nitrites/nitrates to nitrogen gas as is claimed by Seachem: they haven't released information on the chemical composition of Prime nor on the mechanism of action through which nitrite and nitrate is reduced.

Excess ammonia/nitrite/nitrate can cause plants to melt, but so will copper, calcium, magnesium, zinc, silver, etc. Essentially most chemical substances in sufficient excess will have some manner of toxicity on plants. But the concentrations of these substances in well maintained tanks is rarely (if ever) able to induce lethal effects on plants: fish would more likely be dead or dying before plants are affected.

In addition, the term "melt", I think, isn't very useful. The scientific literature usually describes two sorts of plant mortality;

(1) Programmed Cell Death (PCD) where cells, tissues and plant organs "actively" die to enable the rest of the plant to live; and
(2) Necrosis, the "passive" mode of dying, which is what we generally think of death beyond the point of no return.

What we think of melt is generally autophagic ("self-eating)" PCD, where inefficient or redundant plant cells actively die and their cellular components are recycled to enable new growth. This is the sort of cell death that tends to occur, for example, when plants are transplated across two different tanks with varying water parameters (such as nutrient composition): inefficient old cells die off to provide for new cells with new enzymes that are more functional in the current environment. This sort of cell mortality is very common and is generally part of routine plant biology.

This is in contrast to necrotic death, where severe cellular trauma prevents PCD from occurring. Necrotic death due to toxicological causes is, from my reading, very rare in aquariums as most aquarists don't go about purposively adding chemical substances in lethal amounts (which, again, are more likely to affect fish before plants). More likely it's due to other causes: severe nutrient deficiency, lack of lighting, insufficient CO2, etc.

 

What we think of melt is generally autophagic ("self-eating)" PCD, where inefficient or redundant plant cells actively die and their cellular components are recycled to enable new growth. This is the sort of cell death that tends to occur, for example, when plants are transplated across two different tanks with varying water (such as nutrient composition): inefficient old cells die off to provide for new cells with new enzymes that are more functional in the current environment. This sort of cell mortality is very common and is generally part of routine plant biology.

SO interesting.
I've been told in the past (I used to cringe when my at-the-time grade 1 son would come home and start a conversation with "people say...", but here I am doing it myself LOL) that when moving plants from one tank to another, with varying parameters as you say above, I can cut off most of the healthy growth before the move. But by your description above (and I've come to greatly appreciate your wisdom of late), it would be more beneficial to let it die back, at least a bit, before removing dying parts, so the rest of the plant has time to reabsorb and recycle those nutrients. I guess the critical part of that argument is whether the plant releases nutrients from dying parts directly into the water column, or pulls them back to stem/root crown/rhizome/roots first. You're saying it's the latter, yes/no?

 

You're saying it's the latter, yes/no?

Oh it'll be a it depends: what I presented above was a very approximate generalisation. Not all cell components can be broken into compounds, recycled and directed to other cell growth. But many compounds are mobile: nitrates, phosphates, etc. They're essentially moved directly from old growth to areas of the plant where they can furnish new growth. From what I remember, I believe it is calcium, boron, iron and copper that are immobile and are released into the water column in the form of various compounds.

I've not heard of any definite arguments as to whether new growth should be trimmed before or after being transplanted (I do a combination of both when transplanting terrestrial and aquatic plants). But once it begins to decay, it definitely should be removed. Part of the issue with non-recoverable organic matter is that it causes the release of carbohydrates and other organic compounds into the water column: algae utilises these substances as "triggers" to initiate growth.

 

Oh it'll be a it depends

Isn't it always?

 

Isn't it always?

For any "absolute truth" in scholarly literature, I find that there's about 5 exceptions, and each exception has its own 10 qualifications.

Not being a plant biologist (only an interested hobbyist!), I never read further than the 2nd or 3rd exception as anything further than that usually requires some intimate knowledge of the field and the technical terminology.

As an example, one study that I had read on plant PCD included this sentence: "It has been shown to participate in various processes, such as diverse intracellular trafficking, post-mitotic GolgI reassembly, cargo receptor recognition, conjugation to phosphatidylethanolamine, etc." I essentially have no idea of what is being said after "such as".