So...who uses Excel? (Gluteraldehyde)

Dirk, Ive recently moved over to the Microbelift Bio Carbon, and very very happy with the results on plant growth. However I purchsed excel yesterday purely to combat the bba outbreak I am experiencing at the moment in my main tank. My CO2 bottle ran out a few days before christmas, and finding a place to refill at this time of the year is proving adventurous. Hence the BBA outbreak.

I read the Tom Barr thread you referenced, and even there the mention was made to the actual dilution of the toxic chemical being 0,0something percent.

In medical science, often minute traces of someting is used to make the person immune to that something. Im thinking here of innoculations and vaccinations. We all know that if fish medication is not dosed correctly, the virus can create 'super virus' that is immune to the medication.

The thought I am following here is:
With the chemical being so diluted, is there any evidence or thought showing that fish could become tolerant of the chemical? I doubt they will ever get immune, due to the toxicity, but tolerable?

 

Hi Tom,

The MSDS sheet says:

Please just remember that Ecological Laboratories start in 1976. They have been doing this sort of stuff for a very long time and have massive labs in Florida with lots of mad scientists working for them. This Bloom and Grow range was developed for the Turkish government to be used in the national aquarium.

 

Well, all this stuff just goes way over my head. @CharlieB asks good questions. I used Excel Flourish for a while, but got no benefit from it and can report no negatives either. I will now use Bloom and Grow as a test. Bottom line is performance and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I know my water is short of some elements, as the plant leaves discolor and is full of holes and the plants do not grow. I never had to trim! So the Bloom and Grow range makes sense to me. I am not into super planted tanks either, so carbon, 'liquid carbon' and CO2 does not appeal to me. I just want healthy plants.

Another indication to me that my water is lacking, is that the situation worsened since I am using RO water. I build my TDS back up with Discuss Trace and Replenish, to a level of 120tds, but obviously that is not what the plants need. Bloom and Grow seems to offer what I am still short of.

 

OK guys,

Been cleaning tanks this morning and not at my computer and I see that quite a number of replies have been made and I will try to answer as many of the questions that have come up as possible.

So firstly Tom asks whether and how glutaraldehyde has to do with carbon?

Well, the bottom line is that we do not know exactly through which specific reaction, but we do know that it is the carbon in the glutaraldehyde that is supplying the carbon in the Excel. In my opinion the aldehyde group first reacts with oxygen to form its carboxylic acid, and then the carboxylic acid products would go into a metabolic cycle called the Krebs cycle or tricarboxylic acid cycle and used for energy production or for the production of fragments that contain 2 carbon atoms. These can then be used to make glucose and the glucose can then be used to make cellulose which together with lignin are the main structural components of plants. In photosynthesis in which CO2 from the atmosphere is used, the carbon comes from the CO2 obviously and this is then used for the production of glucose and this is then used to produce cellulose. So you can see that glutaraldehyde is feeding carbon to the plant and it is being used to make cellulose, but in a bit of a round about way in comparison to CO2.

Now the trick is that you can also add carbon in the form of other 2 carbon atom chemicals or you can add carbon containing compounds which contains many more carbon atoms but these in turn can be used for the production of carbon 2 fragments. From what has been described as the contents of Henk's product, the carbon is being supplied by the fluvonic and humic acids, these are again used to make carbon 2 fragments in the plant and then they are used to make cellulose.

We know that fluvonic and humic acids are not toxic to fishes or plants, as a matter of fact they are often added because they are beneficial to fishes (in products such as blackwater extracts), so this is quite ok, and definitely not toxic.

The problem with the glutaraldehyde is the fact that the aldehyde groups are so reactive, they bind to proteins and modify them permanently, which is also why it kills algae, and why I say that it is so toxic to the fishes.

So you certainly can replace glutaraldehyde with something else to supply the carbon and this will then not have the toxic effects associated with glutaraldehyde.

Kind regards,

Dirk

 

OK Ashley,

I would like to answer your questions as well:

Firstly, I am glad to hear from you, in other words from an independent source that you are happy with the results that you are getting from the microlift product, it means that I will be interested in it as well, and that there is an alternative on the market to excel.

I agree that to treat BBA, the excel appears to work well, perhaps one can consider a treatment with it, but remove the fishes before one does the treatment? We know CO2 is good against the bba, so that would address that problem best as we know it does not have the toxicity problems of excel.

In my first post earlier, I indicated that I viewed the comments in the Barr report as "iffy". Well the figures of when the chemical is viewed to be toxic and what is supposed to be the level in excel is less, but it is only very slightly so, and as I wrote, I still maintain that even low levels of this chemical are toxic by their chemical nature. Toxicity figures are also established in a peculiar way and particularly if you are dealing with organisms as sensitive as some of our fishes are, then they will be affected by the lower levels, which I am convinced of.

Whilst your comment about becoming immune to small amounts of components that you are vaccinated with are correct, I can also state that you will not become immune to glutaraldehyde. If you under dose as in the case of some medications you can create a super strain of bacteria (NOT viruses, because we do not treat viruses with antibiotics), but again, this is a toxic chemical and we would not create or select a super form of any organism.

So no, they will not become tolerant of this chemical. Every time it gets into their bodies the chemical will react with proteins and will modify them and inactivate them potentially. If the proteins are enzymes they can become inactivated (the mechanism by which many toxins work). If the proteins are structural proteins they can become weakened or also not perform their functions properly say in the liver and the kidneys. These proteins then need to be replaced at a cost for the fish, the fish has to make new unaltered proteins to replace the damaged ones. If the proteins fulfill other functions in the cell, glutaraldehyde can modify them, and this is exactly what can be the problem here. If a protein becomes modified and causes some upset in a cell, that cell can become cancerous.

So because the fish does not develop tolerance, every time you add glutaraldehyde you start the damage process again, the fish has to do repairs and the more repeatedly it has to do this, the greater the chance is for permanent damage. It also costs the fish a lot of energy and new nutrients to repair the damage that has been done and therefore drains the fish in the process.

I hope that you can now better understand my comments made earlier. I can also expand on any of these issues if you would like.

Kind regards,

Dirk

 

wow!! excellent read..

Prof if you don't mind one more question. would excel be good to use as a preservative for NPK mixes? just incase someone would want to add a preservative?

 

Hi Lloyd,

In case you want to preserve your NPK mixes, I would just simply add a tot of vodka or gin because the alchohol should preserve them and then when you add this to the aquarium the alchohol will certainly be diluted and will be used by the bacteria in the filter. Alternatively you can put your NPK mixes in the fridge?

Kind regards,

Dirk

 

thanks prof..

another quick question i stated this in one of my above replies. on the seachem excel bottle it states it has iron reducing properties which promote the ferrous state of iron (Fe[SUP]+2[/SUP]), which is more easily utilized by plants than ferric iron (Fe[SUP]+3[/SUP]). now i beleive this is true, plants do prefer the ferrous state of iron. so now this is where I'm lost, don't we chelate iron in this form as it is "unstable" so even if it has these properties to change Fe[SUP]+3[/SUP] to Fe[SUP]+2[/SUP] it wont be readily available as it is unstable anyway?

 

Hi Lloyd.

yes plants do prefer the Fe2+ form of iron over the Fe+ form. In spite of using iron chelate, the Fe2+ is not absolutely stable, it does oxidize to Fe3+, but the rate is slowed dramatically. However, this matter of reducing the Fe3+ to Fe2+ is exaggerated in my opinion. The dosage regime of Fe2+ is in any case high in any plant fertilization scheme, and to emphasize this is only a sales gimmick. In real terms this is not the reason why you would buy this stuff, and you would not need this in any case.

Kind regards,

Dirk

 

thanks again prof learnt a great deal.

 

Just a quick question. i have co2 running in my tank, and every week i add Flourish (comprehensive). before all that i was adding Flourish Excel, must i still add the Excel?

 

You can still add it. But there is no need if you are injecting Co2 into the tank. The excel is a substitute for Co2.

 

I see we got the Seachem guys on board! Firstly, welcome to the forum! It is great having you guys on board! Also, thanks very much for the explanation with regards to Excel. I must be honest and say that I have been using it for years, with no ill effects, other than to some mosses, and Vallis plants.

Kind regards

Sean

 

Thanks for popping in! I use some of your products on a regular basis. Nice to hear about the passion in the organization.

Could you perhaps pop in on this thread as well, giving your opinion?

http://www.tropicalaquarium.co.za/showthread.php?10456-seachem-discus-buffer

 

Dear Seachem,

Thank you for participating in this thread. Whilst I appreciate that you have made a contribution here, you are the producer of the product under discussion here, as a result of which you are in favor of your product and whilst making the statement that you have, you cannot be viewed to be unbiased in your opinion. You state that you base your products on science.

You have furthermore stated "Flourish Excel is one of my personal favorites because it is an effective and safe means of providing carbon to aquatic plants". There is no signature identifying who this person may be whose personal favorite may be Excel and the use of the term "my personal favorite" does not give any more credibility to your statement.

You furthermore state "I have never experienced any trouble with the aquarium". Have you made any anatomical analyses of fishes before and after extended treatment with Excel? As far as I know, this has not been done. As a result, the statement that you make "I have never experienced any trouble with the aquarium" cannot be viewed to be scientifically conclusive.

In scientific terms aldehyde groups of which glutaraldehyde contains two such groups, reacts with proteins and even at low doses this reaction will still take place. Furthermore glutaraldehyde crosslinks proteins with serious implications for protein function. Glutaraldehyde is categorized as a serious toxin in any toxicity index, and the safety of this chemical for use in aquaria is not scientifically documented and needs more investigation before statements about its safety can be made with authority. The reason why it is no longer used in infants is for precisely this reason, because its use is viewed to be unsafe.

I would not use it in an aquarium for these reasons.

Yours sincerely,

Dirk Bellstedt

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This thread has been cleaned up. The moderators will not condone certain comments, snide remarks and hidden agenda's on this forum.

@Seachem. You have seen the previous comments. I have purposely cleaned up this thread to the post by Dirk where your product/response is called into question. This thread has presented scientific evidence, not only from our members, but from other sources too. I personally, as a member of TASA, would appreciate a scientific answer / response, detailing your case study undertaken to prove Excel to be safe with Gluteraldehyde present, along with your peer reviews, and final outcome.

Regards

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This thread has been cleaned up. The moderators will not condone certain comments, snide remarks and hidden agenda's on this forum.

@Seachem. You have seen the previous comments. I have purposely cleaned up this thread to the post by Dirk where your product/response is called into question. This thread has presented scientific evidence, not only from our members, but from other sources too. I personally, as a member of TASA, would appreciate a scientific answer / response, detailing your case study undertaken to prove Excel to be safe with Gluteraldehyde present, along with your peer reviews, and final outcome.

Regards

 

I think this whole discussion can be ended very quickly if said evidence is produced,don't you think?
I won't have to wait for Seachem to respond,I'll put my stock of Seachem Excel into storage and dispose of it safely and never use it again.

 

@Zoom, you are totally loosing my point as you have stated! I think you should read my posts again and realise that no where did I state that Dirk has been biased! Maybe you are reading my posts in a rush I dont know. I dont really know how else to break it down or explain my point and seeing as I am Most definitely not trying to get all nasty as I appreciate all the help everyone has and I hope continues to give me and as I am certainly not any authority on aquariums I think its just better to call it a night and let the thread get back to the point of what it was intended for. I am sorry that you are miss understanding my posts. Hopefully other people are getting what i was saying. I also apologies if I have offended anyone and especially Henk as I have nothing against you but simply was trying to use you as an example to try explain my point (sorry!)

And by know means was this ment to be an argument against you Zoom. Infact im scratching my head wondering how the heck I got in the middle of this haha! I just wanted to add my point of view like I do in many other posts.Just my 2 cents worth.

 

well the treads been cleaned up thankfully,thanks for the mods stepping in i,i was also guilty of making a stupid comment to which i apologise for,i'd like to know something about seachem who is now a member ,but there is no name other than the brand ,surely someone must be representing that user ,shouldnt whom ever is posting on the company's name at least put his name and title down as a representitive ? mr so and so pr or brands manager for seachem products ect?