[分享] 黑鋼NPT做了個總結

midte · **註冊時間:** 2006-02-09 02:01 **文章:** 153

唔係掛？仲有無得送先?
我d蝦.........由百幾隻死到得返而家五隻......
而家玩埋咸水lu....24"
旦仲有一缸14"水草缸
9"缸仔一條BB狗仔鯨
最近養埋倉鼠....

bunnyfan · **註冊時間:** 2006-10-16 20:18 **文章:** 58

midte 寫:

唔係掛？仲有無得送先?
我d蝦.........由百幾隻死到得返而家五隻......
而家玩埋咸水lu....24"
旦仲有一缸14"水草缸
9"缸仔一條BB狗仔鯨
最近養埋倉鼠....

因乜事死都咁?
水有問題?如果我d水晶生到
就pm你比d你
不過靚ge都比哂人
呢堆係做混養測試
質素就唔會太高lar

狗仔鯨好大條,小心唔夠位
倉鼠如果生ge話
會多到嚇死你
個几月d b又生得
勁得人驚,直頭係惡夢

至於咸水,我仲未敢掂
第一銀彈不足
第二睇外國d咸水網睇到頭暈
好似好難咁
祝你成功

midte · **註冊時間:** 2006-02-09 02:01 **文章:** 153

bunnyfan 寫:

midte 寫:

唔係掛？仲有無得送先?
我d蝦.........由百幾隻死到得返而家五隻......
而家玩埋咸水lu....24"
旦仲有一缸14"水草缸
9"缸仔一條BB狗仔鯨
最近養埋倉鼠....

因乜事死都咁?
水有問題?如果我d水晶生到
就pm你比d你
不過靚ge都比哂人
呢堆係做混養測試
質素就唔會太高lar

狗仔鯨好大條,小心唔夠位
倉鼠如果生ge話
會多到嚇死你
個几月d b又生得
勁得人驚,直頭係惡夢

至於咸水,我仲未敢掂
第一銀彈不足
第二睇外國d咸水網睇到頭暈
好似好難咁
祝你成功

....唉，簡直惡夢....
原本都百子千孫....死百幾隻wor....
咁突然,我都無心情搵原因....已經專登請假執屍......
而家又生唔到...................................

超灰
狗仔鯨而家都係bb姐.....3"到....
倉鼠所以淨係得女.....不過有隻bb男仔......
咸水真係好貴好難養
一定難過蝦勁多......靚少少既skimmer都幾貴
d魚又貴.....不過真係好靚

Andy Kong · **發表於 :** 2007-10-27 10:59

我對 NPT 可以說是全無經驗，但對你所形容的 NPT 卻有一點疑惑！所以想先討論你的 NPT 理念，然後才談設缸細節。

你的NPT 的目的是摸仿大自的植物生態所以堅持不加人工肥或 Co2? 還是純探索在不加人工肥和 Co2 情況下種植水的成果？

是前者的話我覺得前者目的明確十分可取，但可惜我們現在種植的水草大部份是人功培育改造的，所以堅持將人為的生物放在模仿天然的環境下生長卻又有點不合邏輯，較合理的是在NPT 中只採用本來就是野生水中葉的水草品種。

是後者的話便只是另一種 (alternative) 堅持，和堅持使用肥料和 Co2 在本質上沒有分別。

P 大提出的 NPT 目的是：

引言回覆:

天然水草缸的最大特色，就是不需要額外使用二氧化碳、不需要使用肥料，也不需要經常換水；況且因為水草成長緩慢，所以不需要經常修剪。不用花太多時間和金錢就能擁有一缸綠意盎然的水草缸，這不是現代人所夢寐以求的理想嗎？

但你在提倡 NPT 的同時卻將 NPT 下生張的植物型態說成「應該很醜罷」....「希望種出來的種物不要太嘔心」. 確實有點不明白為何「一直相信不用CO2也可種到水草」，此信念的知識/理論基礎是什麼？希望在類似的話題上我們不會走上「不要問，只管信」的結論！

wongck5 · **註冊時間:** 2007-07-18 20:34 **文章:** 17

"但可惜我們現在種植的水草大部份是人功培育改造的"
I doubt if this is true. I think it is mass production by human only, not "改造". The plants bought from FS have just adapted in environment with plenty supply of CO2 and all necessary elements. Or they are just grew on lands.

I supports both idea "摸仿大自的植物生態" & P 大提出的 NPT 目的是：
引言回覆:
天然水草缸的最大特色，就是不需要額外使用二氧化碳、不需要使用肥料，也不需要經常換水；況且因為水草成長緩慢，所以不需要經常修剪。不用花太多時間和金錢就能擁有一缸綠意盎然的水草缸，這不是現代人所夢寐以求的理想嗎？

midte · **註冊時間:** 2006-02-09 02:01 **文章:** 153

[quote="Andy Kong"]我對 NPT 可以說是全無經驗，但對你所形容的 NPT 卻有一點疑惑！所以想先討論你的 NPT 理念，然後才談設缸細節。

你的NPT 的目的是摸仿大自的植物生態所以堅持不加人工肥或 Co2? 還是純探索在不加人工肥和 Co2 情況下種植水的成果？

是前者的話我覺得前者目的明確十分可取，但可惜我們現在種植的水草大部份是人功培育改造的，所以堅持將人為的生物放在模仿天然的環境下生長卻又有點不合邏輯，較合理的是在NPT 中只採用本來就是野生水中葉的水草品種。
quote]

我都好想知太陽草可唔可以係天然環境成長?

Andy Kong · **發表於 :** 2007-10-27 15:04

wongck5 寫:

"但可惜我們現在種植的水草大部份是人功培育改造的"
I doubt if this is true. I think it is mass production by human only, not "改造". The plants bought from FS have just adapted in environment with plenty supply of CO2 and all necessary elements. Or they are just grew on lands.

I supports both idea "摸仿大自的植物生態" & P 大提出的 NPT 目的是：
引言回覆:
天然水草缸的最大特色，就是不需要額外使用二氧化碳、不需要使用肥料，也不需要經常換水；況且因為水草成長緩慢，所以不需要經常修剪。不用花太多時間和金錢就能擁有一缸綠意盎然的水草缸，這不是現代人所夢寐以求的理想嗎？

To the best of my knowledge, most aquarium plants we are keeping today are actually collected at river side, they seldom existed in wildlife as 水生草, their natural genetic pattern is to grow ABOVE water in order to get better sunlight and CO2. By transforming them into aquarium plant, I don't think dramatic work like DNA reform, but simply changing their patter by providing them enough light and Co2 under water so that they don't NEED to grow above water in order to stay survive. That's the contradicting point I am referring to, so what are we trying to prove here? That they can survive in aquarium without Co2 or strong light? But these plants actually didn't existed in wildlife in this patter but was grown in water solely because of human intervention to start with, right?

Andy Kong · **發表於 :** 2007-10-27 15:07

midte 寫:

Andy Kong 寫:

我對 NPT 可以說是全無經驗，但對你所形容的 NPT 卻有一點疑惑！所以想先討論你的 NPT 理念，然後才談設缸細節。

你的NPT 的目的是摸仿大自的植物生態所以堅持不加人工肥或 Co2? 還是純探索在不加人工肥和 Co2 情況下種植水的成果？

是前者的話我覺得前者目的明確十分可取，但可惜我們現在種植的水草大部份是人功培育改造的，所以堅持將人為的生物放在模仿天然的環境下生長卻又有點不合邏輯，較合理的是在NPT 中只採用本來就是野生水中葉的水草品種。

我都好想知太陽草可唔可以係天然環境成長?

以水上葉形態生存是可以的！

wongck5 · **註冊時間:** 2007-07-18 20:34 **文章:** 17

Andy Kong 寫:

wongck5 寫:

"但可惜我們現在種植的水草大部份是人功培育改造的"
I doubt if this is true. I think it is mass production by human only, not "改造". The plants bought from FS have just adapted in environment with plenty supply of CO2 and all necessary elements. Or they are just grew on lands.

I supports both idea "摸仿大自的植物生態" & P 大提出的 NPT 目的是：
引言回覆:
天然水草缸的最大特色，就是不需要額外使用二氧化碳、不需要使用肥料，也不需要經常換水；況且因為水草成長緩慢，所以不需要經常修剪。不用花太多時間和金錢就能擁有一缸綠意盎然的水草缸，這不是現代人所夢寐以求的理想嗎？

To the best of my knowledge, most aquarium plants we are keeping today are actually collected at river side, they seldom existed in wildlife as 水生草, their natural genetic pattern is to grow ABOVE water in order to get better sunlight and CO2. By transforming them into aquarium plant, I don't think dramatic work like DNA reform, but simply changing their patter by providing them enough light and Co2 under water so that they don't NEED to grow above water in order to stay survive. That's the contradicting point I am referring to, so what are we trying to prove here? That they can survive in aquarium without Co2 or strong light? But these plants actually didn't existed in wildlife in this patter but was grown in water solely because of human intervention to start with, right?

I understand your point.
Some plants can never survive under water even with plenty supply of CO2 and sunlight. Some can and so we put them into aquarium. As far as I know, the leaves structure of same plants are different when they are growing under water level and above water level. Their DNA has been designed to let them survive in both situation and this character has given them more competitive power to survive in environment with rapid change of water level, eg. river side as you mentioned.

Andy Kong · **發表於 :** 2007-10-28 01:17

wongck5 寫:

Andy Kong 寫:

wongck5 寫:

"但可惜我們現在種植的水草大部份是人功培育改造的"
I doubt if this is true. I think it is mass production by human only, not "改造". The plants bought from FS have just adapted in environment with plenty supply of CO2 and all necessary elements. Or they are just grew on lands.

I supports both idea "摸仿大自的植物生態" & P 大提出的 NPT 目的是：
引言回覆:
天然水草缸的最大特色，就是不需要額外使用二氧化碳、不需要使用肥料，也不需要經常換水；況且因為水草成長緩慢，所以不需要經常修剪。不用花太多時間和金錢就能擁有一缸綠意盎然的水草缸，這不是現代人所夢寐以求的理想嗎？

To the best of my knowledge, most aquarium plants we are keeping today are actually collected at river side, they seldom existed in wildlife as 水生草, their natural genetic pattern is to grow ABOVE water in order to get better sunlight and CO2. By transforming them into aquarium plant, I don't think dramatic work like DNA reform, but simply changing their patter by providing them enough light and Co2 under water so that they don't NEED to grow above water in order to stay survive. That's the contradicting point I am referring to, so what are we trying to prove here? That they can survive in aquarium without Co2 or strong light? But these plants actually didn't existed in wildlife in this patter but was grown in water solely because of human intervention to start with, right?

I understand your point.
Some plants can never survive under water even with plenty supply of CO2 and sunlight. Some can and so we put them into aquarium. As far as I know, the leaves structure of same plants are different when they are growing under water level and above water level. Their DNA has been designed to let them survive in both situation and this character has given them more competitive power to survive in environment with rapid change of water level, eg. river side as you mentioned.

Exactly, so what is the point to verify if these plant can live UNDER water without CO2 and dim light? In wildlife they just don't exist in this formula, why should we call this natural planting if what we are going to do didn't or seldom exist in natural?

bunnyfan · **註冊時間:** 2006-10-16 20:18 **文章:** 58

電腦死左
無時間上黎睇
見到咁熱烈討論
都几開心
等我都加入返討論先
先回andy 問題
為左方便大家睇
我一點一點回答

1.「應該很醜罷」
很正常的推論,因為有良好營養,植物會生得比較好睇,CO2係植物必要養份,如果有足夠或以上,當然比較好睇,對比之下,無人工加入CO2應該無咁靚,我個人覺得會比較"醜",美醜是主觀用語,不應加在科學實驗命題中,這是我的不是

2.「一直相信不用CO2也可種到水草」
我意思是額外人工加入去的CO2,在水中的植物仍然是要CO2的,所以我加入大量生物去制造出CO2,此句應為「一直相信不用額外加入CO2也可種到水草」,我會修正的

3.ANDY兄,你提到野生植物,"In wildlife they just don't exist in this formula",這點我不太認同,因為很多水草被發現時不是水上葉型態,只是在同環境同時發現水上葉型態.(台灣很多網友就專程到野外的水潭湖泊找水草在水草原本在水中的野外型態去攝影呢^^)但至於為何它們可以在水中得以良好生存,大致有兩點

A.水中植物光合作用時,不一定以CO2型式使用炭元素,過多CO2也會有反作用

B.野外的草,CO2及營養是比不上草缸,只要營養跟得上光合用作,水草依然是可生長得很好,that means "強光要多營養", "少營養則要少光",以上兩個條件中的水草一樣會生長得很好的

可參考以下網頁,入面引述的內容全都是有科學家做過實驗証明的

水草對碳元素的吸收:
http://blog.sina.com.tw/paludarium/arti ... yid=505523

水草缸的照明原則:
http://blog.sina.com.tw/paludarium/arti ... yid=451286

還有,可到美國水草學者的網頁看一下,應該會找到更好的答案呢
http://www.barrreport.com/

4. 我的NPT 的目的是摸仿大自的植物生態所以堅持不加人工肥或 Co2,而你所擔心的"人功培育改造",我倒覺得不大成立,就引述wongck5的一句"Their DNA has been designed to let them survive in both situation"還有,跟據邏輯推論,如果擔心在繁殖水草是DNA的變異做成影響,我可以說現在很多水草業者也是用無性繁殖,DNA可是跟母株一樣呢,如果母株的來源是大自然,我看不到子株不能適應彷天然環境的水中生長的原因.

最後,謝謝ANDY兄的問題呢,熱鬧的討論也是我所希望見到的,有如此好的理性發問跟討論,我相信我們是不會走上「不要問，只管信」的結論^^

P.S. 我的行文不夠緊密,似乎出現了一些問題呢.如果再有問題,希望再指出,我想最後COMBINE個NPT REPORT時,比現在更完整.
今晚應該會UPDATE份新REPORT

GWU · **註冊時間:** 2003-11-18 16:59 **文章:** 908

很高興看見咁熱心既嘗試,成功與否,都會係一次保貴既經驗,如希望實踐以NPT 種到草,從前人的各測驗中,是會成功的。吊鹽水也可維持一個人的生命,但在乎是否能健康地預防各種病害。但從你的 setup 看來, 跟NPT 又有一些的分別，泥底是NPT 的立腳點，黑網沙完全提供唔到天然土壤可提供豐富既碳源，似乎你在測試比NPT 更極端的環境啊!　至於能否種植成功，如這測試在夏天，機會會低一點，現在的溫度，正是最佳的時機。最後那棵水草能種活，關乎水草本身入缸時狀態，之前環境既差異等，情況就如我們到高原空氣稀薄的環境下也有高山反應，不是每個人也一樣，而且可以慢慢適應過來。水生植物就算是分枝無性繁殖，當分離時DNA 是一樣, 但當子株與母株繼續生長其變異是有的, 每一細胞分裂也會因環境的不同帶著一些演化的資料, 這些資料的改變就使植物不斷進化適應環境。

至於經人工種植的是否能適應回比較差的天然的環境, 我的看法是沒有絕對的, 祗是如我之前所說是關乎水草本身入缸時狀態，之前環境既差異等問題。我們造景的都會有很多缸, 草也經常交差植入不同的缸中, 通常留草種的缸,就是與NPT 的環境很接近，雖然不是每一種也能保留成功，但也可保留到一些備用的草種。但如以觀賞角度看，祗是雜草叢生。但經驗所得,環境接近的水草植入新缸,差不多馬上生長, 而在留草缸植入環境養分好的缸中, 有些在充足養分及適合環境下如雨後春荀, 快速生長, 一些進入靜止適應期,一些會適應不去短時間死去, 所以環境差異亦不是絕對的的。

我之前也說過，NPT不是新的方法,幾十年前過濾器材還未普及,大部分人都是以砂底加隔屎板及氣汞養魚及水草, 唔見得種唔到, 祗係依家由學者著書立說就特然多人討論。

wongck5 · **註冊時間:** 2007-07-18 20:34 **文章:** 17

"泥底是NPT 的立腳點，黑網沙完全提供唔到天然土壤可提供豐富既碳源，似乎你在測試比NPT 更極端的環境啊!"
Totally agreed. To keep the equilibrium there is very challenging.

"水生植物就算是分枝無性繁殖，當分離時DNA 是一樣, 但當子株與母株繼續生長其變異是有的, 每一細胞分裂也會因環境的不同帶著一些演化的資料, 這些資料的改變就使植物不斷進化適應環境。"
The word "資料的改變", I agreed if you mean the change of phenotype. The DNA should not be changed in this situation. Then DNA content will be changed if the plants is perpectuated by seeds.

wongck5 · **註冊時間:** 2007-07-18 20:34 **文章:** 17

Bunnyfan C hing, I have also just started a NPT 2 days ago.

Using 16"inch tank, about 25L water.
Only underwater water pump for water current.
No filter, just has sponge surrounding water input of water pump.
4cm garden soil and 1cm sand. Few pieces of volcanic rock.
Light: 10W T8 (10"inch high water)
Temp: 24-25oC (very constant in my office, air-conditioner is always on in daytime)
Water is crystal clear 2 days after setup.
pH: 7-7.2
GH: 4
KH:2

Will buy water plants this week.

bunnyfan · **註冊時間:** 2006-10-16 20:18 **文章:** 58

"泥底是NPT 的立腳點，黑網沙完全提供唔到天然土壤可提供豐富既碳源，似乎你在測試比NPT 更極端的環境啊!"
“Totally agreed. To keep the equilibrium there is very challenging.”

這個問題在水族田園已解答過一次了,
可參考http://www.aquariumfarm.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=67864&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

如果說天然泥土可以提供豐富碳源,無論多豐富也會有一天用完吧,所以我希望找到一個可以用的比較久的方法,就是用微生物分解有機物時,放出的CO2,也即是說想找到一個自然提供碳源的底床機制.
另外,外國的NPT没有這麼大量的生物在草缸中的,CO2可由生物提供,碳源應該不是問題,我没有測試比NPT 更極端的環境呢,NPT只是減去不必要的人工參與,我想我缸中的碳源比只有底床提供碳源的NPT更多呢.

"水生植物就算是分枝無性繁殖，當分離時DNA 是一樣, 但當子株與母株繼續生長其變異是有的, 每一細胞分裂也會因環境的不同帶著一些演化的資料, 這些資料的改變就使植物不斷進化適應環境。"
“The word "資料的改變", I agreed if you mean the change of phenotype. The DNA should not be changed in this situation. Then DNA content will be changed if the plants is perpectuated by seeds.”

DNA是不會因環境而演化的,因為即使有一細胞的DNA變異,但生物有一種機制會令該細胞不能繼續生存.FOR EXAMPLE,人類如果有細胞有變異,而且該細胞可繼續生存,很多時就會有CANCER 了.

另外,GWU兄提及”吊鹽水也可維持一個人的生命,但在乎是否能健康地預防各種病害。”我相信吊鹽水的人.應該是不能健康地預防各種病害.”因為吊鹽水是不能提供足夠營養.

但NPT不同,NPT=/= 不能提供足夠營養給植物,情況應該不用吊鹽水吧.我們或許可以把魚屎魚糧看成肥料吧^^

NPT可謂是給一些生活忙碌的人一個好選擇,不用加太多器材,加入肥料.植物生長過快,時刻要修剪也很麻煩呀!所以我才選擇開始NPT呢!(說到尾,我是一條超級大懶虫^^)

最後,我頗認同NPT不是新的方法,不過,時代不同,水草的種類也比從前多很多.從前加CO2,肥料没那麼比人吹捧,到今時今日CO2,肥料已經變成左一種MUST,實際情況到底又是不是呢.這一點我認為是有可反思的地方^^

水草情迷

[分享] 黑鋼NPT做了個總結

誰在線上