You are describing your self my friend. The limiting factor in soil is the lack of O2 coming into contact with the roots. It is well established that hydro outgrows soil several fold for this reason. Also, with soil it is unlikely you can control the nutrients with optimal precision. Again, the main concept here is the presence of a limiting factor. Cravents focused on lighting for AN example of a limiting factor. When growing in soil you will almost certainly have less than optimal nutrient uptake, and certainly less than optimal root oxygenation. All these factors come together as a whole to allow the plant to grow to it's full genetic potential. If any one is missing, maximum growth is not attained. Plants grown under artificial light in soil grow pretty damn slow compared to hydro. Extra CO2 might be helpful, but the question is whether or not the benefit will be appreciable and will justify the additional cost. If you have a top notch system CO2 can produce UP TO 30% increase in growth. But, if there are limiting factors it might be more like 1-5% or none at all.
Do your self a big favor though. People are here to exchange ideas an learn from others. Don't make everything about your personal pride and having to be right at all costs. And calling people names only reflects poorly on you.
BTW, have you studied chemistry at all? Are you familiar with the concept of limited reactions? What is your science background if I may ask?
I'm not going to keep arguing with you here. You are wrong and know it but are too stubborn to admit it. You find me ONE authoritative source that says co2 is useless in soil grows. So far, you are the only person I have ever heard say that, and you being an admitted newb in growing has no authority. You have already heard from others in this thread that grow in soil and use co2, are you saying they are wasting their time?
Funny you ask me if I know about limited reactions. Did you even read through this thread? Did you read my first post here? I'm not going to tell you my background becuase you could just say its bullshit and you are correct, there would be no way to prove it.
It seems to me that you need a refresher on both limited reactions and photosynthesis. I was always taught to determine which reactant was the limiting one, to start with the reaction equation. The process that increases growth in hydro when compared to water has nothing to do with limited reactants and photosynthesis, they are multiple processes going on inside the plant that regulate growth. The increased oxygen at the roots will increase growth but not by increase the rate of photosynthesis which DOES happen with increase co2. IOW, the rate of photosynthesis is LIMITED by either water, light or CO2 or nutrients. In every step of the photosynthesis pathway, O2 is produced as a byproduct, it is not a limiting factor. Every molecule of oxygen necessary to complete the steps can be obtained from water. If you understood limiting factors, you would realize there could be more than one, but they must be two separate processes.
In the early 1900s
Frederick Frost Blackman along with
Gabrielle Matthaei investigated the effects of light intensity (
irradiance) and temperature on the rate of carbon assimilation.
- At constant temperature, the rate of carbon assimilation varies with irradiance, initially increasing as the irradiance increases. However at higher irradiance this relationship no longer holds and the rate of carbon assimilation reaches a plateau.
- At constant irradiance, the rate of carbon assimilation increases as the temperature is increased over a limited range. This effect is only seen at high irradiance levels. At low irradiance, increasing the temperature has little influence on the rate of carbon assimilation.
These two experiments illustrate vital points: firstly, from
research it is known that
photochemical reactions are not generally affected by
temperature. However, these experiments clearly show that temperature affects the rate of carbon assimilation, so there must be two sets of reactions in the full process of carbon assimilation. These are of course the
light-dependent 'photochemical' stage and the
light-independent, temperature-dependent stage. Second, Blackman's experiments illustrate the concept of
limiting factors. Another limiting factor is the wavelength of light. Cyanobacteria, which reside several meters underwater, cannot receive the correct wavelengths required to cause photoinduced charge separation in conventional photosynthetic pigments. To combat this problem, a series of proteins with different pigments surround the reaction center.This unit is called a
phycobilisome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Now if you want to tell me all of these chemists and botantists that discovered the process of carbon fixation by photosynthesis really didn't understand it I will have to LMAO!
Once you understand the concept that limited factors can occur in multiple pathways, some independent of others, then you will understand the limiting factors in photosynthesis are different than the limiting factors in root development and the key is that they are independent so each will be able to contribute to increased growth when adjusted to maximum.
Here's more:
As carbon dioxide concentrations rise,
the rate at which sugars are made by the light-independent reactions increases until limited by other factors. RuBisCO, the enzyme that captures carbon dioxide in the light-independent reactions, has a binding affinity for both carbon dioxide and oxygen. When the concentration of carbon dioxide is high, RuBisCO will
fix carbon dioxide. However, if the carbon dioxide concentration is low, RuBisCO will bind oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. This process, called
photorespiration, uses energy, but does not produce sugars.
Basically, you are saying the equivalent of: DWC or flood and drain growers shouldn't use co2 because they aren't using aero.
You should be able to see how ridiculous that sounds. Plants evolved in an atmosphere where the co2 concentration was much higher than today's earth. Is it any wonder they have the ability to use higher concentration?
Please, do yourself a favor and don't come back here until you have done some more reading and if you want to continue to make false claims, then you will have to back it up with science.
