[plantbrain]

Originally Posted by Jason Baliban

What questions are being addressed here?
Are you saying that dissolved CO2 is less "available" to weeds? Thus stating that CO2 that is not fully dissolved CO2 is actually more beneficial?

I am suggesting in this particular case

Wouldnt this make the PH/KH relationship even less reliable. These floating bubbles in the tank effect PH or do not effect PH?

Yes.

I'm not sure what exaclty we are uncovering here? Are we talking about CO2 effeciency as far as administering or beneficial as far as plant usage?

Thanks

jB

I'm saying the delivery is the issue here and the form of the CO2(gas or dissolved in water).

Which do you think would improve growth faster?
1. Gas pure 100% CO2?
2. 30ppm is thick visicous water?

The concenration and the diffusion rate of gas is much higher on both counts.

pH/KH issue: if the bubbles are still gas and not yet dissolved(they can be asorbed by plants before hand or bubble out the top of the tank etc) then this will make the tank appear to have lower CO2 ppm wise based on the chart.

We recently added a venturi to a reactor design on a 180 gal tank here in SF, nothing was changed other than this loop. The result was a an increase in pearling by about 2-3 hours eariler. pH decline of 0.3.

This difference in growth is large enough to warrant serious consideration. It is significant, more so than little trace dosings, miracle joices and what have you.

Does not matter when you do a water change.
I have been using diffuser disc for some time on all but one of my personal tanks that have CO2 added.

Some minor changes like this have greatly improved the health. The reactors
are good if they produce a mist.

This at first seemed counter productive, it wasted gas after enough of a CO2 bubble formed the last 1/2 of the day.

But that is when pearlign really kicked in.

So I added lots of CO2 right away to produce misting right as the lights came on and continued.

The results were the same as when I use the diffuser stone and current.

Placing the diffuser stones in the current, keeping them clean will great improve things if done properly.

I've use diffuser disc off and on over the last 10 or so years.

But now I fully understand the potential use of these as well as the venturi reactor and why both radically different methods work similarly.

Think about it like this, even at 3% CO2 in the air, plants grow faster in emergent set ups.

Adding 100% CO2 will improve plant growth terrestrially as well.
So the same should hold true for submersed growth also.

Robert makes a good point:

According to what Tom has said here this is actually better than a reactor and I should be getting super growth and pearling????

Well a normal reactor, not with the venturi.

Thats not the case at all for me. I only do this because it is a lot cheaper than setting up reactors, but I do not get tremendously fast growth or rapid pearling.

You need consistent small tiny bubbles and to move them through the plant beds as evenly as you can.

These aren't display tanks and have no fish. In the past I have used ceramic disk diffusors, Eheims, and it was a total waist of time. It was much more difficult to reach 30ppm and hold it there consistently than when I used a reactor.

Yes, many felt this way but many here in SF also used them quite well(they killed their fish but that was due to a lack of a needle valve, those with the valves did very well).

Reflecting back and using them like the venturi reactor instead of passively increased the plant growth and measuring the CO2 was no longer even really needed in terms of pH/KH. Steve Dixton used his Ehiems very successfully this way, so has Jeff and other folks.

Tom used to make reactors. I used to sell his reactors. Once you figured out how to put them together they worked great. In fact I think it was he and his reactor that converted me from the inefficient Eheim diffusor. Now we are taking a step back? I don't get it.

Actually, getting a handle on a few things, we might be able to target excellent CO2 levels with less issues to fish/higher CO2 for the plants, and easier methods to do it.

Even if the test are little off(which very often they are).

Regards,
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com