|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|09-07-2016 11:34 PM|
One problem we all have when we write up a primer on a planted tank subject is that over time the "facts" are found to not be facts. Some "facts" go from "you can swear on it" to "well perhaps under some circumstances" facts. CO2 is just one more such subject.
Years ago, the old timers learned that they could improve their aquatic plant growth if they could just get more CO2 into the water. Yeast/sugar DIY CO2 soon followed, and that method is still in use because it worked for so many different people. This encouraged people to try for still better/faster plant growth by using still more light. But, that caused severe algae problems to erupt.
Then the old timers started looking for a better way to get more CO2 into the water to help avoid the algae problem. One way that was tried was dry ice - never did work well. Another (tried by Amano) was pouring carbonated water into the tank. That worked but was super expensive and a lot of extra work.
Finally pressurized CO2, using bottles of liquid CO2 as the source, was developed into the ultimate, best of all methods for using CO2. And, that opened the door to using a lot more light, making a lot more species of plants growable in our tanks. It was soon found that if you kept about 30 ppm of CO2 in the water you had an acceptable risk of killing fish, good growth of most plants, and the CO2 usage was low enough to keep the costs and labor down. So the "holy grail" of using CO2 became 30 ppm.
But, we forgot something: DIY CO2 did work, and was very effective for a lot of people, using not just 10-20 gallon tanks, but even bigger ones.
In 2002 Ole Pedersen and others, in Denmark, wrote a scientific paper about Liebig's Rule of the Minimum, including CO2 and light, which contained a lot of useful data that explained why DIY CO2 worked so well it is still in use. In 1999 and later Diana Walstad wrote her book about her method for keeping a very low tech aquarium. In that book she included some information about the role of CO2 in a natural tank. That also was a good clue about why DIY CO2 had been so successful when first tried. But, we planted tank people were still concentrating on growing ever more light demanding, CO2 demanding plants, and we ignored what all of that information should have taught us. So, the "fact" that "you can't use DIY CO2 successfully on big tanks without multiple big bottles of yeast/sugar solutions" became unquestioned, and continues to be today.
The data in the Pedersen paper was a compilation of growth rates versus light intensity and CO2 concentration, for one plant - Riccia. That data can be plotted to show that for light intensity between about 25 PAR (very low) to about 90 PAR (very high), for Riccia, it only takes about 10 ppm to get the maximum growth rate for Riccia. More than 10 ppm does not increase the growth rate!
Diana Walstad was able to improve her plant growth by the simple method of having a long dark, resting period in the middle of the photoperiod. That allowed the natural production of CO2, by the substrate, to restore the concentration of CO2 in the water, after the growing plants had depleted it. She was dealing with less than 10 ppm of CO2 maximum.
I have found that Hydrophila cormybosa simensis, a low light, fast growing plant (unlike the slow growing Riccia) will grow very much faster with DIY CO2 at a concentration of less than 10 ppm. This was done with a 65 gallon tank, with about a one bubble per second production of CO2. Other plants in the tank, including Bacopa, crypts, vals, etc. also grew much healthier and faster with that small addition of CO2. So, my experience backs up the data from Pedersen and the method used by Diana Walstad.
It is time to stop telling people that DIY CO2 is useless on big tanks. For low light tanks, 30-40 PAR light intensity, if not more, DIY CO2 from a one bottle system can be very useful on tanks at least as big as 65 gallons. There is no reason why it would not be useful on much bigger tanks.
Today we can use a citric acid/baking soda DIY system, which is controllable, unlike yeast systems, and have a very cheap, very beneficial addition for our big, low to low medium light planted tanks.
|10-31-2014 07:42 PM|
|jimmyjam||i second that!|
|09-16-2014 12:38 PM|
Sorry to revive this old thread but frankly, this and your pressurized CO2 thread, are the two absolute best primers out there.
On topic, I was very interested in your explanation about how the WPG has fallen apart (not to mention LED being a completely different bag). Simple question: How does the single 13watt CP over my Fluval Flora (basically a 12" cube) rate? I'm guessing "low light". Would a second one take me up to "Medium", or would that be getting towards what would be considered "high"?
|09-15-2014 01:06 AM|
|lauraleellbp||Hey Anthony, your pic links are broken!|
|09-18-2013 01:51 PM|
Originally Posted by danaj11 View Post
I use 2 2L bottles for 20 gallons.... just do maths but that is a lot of bottles to renew every 2 weeks..
|08-26-2013 04:09 PM|
if i wanted to start a 55g tank how many diy co2 you think for it 3? Since I have only 1 diy on my 10g
|06-28-2013 06:19 PM|
Fantastic article! I'm going to be referencing it myself often and referring other to it as well! I have a few clarifications and a couple ideas I'd like to get opinions on.
First - I'm setting up a 50g heavy, i'd like to nail down the CO2 before adding fish, but dont know how much CO2 the fauna(phishies & inverts) will increase the concentration in the tank. Ie the tank begins without fauna at 20-25ppm CO2 with room for an additional 5-10ppm CO2 when the fish and such are added so that I dont exceed the recommended 30ppm.
Second - Is the drop checker a one time check that you need to refill for each reading or is it progressive?
Ideally i think it would be cool to have 2 drop checks, one with a 4dKh solution to make sure im under and one with a 3dKh solution to make sure i have enough CO2. Any thoughts on that?
|06-03-2013 03:11 PM|
Hi, I have this plants in a riparium newly planted:
Do you think I need a co2 diffuzer in it (it's only 11 gal)? Any fertilizer outside/inside? (there will be fish in one month)
|05-07-2013 01:00 AM|
oK...So I just did this DIY and after a couple of hours of hunting around this was the best I could do:
Now....I didn't have the proper tool to cut a larger hole out of the top of this salt shaker I bought...so left it thinking that the holes that were already in it may work......well after a couple hours the solution is still dark blue.
Mind you, I did follow all the direction and scaled up the mixture to 30mL of distilled water/baking soda, and 54 drops of the solution from the API pH test kit (9 drops x 5)....
Do you think that this is because I didn't cut the hole in the salt shaker head to make a bigger surface area? Or do you think it may be because of the tubing I connected to the paint tip applicator up to the 'air' in the shaker?? Maybe a combination of both?
|02-23-2013 01:37 PM|
Whilst some say higher levels CO2 do not reduce dissolved oxygen in the water (it sometimes can, depending on other factors) even moderate increases can have some fish gasping at the water surface. If it doesn't affect the dissolved O2 then what's going on?
To diffuse the CO2 out of their blood across their gill surfaces, fish require a concentration differential between the water and the blood. As the differential diminishes due to increased CO2, the gas exchange slows and stops. The fish can't excrete the CO2 and they die. This is sometimes exacerbated by aquarists 'turning off' the air stone so as to reduce CO2 loss at the surface. This the results in lowering the dissolved O2. Then the lights go out and the plants start respiration. They stop eating CO2, start using oxygen and the balance tips and in the morning you find some dead fish and it's a mystery.
|02-19-2013 05:33 PM|
Originally Posted by jwm5 View Post
The only thing I can't find is a small enough bottle for this the only one I can find is an old spice jar that's glass and about 3" long/ deep would that still be accurate if filled just under the top of the glue cap there will be a lot of space in there?
|02-15-2013 03:28 AM|
Live out in the Estates? I just moved from Naples... lol
My advice is just try and see... learn to observe your plants, they'll start discoloring if they need iron.
|02-15-2013 03:16 AM|
although i do now have a question, i have well water down in south florida, and my water is very high in iron. i have Flourite substrate and also the liquid Flourish (from another tank, have not used it with the substrate tank). would my high iron in the water decrease my need for the liquid fertilizer?
or am i overthinking it? lol
|02-15-2013 03:11 AM|
|NurseKorin||That was some easily understandable information that really halped me figure out the CO2 my plants need =) thanks a bunch|
|01-18-2013 08:40 PM|
Plant fertilizers are available as liquid or substrate fertilizers. Both should only contain the micro nutrients. Liquid fertilizers have to be dosed more frequently; substrate fertilizers will last longer. Since there are no obvious differences in efficiency, it is up to the aquarists' preference which to use.
Next to the micro nutrients, fertilizers contain chelates. The chelate is an organic molecule which binds metal ions thus protecting them from early precipitation. The preferred type is abbreviated DTPA because of its stability up to a pH level of 7.5
Unfortunately some fertilizers contain the chelate EDTA, which is much cheaper. However chelate EDTA is only stable at a pH up to 6.0 and therefore mostly useless in aquariums.
What do you think?
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|