CO2 is one of those critical things that aquatic plants folks should really focus on.
I've nagged folks about this for a very long time, and I will likely nag you to the grave.
Complacent experts, newbies, test kit freaks, all of you(and myself included).
Poor CO2 reduces growth and is responsible for nearly 95% of all algae related issues.
Now KH test kit variance is one issue, making a reference standard to compare you KH test to is a very WISE idea to check the accuracy. I've seen many folks have very high CO2 predicted levels, yet fish were fine, but another than has barely 30ppm and the fish are gasping. It cannot be that both are at the same CO2ppm level becaused we would expect to see the same behavior from the fish. Instead we see very wide ranges and impacts on the fish(as well as plants).
So it's much more likely that it is the testing method, rather than anything else.
pH is the best thing as far as accuracy for CO2 measurements using a pH probe and no electrical equipment runnign when the pH is measured(stray current will depress the pH giving false high ppm CO2 levels).
KH test kits have consistency issues (see recent post) and in some places, although rare, non bicarbonate alkalinity exists(recent poster in NM has significant borate alkalinity, desert regions generally).
Addressing this issue by making a reference sample will take care of the KH issue.
The next issue is more interesting for many of of you.
I'd suggested that the venturi DIY reactor I have shown folks on my site is better than any reactor. Well, initially, and perhaps partially true, is the purpging effect of gas build up.
This gas is some O2 and some CO2, but very little "air".
As the gas is expelled, consistently I see better growth, this is not due to O2.
So why would a mist of tiny CO2 bubbles vs dissolved CO2 in solution do better for growing plants?
I addressed the O2 issue simply, I used a diffuser disk for CO2(no O2 gas build up occurs).
But that did not do it __alone__.
I wondered why.
So I placed the diffuser disc near similar current like that produced by the venturi reactor after is starts mistuing the gas out the bottom.
Lo and behold, Bam! Excellent similar growth.
Not the kind of so so growth, but pearling like nothing you have ever seen or perhaps only in a very few well run tanks right after a water change. But I'd not done a water change for a week.
I tried it several times on 4 tanks, same result in each tank. Day after day, intense pearling even with fair good current.
So why would this mist be better than dissolved CO2?
For one thing, it's __pure CO2 gas__, which flows much faster than dissolved CO2 liquid.
The flux rate is much faster with pure CO2 gas than CO2 dissolved in water, so the plants get more CO2 and a more concentrated form.
Some folks may not like the bubbles, some might not like pearling.
But I sure do.
I can say that the venturi effect is one of CO2 now, and not of O2 by using the diffuser disc to rule out O2.
So that just left CO2 and the gas vs dissolved form to consider why one method was better in terms of plant than another.
Both flow and actually having some gas in the tank itself seems to be the key here.
So those disc are not so bad and neither are the venturi reactors.
You can make a purge loop for external reactors by making a hole 1/2 down and running the air line back to the intake for the power head, caniter filter etc, this will not add bubbles but will reduce the gas build up inside the reactor.
The real issue is having gas bubbles in the tank and putting them where the plants are in that form.
I think folks should really consider this/these idea/s and try them.
I've had very intense pearling and have over the entire routine time frame, not just for a day or a few days.
Be careful and watch the fish, CO2 levels when doing this, I've not had any fish issues yet. Make sure there is some surface movement. If you use disc, clean them often(monthly).
For larger tanks, they make 6x1" diffuser stones for about 60$ than can be used set along the bottom back gravel layer so they will not be seen. wwww.aquaticeco.com sells them if interested.
In any event, this notion of having tiny gas bubbles floating around very dissolved CO2 might solve many folk's problems and improve those who seek better growth.
Nitrogen is an essential element, but only 1.5%, vs 40+ % for Carbon, it is very very wise to focus on this if you seek better growth.
With good CO2 levels, even the wimpy plants do very well(Tonia, ES, Eirocauleon) algae dies, pearling as intense as you have ever seen it day after day will occur.
I think the gas bubbles might also be less of an issue for fish since it's not dissolved into solution also.
The nutrients can be addressed easily by doing EI, so you know there's enough, so all that's left to really focus on is the CO2.
So I have been playing around trying to figuire out a good way to reproduce max CO2 without causing issues for fish, and adding enough for the plants.
The CO2 mist + current seems to be the best method.
This can be done with a reactor or a diffuser stone/disc.
Also, folks using spray bars, turn them vertically, next to the intake and place the disc down near this also. This hides the bar, the disc, intake all in one place. Having the spray bar current blowing along the back side the tank wall seems to give good flow characteristics+ near the disc, the water blows out and away from the intake and circles around to the intake.
Since water is being blown directly away from the intake, this gives optimum mixing.
Since water is being blown directly on top of the difusser, all the bubble mist is being blown all over the tank.
The results are easy to see.
The other issue is not to trust the test kits so much until you see the type of pearling like this, no BBA growth etc, slowly and patiently add more CO2 till you get the pearling and good growth. Basically use the test to get close, then tweak(add more) carefully and slowly.
Do not go overboard, do it slowly and observe the plants/fish. Your test may give you high numbers, but if the fish are fine, then it's okay.
Turing off CO2 at night will help add the margin of safety also. We add CO2 for the plants, not to maintain pH. Some leave it 24/7, but mainly out of convenience rather than methodology. With disc, running them at night can cause issues, anyway, you can save 2-3x the gas by not running it at night. We know fish don't care about the pH change.
Regards,
Tom Barr
www.BarrReport.com
I'll suggest feeding the CO2 into the intake of a small powerhead (easy to hide in a tank with plants) and output with a spraybar along the entire bottom back of the tank. Works mighty well from my past experience. You do not need a solenoid valve to shut the CO2 off if you don't have it as using the powerhead to a light timer would do so (you can save CO2 with a solenoid valve though but it does break down).
Regards
Peter Gwee
Last edited by PeterGwee; 23rd Sep 2005 at 19:10.
Tom:
I do agree with the CO2 mist gives 7-up effect of pearling which I had posted many times in AQ about this phenomenon, but all replies from AQ suggested full CO2 dissolve was better . I had seen many times in my tank but the BBA got me distracted and constantly "fine-tuning" of my CO2 as suggested by others .
Also, the pearling effect I experienced usually will last only 2-3 days , but will not last or stay constant pearling madly.
Is that why Takasi Amano is still using the air stone diffusor method which the fine CO2 bubbles will easily attach and use by the plants ?
May re-tune my CO2 again , and use back the "bubble generator" reactor (water filter) from NA, together with EI and to see any improvement on my BBA. Previously when I was using this reactor, I had not adopted EI yet.
Cheers
I should be working not posting
a very interesting discussion,
tom, i have tried high co2 levels in small tank[90 liter] from the startup and bba still went wild...
this is fish gasping levels since bubble count are not specific/scientific. please excuse me for this blip[2-3bpm, atomizer]4w per gallon, 60cm ht. very little dosing, base fert dennerle, iron stubs from ADA.
what i noticed is the plants were slow to take hold despite being fast and medium growers. limno aquatica, glosso, b japonica, weeping moss[first to die/brown].[no fish, yamato's died, sae's jumped out! reduced co2 a little but still fish floated next day] bba was all over...water change, blackout to no avail. this tank was DLC[dead loss case]
so i threw everything, sterilised everything, even the black poly bg. i suspected i had handicapped my plants by using an old black poly bg that used to have a little bba at top areas.
this is one month period start to scrap. no pearling at any one time noticed during whole period...
i surmised the lighting is too strong for that small tank and temp is too high[28-29c], co2 levels toxic...
next experience[tank is 3 years old but revamped and moved it 3 months ago to another corner of hse, can be considered new setup but plants were out of situation for only one day]
tank is 60 cm ht [270 l] using the same things[fert regimen etc] but co2reactor at [1+ bpm] temp 26-27c. fish levels high...~50 tetras, 9 juve altums...singapore shrimps and yamato's...one SAE one whiptail.
a little spot algae. a teeny bit thin thread algae on weeping moss...
2+ WPG little or no pearling but when upped lights to 3+WPG...voila...almost everything is pearling[some fizzing!] except the glosso.[never been able to grow glosso in this tank but is spreading nicely now]
i surmise light was the cause. fizzing reduced as days[3-4] passed, i upped co2[2+bpm] and fizzing when back up...no fish gasping.
meanwhile another scenario...friend's tank...
200 l tank 60 cm ht, 3.4 WPG, co2 levels 1 bpm. temp 26c
i noticed crazy pearling[more than usual] when i upped the co2 in friend's [atomizer] tank... fizzing everywhere, lotus, e horemanii, even slow boys windelov develop bubbles under leaf...[just to catch some rogue SAE's which were munching the moss]
-------------
so,
ime, pearling only happens if all else are good/great-especially lighting in a tank that's already cycled.
no photosynthesis without right lighting+intensity? sustainable? if only we know exactly how much fert and co2 to put so that plants get everything and leave none for algae? so keeping a close eye on everything during start is critical imo.
tom, your thread regards to new method of diffusion that you feel is superior to achieve pearling effect and reduce algae levels sounds reasonable.
dissolved gas levels are also related to temperatures...
fish gasping means too little o2.
too much dissolved co2 forces o2 out of water.
so one measurement is useless without the other. logical? my first exp proves high temp and high co2 not good for fish or plants despite high light and dense planting... cool temps needed...doh.
algae issues are definitely related to how far up front you put plants in the starting block and how you suppress algae needs till plants are the top competitor for nutrients...hence ada's brighty k step 1, 2, 3...
----------
i'm now starting first setup again with better perspective and to try out your ideas on co2...at the lower temps of course...
i always remember your idea of algae free aquascape objective.
i'd like to add the idea of let plants take hold first and leave nothing to algae...i've wasted a lot of plants in this tank, luckily my other tanks are supplying healthy replacements. so i'm pretty fired up to make this work...
so far it's been win more than lose...
You can if you dare to fail - Stan Chung
I just got word that 5 other folks that have done what I did are now complaining about their red plants look all silver now from all the O2 pearling.
Actually they saw the same thing I did.
So it's not just me, not just an abberation.
I've done this hobby long enough to know when I've been boondoggled, this ain't one of them times.
I also measured growth rate another way than just looking, I used a DO meter.
Faster after the lights come on and much higher nearly 50% of the day cycle.
The effect has lasted over 2 weeks for the test tank so far.
If you have issues after 2-3 days, make sure to dose more nutrtients(do EI and make sure it's fairly rich).
Make sure the CO2 rate has not changed either.
Flow and placement and bubble sizing are important.
I have several other CO2 hints from the vault as well.
Neon, yes, many times we go one way, but then look back at basic things and re evaluate to make sure.
This is one of those things.
I used venturi diffusers so I had a somewhat similar effect, but using the disc ruled out O2 build up.
So I can tell fairly certain waht is going on and why, you can certainly see a marked difference, like adding PO4 vs not adding it.
Several folks also reported their Green dust and other pest algae went away rapidly.
The Venturi diffuses can get me quite far and this method can really make algae a non issue. Diffusers and venturis both work well and there are a few different ways top deliver the CO2, it is not an ADA thing etc, but rather a more general thing and something that does work.
I am going to re do some of the EI to factor in the uptake differences for NO3/PO4 now(ugh), but that will be a few weeks/months.
Regards,
Tom Barr
www.BarrReport.com
Well, that is true of anything you desire to isolate, the issue is that we can isolate temp, Light and nutrients easily, CO2 is a little bit more troublesome, but still, we can rule out the other things fairly safely.Originally Posted by standoyo
That's how I figure thuis stuff out, I play withj one variable at a time and get to know it better.
Folks now add 30ppm instead of 10-15ppm of CO2 due in large part to my nagging.
But even that can be improved and eyeballed better.
Whioch is neat because we can dio even better, better than ADA even in terms of growth rates etc.
I've never seen growth and health like this in an entire tank in any of his photo's.
That use to be a good standard.
Now I wonder.
It has nothing to do with leavign anything for algae or not, it has everything to do with gropwing the plants, this is not a compettion between algae and plants.no photosynthesis without right lighting+intensity? sustainable? if only we know exactly how much fert and co2 to put so that plants get everything and leave none for algae? so keeping a close eye on everything during start is critical imo.
They are not equal, it's mistake to think about it this way honestly, not that it stops anyone from doing so, but it's inherently wrong.
It's like saying elephants and mice compete on the same level, clearly not the case and algae and plants are even further apart than these two examples.
No!tom, your thread regards to new method of diffusion that you feel is superior to achieve pearling effect and reduce algae levels sounds reasonable.
dissolved gas levels are also related to temperatures...
fish gasping means too little o2.
too much dissolved co2 forces o2 out of water.
They(CO2 and O2) are indenpendent of eachother.
One does not push the other out.
This is another gas mistconception that many folks make!
I am not giving you a hard time, just making sure you get these issues straight so when you help some one else who obviously thinks the same type of things(lie I did at one point), you can get them on the same page.
Do not take the comments as a personal thing please, they are not intended as such.
At first glance perhaps but no. See above.so one measurement is useless without the other. logical?
Cool tempos hold more gas(O2 mainly since we add excess CO2 anyhow, so that's a non issue unless you have non CO2 tanks)my first exp proves high temp and high co2 not good for fish or plants despite high light and dense planting... cool temps needed...doh.
No, this is a myth as well.algae issues are definitely related to how far up front you put plants in the starting block and how you suppress algae needs till plants are the top competitor for nutrients...hence ada's brighty k step 1, 2, 3...
The issue with algae is mainly related to a few things: low plant density, poor bacteria colony and NH4 production.
You, myself, anyone can add lots of weeds from day one, add mulm(see post on this one) and dose lots of Traces/Gh/NO3/PO4 etc.
I'm talking 2-3ppm of PO4, 20ppm of NO3 etc, clearly way way way beyond remotely limiting anything algae wise.
You need to get below the limits of any hobby test kit to measure algae limiting concentrations.
Actually you need to get below most any test lab that does environmental monitering to get that low, maybe a very careful grad student at a top research facility might be able to.
This does not matter truthfully, having high biomass from day one, mulm added to the substrate and good nutrients(does not matter where they are)i'm now starting first setup again with better perspective and to try out your ideas on co2...at the lower temps of course...
i always remember your idea of algae free aquascape objective.
i'd like to add the idea of let plants take hold first and leave nothing to algae...i've wasted a lot of plants in this tank, luckily my other tanks are supplying healthy replacements. so i'm pretty fired up to make this work...
so far it's been win more than lose...
I've done more PO4/NO3 algae related test than anyone else in this hobby.
I'm telling you and I can support it and you can prove this to yourself as well, you are never going to limit the algae.
We can provide the proper nutrients for the plants though............
Regards,
Tom Barr
I should be working not posting
hi tom,
thanks for presenting everything logically... personally i'm stupid as stupid doesit'll be pretty hard for me to get offended unless i thought what you said didn't make sense.
i had a look at your venturi diffuser design and will make one tank dedicated to this very exciting idea...
of course i don't expect to get right the first time...
no magic bullet for duhness.
i have to figure out how potent my discus poo is when i feed it beefheart so i don't overdose on the ferts!
great post...
You can if you dare to fail - Stan Chung
Pardon my bluntness. I onced used a ceramic diffusor but eventually reverted to the traditional reactor because I was too frustrated by the CO2 bubbles flying all around the tank, probably because it covered up whatever observable pearling by the plants. (Plants pearling in still, clear water has always my favourite sight which kept me glued to a planted tank.)
So i was wondering, how did you (Tom Barr) observe pearling in the mist of CO2 bubbles (perhaps achieved by a ceramic diffusor). Or have I misunderstood what you have said in the first thread. For your info, I've interpreted the first thread as "small gaseous CO2 bubbles flying around the tank is better for plant growth as compared to dissolved CO2, which is CO3- injected by a reactor". I'm feeling a little lost here. Perhaps some enlightenment for a lost soul?
Just some info for those reading this tread that there is a same tread posted by Tom Barr at www.plantedtank forum which has a very lively discussion on this topic which you guys might be interested to read up on.
Here's a direct link to the thread.
My 2 cents on this: I've accidentally tried it before, and I really didn't like the bubbles blowing about all over the place. Incidentally, does the 30ppm of CO2 concentration theory still hold true for planted tanks then? Or does this discovery mean that the previous method still acceptable, but less efficient?
The previous method does work but direct CO2 gas transfer to its stomata once the amount dissolved CO2 hits say 20-30ppm will help further improve growth. The pearling as observed is far more intense hence the O2 level is higher.
Regards
Peter Gwee
Comments,
Dissolved versus undissolved bubbles.............this is where folks are getting boondoggled.
There is a two step process.
1.The initial few minutes/hour/s(typically 1 to 3 hours after the light/CO2 comes on) are mainly dissolving the CO2 into solution.
2.Once a high level builds up, then it becomes much more difficult for the CO2 mist to be dissolved. Chemically: it is more difficult to dissolve a substance against an increasingly larger concentrational gradient.
So in the AM when the lights first come on, the CO2 is poor and the gas rapidly dissolves entirely.
Say we get up to 30ppm dissolved in one hour.
Great, plants are bathed in a rich CO2 solution.
Still the same and works well as what was previously discussed for the last 40 years.
Now, what about the CO2 bubbles at 30ppm?
Are they so quick to dissolve at this level of CO2?
You are adding CO2 to a solution that is already heavily super saturated.
The O2 is at best only mildly super staurated.
After 1-2 hours, the micro bubbles will persist and float around the tank.
This is true for my venturi reactors as well.
That gas build up in the external reactor tubes as well as the internal venrturis are similar later in the day.Think about what that gas might be, I'd suggested it was O2 at one point, the flame test was not conclusive(it put the flame out, suggesting CO2, not O2).
I could see the external reactors perhaps building up O2 later in the day, but what about the internal venturi reactors?
No way, there's nothing to degas O2 in there! This rules out the O2 theory. No other gases are super saturated, thus unable to increase and degas of solution, only O2 and CO2, and CO2 is much higher than O2 relative to ambient in all cases, so this makes sense chemically regarding concentration.
So this means, and I know I'm right(rare), that the CO2 dissolving is greatly reduced later at a stable given CO2 dosing rate in the day after you build up to a certain level. What level? I'd guess about 30ppm.
After you get this into the tank( 30ppm dissolved CO2), then this CO2 micro bubble theory starts to work. You still have 30ppm in the tank, but now you have added pulse of pure CO2 mist on top of that for the plants.
It is not one _or_ the other, they are synergistic, one complement and builds on the other.
My mistake in the past was assuming that the gas in the tube was O2, it's not, it's CO2 excess that's much more difficult to dissolve.
Thinking about the internal venturi reactors has shown that it cannot be O2(why would it degas there just like in the external sealed tubes)?
I tried this without any plants(thus no O2 build up), I had gas build up later in the day, thus reduction in CO2 dissolving at higher ppm levels.
............so there.
I finally figure out why that dang little venturi diffuser worked so good, only took me 12 years ! haha
By using comparative diffusers, reactors etc, I was able to muddle through this.
One by itself would not have answered this question.
30ppm bathes the entire plant, the mist of relatively pure CO2 bathes part of the plant.
Together both drive photosynthesis at a rapid rate that I've observed.
Regards,
Tom Barr
www.BarrReport.com This month's very in depth K+ review article completed.
Peter, your stubborness on the response times on the CO2 reactor issue over the last few months/years(?) will likely come to head if you play around with these methods and considerations about delivery.
Hopefully everyone's tank will improve as a result.
30ppm in the water + mist is the best method of delivery.
You get both and the mist does not persist till you have a high dissolved ppm level anyway.
I'm just happy to know what that damn gas was in the reactor later in the day.
Then why the tank did really good even though the growth increases and the CO2 is seemingly being wasted.
It did not make sense.
That type of stubborness is good, there are bad types though(not Peter's)...........
With a somewhat clear understanding of dissolve gas solubility of CO2 at several different concentrations, folks can now embark on amplifying their CO2 better to improve growth rates.
Some do not like bubbles on things.
Most do though.
Algae doesn't(Except 1 species of Cladaphora and Spirogyra also does well, these can be manually removed or addressed with shrimp etc).
Regards,
Tom Barr
Given this method is Cheap, simple from a "How to" prespective, and I know it's more effective than mere dissolved CO2 alone, how many have tried it?
Some have doubted me about this, but I know when plants grow better.
Many suggested 10-15ppm of CO2 in the past, I suggested more based on what I saw with the plants/algae. I started at 20-25ppm, then 20-30pp, now 30ppm, some have gone above this.
Add some screwy pH/KH measurments/test kits and you really have a mess.
So in effort to get around all that monkey business, I decided to take the gas directly to the plants.
I know the difference when you use the mist is great even if measure and account for the CO2 dissolved in the water.
Try it and see.
Don't just accept that you have the best growth.
People did that when they used 10-15ppm, had 1/3 of the light many now do, added much less PO4 etc etc.
Most of thethings I've helped folks with and improved the methods are observations based on the plants rather than preconcieved notions.
I suggest folks try this and then decide if it's an improvement or not.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Hi Tom,
I don't think I've seen you do three consecutive posts on any matter in this forum (I may be wrong as I'm relatively new to AQ). You REALLY want to drive this point home, don't you?
I haven't setup a "proper" planted tank yet as I'm awaiting some renovation plans/decisions from my folks. But I would like to say that what you have describe sounds quite logical, to me at least. Its kinda like a jet engine getting an afterburner effect by injecting fuel at the back of the engine into the exhuast flame. More fuel is used but it packs a bigger punch on the power!
You've got me as a believer and I will certainly try this on my tank when I get round through all these indecisions at home...
celticfish
It is a good day to die!!!
I finally uploaded an avatar and Cupid is dead!!!
Artificial Intelligence
Hi Celtic fish,
Your signature sounds like something from Starcraft, one of the fighter jets
Something about the water & the fishes that calms me down.
Hahaha
Much has developed in the past few years in the planted aquarium scene here in Singapore. I remembered I was the one of maniacs here that keep on preaching on 30ppm CO2. Then it became Peter and the CO2 distribution. Now, the evil algae-causing phosphate theory seems to have all but banished as fictional tale.
Now I am going low-tech full time. Time is a precious comodity here in Singapore. All those pruning and water change was getting to me. The tanks looks in a big mess when I missed weekly maintenance for up to 1 month. Low-tech was the way to go for me. I am thinking that at some point of time the low-tech way may just catch on here, giving the Singapore urban lifestyle. The high-tech way gave us the know-how and the science of the planted tank. After toiling over pruning and water changes, and after figuring how the planted tank works, I believe hobbyists will start to look for ways to make it easier... the low-tech tank. Armed with knowledge we gain from the high-tech tank, it will not be difficult to make a low-tech work and yet still make it as fulfilling... but without the labour. I think the low-tech tank may be the next thing in the evolution of the planted tank hobby...
*speculating*
Tom, we have to acknowledge the work you have done with regards to the science behind the planted aquarium. I must really thank you for the immense contribution that you have made to this wonderful hobby.I am still looking forward to the publishing of "The Planted Aquarium Bible" by Tom Barr... I hope it is coming.
Cheers!
BC
My CO2 now I think is going this way, cause when the solenoid turn on my 3ball internal reactor dissolve the CO2 readily until come a stage where the ball dun spin and the CO2 are broken down to tiny mist bubbles instead of dissolving and that comes out of the spraybar placed at the bottom back of the tank.
So is that what this thread is trying to do? Well I still get Hair algae, might be I overdose the fert. And ya the CO2 mist don't quite look too nice at times.
Sorry, I have de-tracked in my previous post. Let me try to attempt to crystalline whatever that has been put up before and add some of my views.
Basically, its the CO2 issue that we are trying to address here. We already know that we need 20-30ppm CO2. We are also trying to get the CO2 distributed around the tank.
There is one problem with reactors... gas exchange. Yes... gas exchange... CO2 goes into the water, N2/O2 (mostly O2 due to the oversaturation from the photosynthesis) goes into the bubble and gets accumulated over time. A good reactor design will allow this gas to be purged. However, many of the cheaper reactors do not have this, and thus, we have a problem of accumulation of N2/O2. IMO, those reactors with the rolling ball thingy is not a good design. The accumulation of N2/O2 will greatly reduce the efficiency of the reactor because the gas concentration of CO2 in the reactor will be lower.
IME, other than a well designed reactor, CO2 "atomisers"/misters/ceramic diffusors coupled with good flow/circulation might be the one of the better way. Firstly, the contact area/volume of CO2 is large. Secondly, some undissolved CO2 bubbles will continue to get carried around in the current and ultimately get to the plants. IMO, CO2 flippers are one of the poorest way of dissolving CO2.
There is also mentioned about the problem with pH/KH measurements. Especially with KH test kits, the tendency is usually to over estimate the CO2 amount than that is really in the water due to various reasons, e.g. presences of buffers other than carbonate, atmospheric CO2 fouling the test kit, etc. Therefore, it is good to try to "push the envelope" while keeping an eye on your fishes (or shrimps...).
Read the thread a couple more times, I believe you ought to slowly digest some of the stuff discussed.
BC
Misting at lower CO2 concentration?
When I first heard of CO2 injection about two years ago in my first days with planted tanks, the venturi seemed the easiest, most practical way to do it.
However, the concentration was at most 20ppm, but I still had bubbles in the tank--not micro-bubbles but small bubbles, somewhat even in distribution.
-The light was lower than what is commonly deemed "vey high". And the plants did not pearl, but grew very well and practically without any algae.
-I calculated additional fertlisation based on hydroponics proportions, and a bunch of web resources (including several written by you).
Anyway, despite the particular conditions of that tank, which would lead to many off-subject issues, my question is:
Do you think the same principle was working in that case, despite of the low concentration [CO2] ?
Cheers,
Gerardo Flores
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks