# Effect of CO2 on Plant Growth at Low Light



## Hoppy

More on this subject: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/26-planted-tank-faq/107303-diy-co2-newbie-setup-3.html#post9526289


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Forget adding CO2 and just blast the light. You'll get much faster growth. That's shown in the growth charts. Pedersen explained why in the paper. Applies to other plants as well. High light requires high CO2? Only if you still believe in grandpa myths. "Science progresses one funeral at a time." - Max Planck. Looking forward to some funerals so this hobby can advance.


----------



## Hoppy

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Forget adding CO2 and just blast the light. You'll get much faster growth. That's shown in the growth charts. Pedersen explained why in the paper. Applies to other plants as well. High light requires high CO2? Only if you still believe in grandpa myths. "Science progresses one funeral at a time." - Max Planck. Looking forward to some funerals so this hobby can advance.


High light results in algae unless the plants are growing in good health. That requires that they have enough carbon available for the plants to do so. Even with low light the plants can strip the CO2 from the tank. I have to disagree with you.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

High light does not result in algae. That's another myth that needs to die. Excess nutrients, with light and CO2, results in algal growth. Algae are opputunistic organisms. They multiply when conditions favor their growth, which is a good thing since they remove excess nutrients. As long as there is a steady supply of nutrients, and as long as it doesn't become toxic, they grow.

Nutrients, light and CO2 are all required to culture algae. Limit CO2 and growth is proportionately limited. Same for the other two.


----------



## roadmaster

If light energy drives demand(it does) for more CO2 and nutrient's than is available for plant's to draw from ,then algae which need's much less of everything ,will find excellent environment for proliferation.
Limit lighting, and increase CO2 availability, and provide basic nutrient's, and plant's will respond favorably with little if any algae.
Or you can choose to become a student of way's to combat various algae while blasting away with the light.
Your choice.

Bump:


Solcielo lawrencia said:


> High light does not result in algae. That's another myth that needs to die. Excess nutrients, with light and CO2, results in algal growth. Algae are opputunistic organisms. They multiply when conditions favor their growth, which is a good thing since they remove excess nutrients. As long as there is a steady supply of nutrients, and as long as it doesn't become toxic, they grow.
> 
> Nutrients, light and CO2 are all required to culture algae. Limit CO2 and growth is proportionately limited. Same for the other two.


 Yes algae multiply when condition's favor their growth.
Excess lighting,low/inconsistent CO2,and or possible nutrient limitation = poor plant health, which in turn trigger's many form's of algae.


----------



## jeffkrol

> I'm posting this to suggest that we stop telling folks that they need pressurized CO2 if they want to see any benefit in large tanks.


Well .. not quite true.. Pressurized CO2 can be run at trivial rates....like 1/2BPS..or less
To me pressurized CO2 is about convenience, regulation and repeat-ability. not to mention necessary for high pressure diffuses........Best to just mention that high CO2 concentrations may not be necessary..or even wanted..regardless of the light..
Now this really doesn't "quite" apply but I'm posting it just to show how things can become.. err.. unexpected..


> But results from the third year of the experiment revealed a more complex scenario. While treatments involving increased temperature, nitrogen deposition or precipitation -- alone or in combination -- promoted plant growth, the addition of elevated CO2 consistently dampened those increases.
> 
> "The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding CO2 reduced this to 40 percent," Shaw and her colleagues wrote.


Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals : 12/02


----------



## OVT

@Hoppy: good chart as it visually helps to understand the basic concepts.

The biggest point I got from it is how ROI is scewed: we go to much higher light and co2, at considerable labor and cost, to get that "extra" 1 -5 % in plant growth. It certainly upholds the old wisdom of the 80-20 rule.

I also find it telling how high ligh trails behind medium light curve until it catches up at that magic 30 ppm. I am guessing that the lag is attributable to the plants getting nutrients limited at higher light. All of this gives more support to Mr. Barrs' observations and decades-long assertions on light/co2/nutrients "arms race".

One area where our deductions might differ revolve around ricca as a test subject. My understanding is that ricca is closer to a marginal plant and actually derives more benefits from higher co2 then others. If that is indeed the case, then the benefits of much higher light and co2 would be even more questionable.

My personal experience with hygro corymbosa also differ a bit from yours: mine is currently under medium light, no injected co2, Excel twice a week at recommended dosage and all 5 of my plants grew 200-300% over the last couple of months. Given that, I would suspect that there is another variable between our conditions.

As in other discussions on the subject, yes - there are a lot of beatiful plants that do much better as emergent plants that we are trying to force 100% under water. They are the ones that we are trying to fool with high light and high co2. Luckily for us, there are a lot of more "reasonable" plants to chose from.

As to @Solcielo lawrencia, you might be right or you might be wrong but your message gets overwhelmed by the antagonistIc delivery style. I do want to hear your ideas and your rational for them if I could only filter them out from the noise.


----------



## roadmaster

jeffkrol said:


> Well .. not quite true.. Pressurized CO2 can be run at trivial rates....like 1/2BPS..or less
> To me pressurized CO2 is about convenience, regulation and repeat-ability. not to mention necessary for high pressure diffuses........Best to just mention that high CO2 concentrations may not be necessary..or even wanted..regardless of the light..
> Now this really doesn't "quite" apply but I'm posting it just to show how things can become.. err.. unexpected..
> 
> Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals : 12/02


Rubisco mechanisim in aquatic plant's is said, according to paper's on the topic, to take maybe week's to adapt to fluctuating CO2 level's or sudden shift's high to low CO2 level's, or vice versa.
Perhaps this contributed to observation that increase in CO2 brought no more improved growth over how long??
Or there was simply no more growth because the plant(s) studied had reached their potential height?
If Rubisco mechanisim is working hard to produce enzymes and suddenly more CO2 is available,then the enzyme production is not needed as urgently, and rubsico mechanisim adapt's accordingly and some lag time with growth could be expected?
Same lag time with sudden decrease in CO2 availability while enzyme production might need ramped up?
Surely some speculation on my part , but is a hint of supporting evidence which is more than some provide.


----------



## BettaBettas

very nice


----------



## Smooch

What is the point of continuing to use Excel? Excel is a algaecide rather than a carbon source. I think this is the root of the myth that CO2 prevents algae versus people recognizing the situation for what it is. Yes, a carbon source will help speed the growth of plants which in return will deplete nutrients so algae is kept at bay, but that doesn't happen overnight.

What is even more interesting about these types of experiments is that there is never any mention of how CO2 is being grabbed from the atmosphere. I'm not convinced that if a tank is in a room that never gets aired out via a open window does not see a increase of CO2 levels. Of course depending on where a person lives plays a key role as the air out in the middle of nowhere in Nebraska is going to be much different than downtown NYC.

The tanks we keep are not closed, sealed systems. Water grabs all kinds of things so I'm not sure why people would think CO2 is only limited to what comes out of a plastic bottle or canister.


----------



## klibs

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> High light does not result in algae. That's another myth that needs to die. Excess nutrients, with light and CO2, results in algal growth. Algae are opputunistic organisms. They multiply when conditions favor their growth, which is a good thing since they remove excess nutrients. As long as there is a steady supply of nutrients, and as long as it doesn't become toxic, they grow.
> 
> Nutrients, light and CO2 are all required to culture algae. Limit CO2 and growth is proportionately limited. Same for the other two.


While this is true, it can be difficult to provide high light and avoid the types of conditions that would promote algae growth. If you blast light in a tank that is not up to the challenge (and IMO most people's tanks' aren't) then algae should blow up.

I do agree that even small amounts of CO2 around 10ppm can improve growth quite a bit without really risking algae outbreaks. Solcielo is right in saying that higher light will give you much faster gains - but IMO it is much riskier in terms of algae.

Basically you can't go wrong by injecting 10-30ppm of CO2 in any tank. You CAN go wrong by hitting your tank with a lot of light.


----------



## Hoppy

OVT said:


> @Hoppy: good chart as it visually helps to understand the basic concepts.
> 
> The biggest point I got from it is how ROI is scewed: we go to much higher light and co2, at considerable labor and cost, to get that "extra" 1 -5 % in plant growth. It certainly upholds the old wisdom of the 80-20 rule.
> 
> I also find it telling how high light trails behind medium light curve until it catches up at that magic 30 ppm. I am guessing that the lag is attributable to the plants getting nutrients limited at higher light. All of this gives more support to Mr. Barrs' observations and decades-long assertions on light/co2/nutrients "arms race".


Look more carefully at the chart. The growth rate on that chart is shown as the percent of the maximum growth rate at that light level. It shows how much CO2 it takes to get the maximum growth rate the light level permits. With very high light, that maximum growth rate is very high, and it takes a lot of CO2 to reach it. With low to normal high light, that growth rate isn't nearly as high, so it takes a lot less CO2 to reach it.

My interest is in low to medium light tanks, solely because I don't enjoy battling algae problems, and the lower the light level the fewer algae problems pop up. This chart clearly suggests that we can use almost trivial additions of CO2 and still get almost as good a growth rate as we would get if we followed the myth that 30 ppm is what is needed for CO2 to be effective for all light levels. I don't dispute that many plants need high light and high CO2 to reach their potential growth rates and beauty.


> One area where our deductions might differ revolve around ricca as a test subject. My understanding is that ricca is closer to a marginal plant and actually derives more benefits from higher co2 then others. If that is indeed the case, then the benefits of much higher light and co2 would be even more questionable.
> 
> My personal experience with hygro corymbosa also differ a bit from yours: mine is currently under medium light, no injected co2, Excel twice a week at recommended dosage and all 5 of my plants grew 200-300% over the last couple of months. Given that, I would suspect that there is another variable between our conditions.


I'm not sure our H. corymbosa experience is much different. I like having to prune the plant every week or two. Over a couple of months my H. corymbosa also roughly doubled in size, but other plants in my tank just didn't look healthy. Clearly, other species would react to CO2/light somewhat differently than Riccia did, but I believe my experience with H. corymbosa shows that the difference, for that plant, and thus likely for many low light plants, isn't much different.


> As in other discussions on the subject, yes - there are a lot of beautiful plants that do much better as emergent plants that we are trying to force 100% under water. They are the ones that we are trying to fool with high light and high co2. Luckily for us, there are a lot of more "reasonable" plants to chose from.
> 
> As to @Solcielo lawrencia, you might be right or you might be wrong but your message gets overwhelmed by the antagonistIc delivery style. I do want to hear your ideas and your rational for them if I could only filter them out from the noise.


----------



## Jeff5614

Smooch said:


> What is the point of continuing to use Excel? Excel is a algaecide rather than a carbon source. I think this is the root of the myth that CO2 prevents algae versus people recognizing the situation for what it is. Yes, a carbon source will help speed the growth of plants which in return will deplete nutrients so algae is kept at bay, but that doesn't happen overnight...


One more conspiracy by a large corporation lying to the ignorant consumer in order just to make a profit?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

roadmaster said:


> Yes algae multiply when condition's favor their growth.
> Excess lighting,low/inconsistent CO2,and or possible nutrient limitation = poor plant health, which in turn trigger's many form's of algae.


This is the same plagiarized explanation that's been repeated ad nauseum. There's no evidence to support such a belief. Quite the opposite. Plants grow in the presence of low co2, low nutrients, and can do so without I'll effects even under high lighting. Pedersen shows this as anyone else who grows healthy plants without adding either.

Plants grow slower when limited in resources but that alone doesn't cause algae. If nutrients are limited, so too are algae. There can be both healthy plants and healthy algae simultaneously. The presence of algae does not mean plants are in I'll health, which is another myth that needs to die. 

Repeating myths does not make it quantifiable true. It only slows the pace of progress, which has been sorely needed for quite some time.

Bump:


Hoppy said:


> I don't dispute that many plants need high light and high CO2 to reach their potential growth rates and beauty.


When you see for yourself what supposedly "difficult " plants look like when grown under no added CO2 (except for organismal respiration) but tremendously high, 150+ PAR lighting and no algae growth, would you accept that adding CO2 just isn't necessary under such conditions? Because once you have examples that show the dogma isn't true, then the dogma is falsified.


----------



## Jeff5614

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> ...When you see for yourself what supposedly "difficult " plants look like when grown under no added CO2 (except for organismal respiration) but tremendously high, 150+ PAR lighting and no algae growth, would you accept that adding CO2 just isn't necessary under such conditions? Because once you have examples that show the dogma isn't true, then the dogma is falsified.


I think if we could actually see those examples it would help your argument.


----------



## burr740

The main myth that needs a funeral is that plants somehow "out compete" algae for nutrients, and therefore keeping nutrients low somehow starves algae. 

Nothing wrong with keeping nutrients low if plants are healthy. I dose low levels of certain things myself. But it is literally impossible to run a tank lean enough to "starve algae".


Sorry for getting off track Hoppy. Thanks for doing that chart, this is a very interesting thread.


----------



## Hoppy

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> When you see for yourself what supposedly "difficult " plants look like when grown under no added CO2 (except for organismal respiration) but tremendously high, 150+ PAR lighting and no algae growth, would you accept that adding CO2 just isn't necessary under such conditions? *Because once you have examples that show the dogma isn't true, then the dogma is falsified.*


That last statement is true, but it is only true for the conditions under which the example was made. That can be difficult, so to really falsify a "dogma" you have to repeat the experiment, and others have to repeat the experiment, all with the same results. Science isn't so simple that one experiment can falsify a theory.

Also, don't forget that the light intensity in a typical aquarium varies over a large range between the substrate and the water surface. Many tanks have 150 PAR at the water surface, but far fewer have it at the substrate. Unfortunately I could find no information about how and at what location Pedersen, et al made their measurements of the light intensity. Since Riccia tends to be a very thin mat of growth I assumed that they measured it at the substrate level.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Jeff5614 said:


> I think if we could actually see those examples it would help your argument.


I'm not arguing. Just sharing knowledge. The only way for you to believe it is to prove it for yourself. Because it's already been shown a number of times but all its ever received was irrelevant criticism using the same tired arguments that lack critical thinking. Like Hoppy said, it needs to be repeated so why don't you take a healthy plant, put it in a bottle and placed on a window sill. Then observe. Then get back to us.

Bump: @Hoppy
Just put Riccia in a container on the windowsill so it gets sunlight. Filter the light enough so it doesn't heat the water too much. Compare it to growth even more filtered. Observe how much they pearl.


----------



## sfshrimp

Like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPog7W7J5ps


----------



## Hoppy

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Bump: @Hoppy
> Just put Riccia in a container on the windowsill so it gets sunlight. Filter the light enough so it doesn't heat the water too much. Compare it to growth even more filtered. Observe how much they pearl.


Why would I want to do that? To do a valid experiment you need to make sure both the experimental tank and the control tank have the same nutrients, the same substrate, the same whatever else you can control. Doing an experiment with a single tank, changing one parameter at a time, only works well if you keep everything else the same. But, I have no interest in Riccia. All that the Pedersen paper supplied that interested me was the data, and some of the description about how the test was done.


----------



## brandon133

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Bump: @Hoppy
> Just put Riccia in a container on the windowsill so it gets sunlight. Filter the light enough so it doesn't heat the water too much. Compare it to growth even more filtered. Observe how much they pearl.


Pearling means nothing. It just means that the water column is already saturated with oxygen. Unhealthy plants pearl as well in highly oxygenated water, but that's besides the point. If I'm reading this correctly, you're suggesting lower light in the same conditions will produce less plant growth - Agreed, but that doesn't factor in CO2. Can you clarify?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

@Hoppy, wow, that is exactly the same attitude that keeps these myths alive. You learn a lot from replicating experiments, not just doing novel ones. The Pedersen paper contains a lot of knowledge, most of which are overlooked or ignored even after I specifically pointed them out. This is a reading problem, or reading comprehension problem, or just a lack of thinking coupled with confirmation bias.
@brandon133, your assumption that pearling is the result of oxygen saturation is only partially true. Inject pure o2 in o2- depleted water and it will remain a bubble. It will not dissolve completely preventing any bubble from forming. Why? Because o2 is being added faster than the rate of dissolution. This is true for plants producing o2 faster than can be dissolved in the water.

Pedersen explained that higher light improves CO2 assimilation even under low co2 conditions. Try the Riccia experiment and you will see this for yourself. You will probably be amazed that Riccia is able to pearl so much without adding any CO2. It's able to do this daily and you'll see that it grows faster than you may imagine under these conditions. Then, with an airstone and tubing, exhale to add your respiration CO2 into the water. Riccia will pearl even more and grow even faster. If you want to see just how much co2 blowing through an airstone adds, measure the pH drop. Also note one thing throughout these experiments: where's the algae that's supposed to be growing under high light (SUNlight) and no added co2? 

Pedersen explains that under low light and low co2, plants need to expend energy to gather both which it may not be able to do so to support its growth. But if co2 is increased even just a little, it's able to spend more of the energy to gather the limited amount of light. But the other way, just adding more light, works even better.


----------



## jeffkrol

Just throwing this in for fun..

Plant responses to low [CO2] of the past - Gerhart - 2010 - New Phytologist - Wiley Online Library
I always like these "you need" or "you don't need" discussions ..

Now it would be hard to argue a glasshouse is not high light..........


> In another study of a closely allied species, Yan et al. (2006) collected turions of Vallisneria spinulosa from Liangzi Lake, Hubei Province, China, and planted them in tanks containing 15-cm-deep layers of fertile lake sediments, topped with 40 cm of lake water, that were placed in two glasshouses - one maintained at the ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration of 390 ppm and the other maintained at an elevated concentration of 1000 ppm - where the plants grew for a period of 120 days, after which they were harvested and the dry weights of their various organs determined. As they describe it, this work indicated that the "total biomass accumulation of plants grown in the elevated CO2 was 2.3 times that of plants grown in ambient CO2, with biomass of leaves, roots and rhizomes increasing by 106%, 183% and 67%, respectively." Most spectacularly of all, they report that "turion biomass increased 4.5-fold," because "the mean turion numbers per ramet and mean biomass per turion in elevated CO2 were 1.7-4.3 and 1.9-3.4 times those in ambient CO2."


CO2 Science


----------



## Jeff5614

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I'm not arguing. Just sharing knowledge. The only way for you to believe it is to prove it for yourself. Because it's already been shown a number of times but all its ever received was irrelevant criticism using the same tired arguments that lack critical thinking. Like Hoppy said, it needs to be repeated so why don't you take a healthy plant, put it in a bottle and placed on a window sill. Then observe. Then get back to us...


Main reason being that I'm not the one trying to support this "method." I have nothing to prove. You do a lot of talking but give us little in the way of actual examples other than to say it has already been done so we should do it ourselves. I'm truly interested in what you have to say, but there are never any examples provided to support it. Just telling me it has been done several times doesn't help me when I don't know where to find these numerous examples. 

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just want you to prove your point with something substantial. Until you do I'm afraid what you say will always be met with quite a bit of skepticism. I want to believe, to quote Fox Mulder. You're alienating some of the very people that would really like to know what you're saying is true.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

I would caution about co2sciene as it appears to be antiglobal warming propaganda.


----------



## jeffkrol

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I would caution about co2sciene as it appears to be antiglobal warming propaganda.


Best to concentrate on the message, not the messenger..


> *Growth Response of a Submerged Aquatic Macrophyte to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment*  *Reference*
> Yan, X., Yu, D. and Li, Y.-K. 2006. The effects of elevated CO2 on clonal growth and nutrient content of submerged plant _Vallisneria spinulosa_. _Chemosphere_ *62*: 595-601. *What was done*
> Turions of _Vallisneria spinulosa_ Yan were collected from Liangzi Lake, Hubei Province, China and planted in fertile lake sediment 15 cm deep topped with 40 cm of lake water in each of a number of tanks placed in two glasshouses, one of which was maintained at the ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration of 390 ppm and one of which was maintained at an elevated concentration of 1000 ppm for a period of 120 days, after which the plants were harvested and the dry weights of their various organs determined.
> *What was learned*
> Yan _et al_. report that "total biomass accumulation of plants grown in the elevated CO2 was 2.3 times that of plants grown in ambient CO2, with biomass of leaves, roots and rhizomes increasing by 106%, 183% and 67%, respectively." Most spectacularly of all, "turion biomass increased 4.5-fold," because "the mean turion numbers per ramet and mean biomass per turion in elevated CO2 were 1.7-4.3 and 1.9-3.4 times those in ambient CO2," All in all, these several changes resulted in a greater allocation of biomass to belowground structures. In addition, it was determined that nitrogen concentrations in leaves and turions were reduced by 13% and 16%, respectively, while phosphorus concentrations were increased in all plant organs by between 35% and 147%.
> *What it means*
> The three Chinese researchers concluded that because "both the number and the size of turion, the most important storage and reproductive organ, increased significantly" in the elevated CO2 treatment, this phenomenon would enhance the "population-increasing rate of _V. spinulosa_ ... in the next growth season and would benefit its dominant species role."


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653505008350


----------



## Xiaozhuang

Nice to see all the usual suspects gathered around here. I suspect if I covered up the names I could still guess who is who, with the usual trash talk etc. 

Thanks to Hoppy for working on the data. I do think that even small additions of CO2 help a lot with plant growth; such that using soil decomposition in a low tech tank can provide a small but significant boost to overall plant health in the tank. 

Does this mean that using a lower water to soil ratio enhances the effect? 
It also reminds me of Bucephalandra farms where they do "wet emersed" cultures; growing Buceps in shallow water - does this allow better gas exchange
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0ulJOTOdjo


I think another interesting environment to study with regards to higher light, low CO2 combination is outdoor aquatic plant farms. 









The ones doing submerged growth here seem relatively clean, good growth forms without CO2 injection. Under puny partial shade, still probably more than 1000 PAR and soaring temps/high 80s into the 90s.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

I was thinking of emailing Florida Aquatic Nurseries and asking them how they fertilize their plants. They also grow plants submerged in large open containers using sunlight. SUNLIGHT!
https://youtu.be/7Nkfys5hqPs

How does Tom Barr explain that? If 150PAR requires 50-70ppm of CO2, then these containers must require at least 600ppm of CO2, which is well above atmospheric concentrations. Boom. Falsified. PhD revoked.


----------



## Hoppy

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> I was thinking of emailing Florida Aquatic Nurseries and asking them how they fertilize their plants. They also grow plants submerged in large open containers using sunlight. SUNLIGHT!
> https://youtu.be/7Nkfys5hqPs
> 
> How does Tom Barr explain that? If 150PAR requires 50-70ppm of CO2, then these containers must require at least 600ppm of CO2, which is well above atmospheric concentrations. Boom. Falsified. PhD revoked.


If you want Tom Barr to explain that I suggest asking him.

I much admit that I am troubled by your enthusiasm for putting people down instead of contributing data, experiences, and experiment results. My interpretation of the data in Pedersen's paper is right or wrong regardless of anyone's opinion about me or about Tom Barr or about you. It it is wrong someone should offer an explanation of that data showing where I am wrong. When that happens I will be quick to change my interpretation. Remember, my only goal was to get my low-medium light tank to do better, while entertaining myself by using DIY CO2. It was my results that caused me to look into it further. I didn't know what you thought about the subject, nor did I have any reason at that time to care. We are not in a mano to mano contest here.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

One thing I've learned on this forum is that if you offer rational, evidence based arguments that contradict prevailing dogmas, you'll be trolled. This and other forums are not the place to discuss real knowledge that is backed by science. When actual science is presented, few ppl have the ability to even comprehend it. Instead, they interpret it the way that fits their prior beliefs. The Pedersen article has been used by Barr and EI disciples to claim plants need high co2 when there's high light. (That's how I first learned of the article.) But is that actually what the article states? Does it even imply that? No to both. I don't think most ppl even read it for comprehension because to do so takes way more time than the time it takes to read it. The fact that you actually took the time to try to comprehend makes you an anomaly. Welcome to the dark side.

As for Barr, he has no explanation. That's the reason why he revoked my mod status on BR, because I stated that CO2 isn't critical. He further had the gall to rub it in. So if something contradicts dogma, ignore it and go on as usual, repeating the same claims as before: high light requires high CO2. Hopefully, and I think this is his goal, that if he just repeats himself over and over and show pictures of his coloful tanks, ppl will gullibly believe him. Funny, too, because he accused Amano and ADA of using nice pictures of tanks just to sell their products. Hypocrisy: Barr does exactly the same thing to sell the idea of EI. Result? Most Americans can't seem to grow plants and have algae farms. Then they blame deficiency or not enough CO2 when they should be blaming EI. Proof? Look at all the threads in the algae and plant forums.

Anyway, I just wanted to rant. Thanks for listening. But welcome to the dark side. If you dig deeper, you won't be able to go back to where you are right now. So you can take the blue pill or the red pill. Ignorance is bliss. Knowledge is a pain.


----------



## houseofcards

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> One thing I've learned on this forum is that if you offer rational, evidence based arguments that contradict prevailing dogmas, you'll be trolled. This and other forums are not the place to discuss real knowledge that is backed by science. When actual science is presented, few ppl have the ability to even comprehend it.


The problem is as usual you present information in the wrong context for a planted tank hobbyist forum. It's pretty much examples that you either have no proof of or are not in any way realistically applicable to the planted tank community. How 'bout another salmon Study? 

BTW you used to do the same thing in the Aquascaping thread here at TPT a year or two ago. You would rip apart newbies trying to get some basic aquascaping instructions. You treated their tanks like they were trying to break into the top 10 of the IAPLC Contest. And then they would ask to see some examples of your tanks and of course, you never complied. Sound familiar to what your doing now.


----------



## roadmaster

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> One thing I've learned on this forum is that if you offer rational, evidence based arguments that contradict prevailing dogmas, you'll be trolled. This and other forums are not the place to discuss real knowledge that is backed by science. When actual science is presented, few ppl have the ability to even comprehend it. Instead, they interpret it the way that fits their prior beliefs. The Pedersen article has been used by Barr and EI disciples to claim plants need high co2 when there's high light. (That's how I first learned of the article.) But is that actually what the article states? Does it even imply that? No to both. I don't think most ppl even read it for comprehension because to do so takes way more time than the time it takes to read it. The fact that you actually took the time to try to comprehend makes you an anomaly. Welcome to the dark side.
> 
> As for Barr, he has no explanation. That's the reason why he revoked my mod status on BR, because I stated that CO2 isn't critical. He further had the gall to rub it in. So if something contradicts dogma, ignore it and go on as usual, repeating the same claims as before: high light requires high CO2. Hopefully, and I think this is his goal, that if he just repeats himself over and over and show pictures of his coloful tanks, ppl will gullibly believe him. Funny, too, because he accused Amano and ADA of using nice pictures of tanks just to sell their products. Hypocrisy: Barr does exactly the same thing to sell the idea of EI. Result? Most Americans can't seem to grow plants and have algae farms. Then they blame deficiency or not enough CO2 when they should be blaming EI. Proof? Look at all the threads in the algae and plant forums.
> 
> Anyway, I just wanted to rant. Thanks for listening. But welcome to the dark side. If you dig deeper, you won't be able to go back to where you are right now. So you can take the blue pill or the red pill. Ignorance is bliss. Knowledge is a pain.


 You are the pain in the @$$ here ,and on a few other forum's where I have spied your musing's and wild unsubstantiated claim's with ZERO evidence of your success.
Nobody here biting on what your serving up, nor on a few other forum's where you have tried to get traction .
Your unique style of writing/posting, and lack of any real practicle use to be gleaned from your ranting's, makes it easier to track and quickly dismiss them for what they are.
Hoppy began a thread with fact's presented, and you quickly inserted your tired old half truth's and or outright misinformation declaring myth's,toxicities,substrate toxicities,etc.
Quit trashing up his thread, and start your own thread.


----------



## K1963158

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> So you can take the blue pill or the red pill.


I'm an older (male) aquarist. I'll be taking the blue pill. :wink2:


----------



## PlantedRookie

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Forget adding CO2 and just blast the light. You'll get much faster growth. That's shown in the growth charts. Pedersen explained why in the paper. Applies to other plants as well. High light requires high CO2? Only if you still believe in grandpa myths. "Science progresses one funeral at a time." - Max Planck. Looking forward to some funerals so this hobby can advance.


I'm going to set aside this "High light requires high CO2? Only if you still believe in grandpa myths.", but do want to comment on the rest. There is one thing I've noticed about your statement that bothers me and that I don't think you factored in, namely cost. 6.6 ppm CO2 still tops 89 PAR in growth rate. Achieving the faster growth rate you are suggesting with no CO2 added would require even stronger lighting. DIY CO2 is very cheap, especially in comparison to the type of light your method would seem to require. For many hobbyists, prices are a factor. Just from the chart (again, not touching if high light requires high CO2), you are correct when you say "Forget adding CO2 and just blast the light. You'll get much faster growth.". The real question is, how many people would be willing to pay for that versus a cheaper alternative?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

PlantedRookie said:


> I'm going to set aside this "High light requires high CO2? Only if you still believe in grandpa myths.", but do want to comment on the rest. There is one thing I've noticed about your statement that bothers me and that I don't think you factored in, namely cost. 6.6 ppm CO2 still tops 89 PAR in growth rate. Achieving the faster growth rate you are suggesting with no CO2 added would require even stronger lighting. DIY CO2 is very cheap, especially in comparison to the type of light your method would seem to require. For many hobbyists, prices are a factor. Just from the chart (again, not touching if high light requires high CO2), you are correct when you say "Forget adding CO2 and just blast the light. You'll get much faster growth.". The real question is, how many people would be willing to pay for that versus a cheaper alternative?


Even cheaper and free, read that Pedersen paper and it shows you exactly how you can add just a bit extra CO2. It's at the very end and it's a cartoon. No need to screw around with yeast and sugar. I already mentioned using an airstone and exhaling - very fast way to acidify the water to the point of fish stress. 

As for extra light, just place the tank by a window. The sun is free.

Also, Pedersen addresses your concerns. But he didn't think adding CO2 would cost hundreds of dollars. The article was published before stainless steel two- stage regulators became a fad and before cheap, high output LEDs were available. Thats why he suggested adding CO2 before increasing light since it was cheaper then.


----------



## PlantedRookie

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Even cheaper and free, read that Pedersen paper and it shows you exactly how you can add just a bit extra CO2. It's at the very end and it's a cartoon. No need to screw around with yeast and sugar. I already mentioned using an airstone and exhaling - very fast way to acidify the water to the point of fish stress.
> 
> As for extra light, just place the tank by a window. The sun is free.
> 
> Also, Pedersen addresses your concerns. But he didn't think adding CO2 would cost hundreds of dollars. The article was published before stainless steel two- stage regulators became a fad and before cheap, high output LEDs were available. Thats why he suggested adding CO2 before increasing light since it was cheaper then.


Thank you. I did read the paper. Wasn't quite sure if you had, given it made mention of the cost of lighting in the second to last paragraph. That was my mistake though and I apologize, since you have, and have a cheap alternative.

Say, just out of curiosity...I measured my window and found it to be 28 inches. How much light spread is there since any tank larger than a 20 long or 29 would be longer than the window? Will any window do or should I aim for one with southern exposure?

Again though, DIY CO2 (which is what Hoppy suggests and what this thread is about) doesn't costs hundred of dollars or anywhere near the cost of an LED.


----------



## houseofcards

jeffkrol said:


> Well .. not quite true.. Pressurized CO2 can be run at trivial rates....like 1/2BPS..or less
> To me pressurized CO2 is about convenience, regulation and repeat-ability. not to mention necessary for high pressure diffuses........Best to just mention that high CO2 concentrations may not be necessary..or even wanted..regardless of the light..
> Now this really doesn't "quite" apply but I'm posting it just to show how things can become.. err.. unexpected..


I actually agree with you. :surprise:

Unless I missed something how would you get these lower PPMs of Co2 into the tank in a consistent manner, especially in a larger tank. If your talking DIY your inviting a much greater likelihood that the co2 would not be there on a consistent level all the time.


----------



## mistergreen

Hoppy said:


> I'm posting this to suggest that we stop telling folks that they need pressurized CO2 if they want to see any benefit in large tanks. It just isn't true. If we stick with low light, probably up to at least 40 PAR, we can gain big benefits for almost trivial additions of CO2, as long as we also dose Metricide or Excel, to stop the fluctuations in CO2 from triggering BBA attacks. This will greatly improve our success rate with our low tech tanks, and increase our enjoyment of the hobby.


Good conclusion but I wouldn't say stop using pressurized CO2, but maybe stop pushing the CO2 saturation to 30+ppm. There is no need for plants and would cause health issue for livestock. As some have mentioned pressurized CO2 is a convenience and isn't that expensive in the long run. I personally have stopped using extra CO2 or carbon source since regular natural CO2 systems are good enough.


----------



## Smooch

mistergreen said:


> Good conclusion but I wouldn't say stop using pressurized CO2, but maybe stop pushing the CO2 saturation to 30+ppm. There is no need for plants and would cause health issue for livestock. As some have mentioned pressurized CO2 is a convenience and isn't that expensive in the long run. I personally have stopped using extra CO2 or carbon source since regular natural CO2 systems are good enough.


There is if a person is in the business of selling plants. Grow'em big and fast to get them out the door.

Depending on how one looks at things, this may or may not be dark and sinister. LOL


----------



## mistergreen

Smooch said:


> There is if a person is in the business of selling plants. Grow'em big and fast to get them out the door.
> 
> Depending on how one looks at things, this may or may not be dark and sinister. LOL


If you want to sell plants, you'd make more money growing them emersed. Just stick them in a pot of nutrients, no algae, and pest.


----------



## Smooch

mistergreen said:


> If you want to sell plants, you'd make more money growing them emersed. Just stick them in a pot of nutrients, no algae, and pest.


There is that, but bragging is still a thing in this hobby...


----------



## HaeSuse

roadmaster said:


> Or you can choose to become a student of way's to combat various algae while blasting away with the light.


Funny you say that. I like to brag about my previous tank, that is now almost 10 years gone. I got the aquarium bug, set the thing up, got some plants, fish, inverts, a nice overkill equip setup, and let 'er go. I had problems. I solved problems. Some of my solutions were bandaids, but they worked. e.g., UV filter = no more pea soup.

But, except for a month or so yeast/sugar CO2 experiment (I was young, drunk, and undisciplined), I never added CO2. I had a few small spans where I hit it with Excel, and I seem to recall thinking I had an iron deficiency, and using it for a little bit. But, by and large, I didn't do a damned thing to it. 

But light? Oh boy. I had a 29G tank, with a deep bed of substrate, maybe 4-5 inches, and 80 watts of flourescent grow bulbs just over the water, in a custom hood I built. I have no way to know what kind of PAR I got, but it was blindingly bright. Like, the inside of a CAT scan bright. Light at the end of the tunnel bright. Angels on clouds with the light of God behind them bright.


And my tank was insane. 9 months of no dosing, no CO2, no water changes? Guess what, 200 sword runners, thick clumps of crypts nearly impossible to penetrate, 10 foot long val blades, anubias becoming its own ecosystem, swords flowering 24/7/365 with flower stems damn near reaching my ceiling, and a lush chain sword carpet. And I'm not exaggerating. I wouldn't even look at the tank, much less do anything to it. For months! 

Anyway, I'd say it lends at least a little credence to the "blast them with light" theory. The only algae I had to bandaid, was pea soup. If I had any more problems, I didn't know it, because my snails and cleaner fish took care of it all. The only problem was that I couldn't keep up with the pruning. A lovely problem to have, for someone who, at the time, couldn't be bothered to do a water change, much less fuss with yeast and sugar on a weekly basis.



These days, I look forward to time spent with my tank. And I'm doing CO2, dosing, the whole 9 yards. We'll see if it turns out better than "blast it with light".


----------



## Hoppy

I hope I never tell anyone that there is only one road to success with a planted tank. It is obvious that many people succeed with wide variations in how they set up and manage their planted tank. What I will stop telling anyone is that "you can't use DIY CO2 on your 75 gallon tank, unless you use multiple gallon bottles of yeast/sugar water". I am quite sure now that, even with a 75 gallon tank, if you are using low to low-medium light (about 25 to about 40 PAR, measured at the substrate) you will see a significant improvement in the plants with even a single 2L DIY CO2 bottle, or around 1 bubble per second of CO2, but you will probably also need to dose Excel/Metricide at about 1 ml per gallon of water, to avoid BBA, and that improvement may be enough to cause you to enjoy your hobby a lot more.


----------



## Jeff5614

FWIW, I think the cartoon at the bottom of the article is a bit tongue in cheek. Call it levity, humor or sarcasm, but I don't think the authors were making a reference to the how much CO2 we need in our tanks.

Well, after being educated by mistergreen, I'm going to have to edit this post before word gets out and my reputation as one of the more brilliant guys on TPT is tarnished, lol. My apologies to anyone who's bubble has burst. At the moment I only feel remotely comfortable with my comment about the cartoon and I'm kind of wavering on that too :confused1:.


----------



## burr740

When I first tried co2 on my 75 it was via two 2L bottles of DIY. Soon went to four, but even that first week with two brought about an explosion of growth and color. Had about 60 PAR at the time, also dosing Excel (Metricide) at 2x the recommended daily dosage.

Had amazing success really, which was surprising after all I'd read about DIY for larger tanks.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

PlantedRookie said:


> Thank you. I did read the paper. Wasn't quite sure if you had, given it made mention of the cost of lighting in the second to last paragraph. That was my mistake though and I apologize, since you have, and have a cheap alternative.
> 
> Say, just out of curiosity...I measured my window and found it to be 28 inches. How much light spread is there since any tank larger than a 20 long or 29 would be longer than the window? Will any window do or should I aim for one with southern exposure?
> 
> Again though, DIY CO2 (which is what Hoppy suggests and what this thread is about) doesn't costs hundred of dollars or anywhere near the cost of an LED.


It's ironic how adding lights used to be more expensive (and bulky) than adding CO2. Now, it's the other way around. Ppl are more interested in showing off their gadgets than the actual tank, probably because they have problems growi g plants but buying something expensive somehow distracts from that problem...?

You can place the tank by any window and let any ambient light through. Ambient light will still be more light than most any fixture can provide. If it's South facing, I'd filter the light (blinds) to prevent extreme temperature spikes.


----------



## mistergreen

Hoppy said:


> but you will probably also need to dose Excel/Metricide at about 1 ml per gallon of water, to avoid BBA, and that improvement may be enough to cause you to enjoy your hobby a lot more.


I wonder if you even need Excel. I have tanks that have no BBA with high lights, natural CO2. I wonder if supplying a low/constant CO2 24/7 would be the key.

I don't like the noxious chemicals in excel/metro.

Bump: Also when you guys are debating CO2 concentrations, don't confuse ppm in the AIR and ppm in the WATER. They're usually different units of measurements, AIR being ppm by volume and WATER being ppm by weight.


----------



## Jeff5614

mistergreen said:


> ...Bump: Also when you guys are debating CO2 concentrations, don't confuse ppm in the AIR and ppm in the WATER. They're usually different units of measurements, AIR being ppm by volume and WATER being ppm by weight.


Now you tell me . I think I'll just slink off to the substrate forum. Things are usually fairly peaceful there.


----------



## burr740

Somebody tell the solar system that Earth doesnt need any CO2. Just keep the sun on blast and we'll be straight!


----------



## mistergreen

Jeff5614 said:


> Now you tell me . I think I'll just slink off to the substrate forum. Things are usually fairly peaceful there.


Knowing is half the battle 
I see a lot of, "How come I can't inject AIR and get 400pm of CO2?" or something to that effect.


----------



## Jeff5614

mistergreen said:


> Knowing is half the battle
> I see a lot of, "How come I can't inject AIR and get 400pm of CO2?" or something to that effect.


So how do the concentrations of the two compare? How much is that 400 ppm in the atmosphere when converted to the ppm by weight or how much is 30 ppm of CO2 in water when converted to ppm by volume?

Let me guess. It's that whole equilibrium thing and 400 ppm in air is about 3 ppm in water?


----------



## mistergreen

Jeff5614 said:


> So how do the concentrations of the two compare? How much is that 400 ppm in the atmosphere when converted to the ppm by weight or how much is 30 ppm of CO2 in water when converted to ppm by volume?
> 
> Let me guess. It's that whole equilibrium thing and 400 ppm in air is about 3 ppm in water?


yup, 400ppm air is 3ppm water.
30ppm(w) water is about 6,816ppm(v) air

I use this quick formula, 
ppmw = ppmv * 44.01/10000


----------



## PlantedRookie

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> It's ironic how adding lights used to be more expensive (and bulky) than adding CO2. Now, it's the other way around. Ppl are more interested in showing off their gadgets than the actual tank, probably because they have problems growi g plants but buying something expensive somehow distracts from that problem...?
> 
> You can place the tank by any window and let any ambient light through. Ambient light will still be more light than most any fixture can provide. If it's South facing, I'd filter the light (blinds) to prevent extreme temperature spikes.


I'm a firm believer in what Hoppy said in his last post, that there are many ways to do things in this hobby. I'm never going to judge someone that has healthy plants and fish, even if it is in a way I would never do. 

I just think back to when I joined this forum four and a half years ago. A lifetime of experience with fish, no luck with any attempts at plants. There was a learning curve and I was discouraged. If you had told me I need to rearrange my bedroom, remove all the plants/fish/hardscape, drain the tank, remove the substrate and then move the tank just to put it all together...well I likely would have given up. Sunlight may or may not work (I don't know), but would need to be planned from the start. Similarly, if you said I needed a new light unit and that the one I had just bought wasn't sufficient, I would have balked. It wouldn't have been the cost of the LED, but the cost of it on top of what I had already spent, and could never fully recoup even if I sold. Someone suggesting DIY CO2 would have likely had me willing to try though, because of the low cost and hassle to start. 

As an aside to Hoppy, I read on another thread a few weeks back your suggestions of making 1dKH fluid and using low levels of CO2 under even low light. I was setting up a new aquarium and had an unused CO2 system sitting around and used that instead of DIY (sorry Solcielo lawrencia, I guess I either love expensive equipment or just hate seeing it sitting around unused.). I injected just enough to CO2 to keep the 1 dKH fluid lime green. Two weeks ago I added some in vitro C. wendtii. Was more than I needed, so decided to place half in another tank that had the same parameters, PAR, ferts, etc with the only difference being the injected CO2. Seven plants went into each tank. In the non-injected tank two melted completely and one melted greater than 50%, with the others melting to smaller degree. In the injected tank, I have so far had exactly one leaf melt. Given that it is Crypts, all of this might just be coincidence, but so far the attempt has made me happy and I just wanted to thank you. I likely wouldn't have even tried otherwise.


----------



## Hoppy

PlantedRookie said:


> As an aside to Hoppy, I read on another thread a few weeks back your suggestions of making 1dKH fluid and using low levels of CO2 under even low light. I was setting up a new aquarium and had an unused CO2 system sitting around and used that instead of DIY (sorry Solcielo lawrencia, I guess I either love expensive equipment or just hate seeing it sitting around unused.). I injected just enough to CO2 to keep the 1 dKH fluid lime green. Two weeks ago I added some in vitro C. wendtii. Was more than I needed, so decided to place half in another tank that had the same parameters, PAR, ferts, etc with the only difference being the injected CO2. Seven plants went into each tank. In the non-injected tank two melted completely and one melted greater than 50%, with the others melting to smaller degree. In the injected tank, I have so far had exactly one leaf melt. Given that it is Crypts, all of this might just be coincidence, but so far the attempt has made me happy and I just wanted to thank you. I likely wouldn't have even tried otherwise.


Yay! One more "data point"!! My crypts have gone from sorrowful, I hope they don't all die, to looking very nice.


----------



## Hazol

mistergreen said:


> yup, 400ppm air is 3ppm water.
> 30ppm(w) water is about 6,816ppm(v) air
> 
> I use this quick formula,
> ppmw = ppmv * 44.01/10000


Could you explain your formula?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## HaeSuse

Hoppy said:


> I hope I never tell anyone that there is only one road to success with a planted tank. It is obvious that many people succeed with wide variations in how they set up and manage their planted tank. What I will stop telling anyone is that "you can't use DIY CO2 on your 75 gallon tank, unless you use multiple gallon bottles of yeast/sugar water". I am quite sure now that, even with a 75 gallon tank, if you are using low to low-medium light (about 25 to about 40 PAR, measured at the substrate) you will see a significant improvement in the plants with even a single 2L DIY CO2 bottle, or around 1 bubble per second of CO2, but you will probably also need to dose Excel/Metricide at about 1 ml per gallon of water, to avoid BBA, and that improvement may be enough to cause you to enjoy your hobby a lot more.


I've only been here a while, but I've lurked and read a lot, and I've never witnessed you coming off as stubborn or single-minded in your posts.

Some people, I have seen that. Not you. Don't worry.

Also, what seems to be your key point- that small amounts of CO2 are NOT negligible in their returns on plant growth- seems to be clear, and easy to agree with. One does not need to think "well, if I can't get to ~30ppm, I might as well not gas the tank at all". That line of thought is counterproductive and wrong.

And, here's the other thing I'm 100% sure is right, too. Even though I had an absolute jungle of growth with my previous setup, using no CO2 (which I mostly attribute to a ton of light), I imagine if I had gassed the thing, it would've been even crazier. I probably could've grown whatever level of difficulty plants I wanted, instead of just having noxious weed level of growth out of my beginner plants.

Thanks for the info, Hoppy. I hope I didn't come off as antagonistic toward you.


----------



## Ameisen

mistergreen said:


> yup, 400ppm air is 3ppm water.
> 30ppm(w) water is about 6,816ppm(v) air
> 
> I use this quick formula,
> ppmw = ppmv * 44.01/10000


Why _doesn't_ that suffice, however? So long as you consistently have a measurable amount of CO2 in the tank, shouldn't the plants be perfectly happy? A higher concentration, I would think, would just mean that there's a larger amount of CO2 available before the plants consume all available CO2. Has anyone ever run any tests with atmospheric air injected into the system (with an impeller or such)?


----------



## jeffkrol

Fluctuations.. Seawater vs air CO2 concentration both in PPMv(olume)..











https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/27/co2-in-the-air-co2-in-the-seawater/

conversion and explanation:
http://www.lenntech.com/calculators/ppm/converter-parts-per-million.htm

44.01 is the molecular weight of CO2..


----------



## theatermusic87

Ameisen said:


> Why _doesn't_ that suffice, however? So long as you consistently have a measurable amount of CO2 in the tank, shouldn't the plants be perfectly happy? A higher concentration, I would think, would just mean that there's a larger amount of CO2 available before the plants consume all available CO2. Has anyone ever run any tests with atmospheric air injected into the system (with an impeller or such)?


Rate of use and rate of dissolution from the air, you'll use up the 3ppm really quickly and it takes a while to return... at least that is my understanding


----------



## Ameisen

theatermusic87 said:


> Rate of use and rate of dissolution from the air, you'll use up the 3ppm really quickly and it takes a while to return... at least that is my understanding


But if you are constantly injecting atmospheric air into the water via a pump and impeller, you should theoretically never run out of CO2 in the water as it's constantly being resupplied.


----------



## mistergreen

Ameisen said:


> But if you are constantly injecting atmospheric air into the water via a pump and impeller, you should theoretically never run out of CO2 in the water as it's constantly being resupplied.


You didn't read the part where I said there are 2 different unit of measurements for water and air.
400 ppmv/air is equal to 3 ppmw/water. You can inject all the air you want, co2 concentrations will never be above what is in air. It's an equalibrium.

Co2 goes into water as easily as it leaves water.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hoppy

If you were aerating the water very well, I suspect what you would see is the color remaining almost the same, vs. going slightly more yellowish green if the water isn't being aerated. in other words you should be able to reduce the drop in CO2 content from the plants using it up by doing a really good job aerating the water. But, you couldn't raise the CO2 content above about 3ppm by aerating.


----------



## Ameisen

mistergreen said:


> You didn't read the part where I said there are 2 different unit of measurements for water and air.
> 400 ppmv/air is equal to 3 ppmw/water. You can inject all the air you want, co2 concentrations will never be above what is in air. It's an equalibrium.
> 
> Co2 goes into water as easily as it leaves water.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


I'm not saying it would go above 3 ppm - why wouldn't 3 ppm being constantly maintained in the tank suffice? That's what land plants deal with; why do the plants perform better under higher concentrations if the level is maintained and accessible? My understanding is that 3 ppm is too low as at that concentration, plants will consume all of the CO2 present in the water too rapidly, but if it's maintained (as it would be in direct injection of atmospheric air) then that wouldn't be a problem?


----------



## mfranco

Ameisen said:


> I'm not saying it would go above 3 ppm - why wouldn't 3 ppm being constantly maintained in the tank suffice? That's what land plants deal with; why do the plants perform better under higher concentrations if the level is maintained and accessible? My understanding is that 3 ppm is too low as at that concentration, plants will consume all of the CO2 present in the water too rapidly, but if it's maintained (as it would be in direct injection of atmospheric air) then that wouldn't be a problem?


Here is my take on the issue. The solubility of CO2 is not great, 1.5g/kg @ 23 C*. That is why a high quality reactor is needed to get complete diffusion of CO2 into the water. Also note that room air is only about 0.04% CO2. Additionally, room air is mostly nitrogen with a solubility of 0.017g/kg (almost 100 times less soluble than CO2). That means that when the room air flows into the tank, the vast majority of the gas will simple bubble off into the atmosphere without diffusing into the tank.

I keep my tank at about 30ppm CO2 and I made my own three stage reactor. It has a 400gph pump and three chambers. The first chamber also has blades to chop up the CO2 and the water has to flow down the chamber then back up a tube in the middle, this causes the CO2 gas to stay at the top much longer allowing for greater diffusion. This is all before it enters the other chambers. 

Even using pure CO2, I have to inject about 10 bubbles per second to achieve my desired ppm. So say you would need 1 bubble per second with pressurized CO2 to achieve your 3ppm level. That means you would need about 25 bps of room air to achieve this. ***Granted my needed CO2 injection rate is high because I have a 120gal tank that is heavily planted so my plant use up alot more CO2***

I have tried to use this reactor with an air pump to help get extra O2 into my tank with out degassing CO2. When I attempted this it did not work. Even at only about 4 bps, the room air would just build up in the reactor until it simply bubbled out the exit, mostly intact. The happens because of the poor solubility of room air. When the poor solubility is combined with the low concentration of CO2 in room air plus the large quantity of gas needed to deliver the desired CO2, the idea sounds great in theory but very hard to achieve in reality.


----------



## mistergreen

Ameisen said:


> I'm not saying it would go above 3 ppm - why wouldn't 3 ppm being constantly maintained in the tank suffice? That's what land plants deal with; why do the plants perform better under higher concentrations if the level is maintained and accessible? My understanding is that 3 ppm is too low as at that concentration, plants will consume all of the CO2 present in the water too rapidly, but if it's maintained (as it would be in direct injection of atmospheric air) then that wouldn't be a problem?


I see. Low tech tank plants do survive on 3ppm. Equalibrium is achieve simply with circulation/aeration, the same process you use to keep oxygen levels up for your fishes. CO2 gets in the water a lot easier than oxygen. In nature CO2 level are higher then in your tank due to bacterial respiration. Read up on the Walstad method to start.

Also plants have a harder time getting CO2 in water because of the gas/water barrier. That's why you need a higher concentration oppose to terrestrial plants.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jeffkrol

mistergreen said:


> You didn't read the part where I said there are 2 different unit of measurements for water and air.
> 400 ppmv/air is equal to 3 ppmw/water. You can inject all the air you want, co2 concentrations will never be above what is in air. It's an equalibrium.
> 
> Co2 goes into water as easily as it leaves water.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Hmm "real world" saltwater CO2 levels easily go above air concentration. 
any dots above the dashed lines is when CO2 (water )> CO2 
(air)










also see the very last sentence pg58
https://books.google.com/books?id=4...AG#v=onepage&q=freshwater streams co2&f=false

Though in general you are correct.. it is a wee bit more complicated..


----------



## Hoppy

The real world oceans are nothing like our artificial world planted tanks. Oceans are loaded with life, all of which emits CO2, and dead organisms all of which breakdown into a chemical soup including CO2. I'm not surprised that ocean surface waters can contain more CO2 than the atmosphere above contains. But, I had no idea it had that big a "surplus".


----------



## mistergreen

jeffkrol said:


> Hmm "real world" saltwater CO2 levels easily go above air concentration.
> any dots above the dashed lines is when CO2 (water )> CO2
> (air)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> also see the very last sentence pg58
> https://books.google.com/books?id=4...AG#v=onepage&q=freshwater streams co2&f=false
> 
> Though in general you are correct.. it is a wee bit more complicated..


I believe a lot of the world's CO2/carbon is locked deep in the ocean (algae/plankton matter). The rise in temp causes release of CO2.


----------



## roadmaster

mistergreen said:


> Good conclusion but I wouldn't say stop using pressurized CO2, but maybe stop pushing the CO2 saturation to 30+ppm. There is no need for plants and would cause health issue for livestock. As some have mentioned pressurized CO2 is a convenience and isn't that expensive in the long run. I personally have stopped using extra CO2 or carbon source since regular natural CO2 systems are good enough.


 
Yes, Instead of pushing high concentration's of CO2,,what we should be doing is discouraging high concentration's of light/PAR.
This alone can make the planted tank experience much less stressful than the "Blast away with the light" theory.
At low to moderate light,it is as Hoppy has described, much easier to see improved plant health/growth albeit a little more slowly, and much less issues with algae.

Bump:


HaeSuse said:


> Funny you say that. I like to brag about my previous tank, that is now almost 10 years gone. I got the aquarium bug, set the thing up, got some plants, fish, inverts, a nice overkill equip setup, and let 'er go. I had problems. I solved problems. Some of my solutions were bandaids, but they worked. e.g., UV filter = no more pea soup.
> 
> But, except for a month or so yeast/sugar CO2 experiment (I was young, drunk, and undisciplined), I never added CO2. I had a few small spans where I hit it with Excel, and I seem to recall thinking I had an iron deficiency, and using it for a little bit. But, by and large, I didn't do a damned thing to it.
> 
> But light? Oh boy. I had a 29G tank, with a deep bed of substrate, maybe 4-5 inches, and 80 watts of flourescent grow bulbs just over the water, in a custom hood I built. I have no way to know what kind of PAR I got, but it was blindingly bright. Like, the inside of a CAT scan bright. Light at the end of the tunnel bright. Angels on clouds with the light of God behind them bright.
> 
> 
> And my tank was insane. 9 months of no dosing, no CO2, no water changes? Guess what, 200 sword runners, thick clumps of crypts nearly impossible to penetrate, 10 foot long val blades, anubias becoming its own ecosystem, swords flowering 24/7/365 with flower stems damn near reaching my ceiling, and a lush chain sword carpet. And I'm not exaggerating. I wouldn't even look at the tank, much less do anything to it. For months!
> 
> Anyway, I'd say it lends at least a little credence to the "blast them with light" theory. The only algae I had to bandaid, was pea soup. If I had any more problems, I didn't know it, because my snails and cleaner fish took care of it all. The only problem was that I couldn't keep up with the pruning. A lovely problem to have, for someone who, at the time, couldn't be bothered to do a water change, much less fuss with yeast and sugar on a weekly basis.
> 
> 
> 
> These days, I look forward to time spent with my tank. And I'm doing CO2, dosing, the whole 9 yards. We'll see if it turns out better than "blast it with light".


 
I don't quite know how to respond (Or should), given that you say the growth mentioned was not an exaggeration.
More wild unsubstantiated claim's seem's to me to be the most generous response.
Some more wild than other's.:laugh2:


----------



## jeffkrol

Hoppy said:


> The real world oceans are nothing like our artificial world planted tanks. Oceans are loaded with life, all of which emits CO2, and dead organisms all of which breakdown into a chemical soup including CO2.


Actually none of that is not present in our tanks..
Only on a smaller scale



mistergreen said:


> I believe a lot of the world's CO2/carbon is locked deep in the ocean (algae/plankton matter). The rise in temp causes release of CO2.











Point is it is "possible" that tanks could have conc. of CO2 in excess of equilibrium..
Probable???
how much CO2 is produced from fish and bacterial "gunk" in the tank vs turnover and plant utilization..
Certainly not as much as in "winter" or heavily polluted waters.. but..

On the flip side I also see the possibilty of exhausting CO2 in a tank.. 

I suspect one of the reasons there is "questions" regarding CO2 injection is for this very reason.. Natural replacement by.. stuff..
Even to the point of possibly exceeding equilibrium.. 

Depends a lot on the tank..


----------



## assasin6547

I must say that the start of this thread was a bit of a riot and thus was fairly entertaining and interesting to read. :grin2: The data was also pretty intriguing - I've never seen a plot like that before, and now I'm definitely convinced that for optimal results, I should probably get a CO2 system, and not necessarily apply in huge concentrations. 

But if I've understood correctly, the two main take aways are:

Small amounts of supplemental CO2 drastically increases plant growth/health under low(er) light conditions
and it's important to avoid strong light without CO2 added

Does this mean that I could possibly get away with growing HC in an environment with no artificial CO2 sources? What does it mean for plants that have been traditionally "high light"?


----------



## Smooch

Can somebody explain the connection between low CO2 and BBA? 

My tanks have always been low tech with no CO2 added and I've never had BBA in my tanks. I've had diatoms and green spot algae, that's it. Phosphates dealt with the green spot although there is middle ground there. Too low / algae if phosphates get to high... algae. Diatoms are from too many organics in the water. That is simple enough to deal with assuming the water being put into the tank isn't full of organics as well. I digress.

This low CO2 = BBA is much like the myth that low nitrates cause BGA. I don't understand where that comes from either. There are plenty of planted tanks around that keep low nitrates ( including my own) that don't have issues with BGA. Tanks that are maintained do not have this issue. Tanks that are not being maintained do. It's not a nitrate issue, it's a husbandry issue. 

If people want to use Excel, then so be it, but if there is going to be a end to the days of blinding fish because it isn't necessary to begin with, I think it would be great to put a end to some of this other stuff as well.


----------



## mistergreen

assasin6547 said:


> Does this mean that I could possibly get away with growing HC in an environment with no artificial CO2 sources? What does it mean for plants that have been traditionally "high light"?


I think it depends on the plant. HC works with lower light for me but other high light plants didn't. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## mistergreen

Smooch said:


> Can somebody explain the connection between low CO2 and BBA?
> 
> ll.


I have the same experience. I only got bba in my high tech tank, not my low tech. I won't pretend to know what's going on but I'll guess that the low constant co2 doesn't trigger bba to bloom while the abrupt co2/ph swings in the high tech triggered the bba to bloom.

I'm staying away from excel as well, never mind the fish, what about my health.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## houseofcards

For me it's all about Uptake and UpKeep. 

When the co2 is plentiful the uptake as higher thus closing the niche for the algae. If your tank is doing well at those co2 levels and you drop it, the uptake drops and algae fills the void.

The big variable in all this and why some people with seemingly similar light, plants, substrate, co2, etc is there Up keep/husbandry skills and dedication are different. when your upkeep is more dedicated you can get away with more light, less co2, etc. That's why references studies away from the hobby in a river or lab don't usually result in anything meaningful.


----------



## Smooch

houseofcards said:


> For me it's all about Uptake and UpKeep.
> 
> When the co2 is plentiful the uptake as higher thus closing the niche for the algae. If your tank is doing well at those co2 levels and you drop it, the uptake drops and algae fills the void.
> 
> The big variable in all this and why some people with seemingly similar light, plants, substrate, co2, etc is there Up keep/husbandry skills and dedication are different. when your upkeep is more dedicated you can get away with more light, less co2, etc. That's why references studies away from the hobby in a river or lab don't usually result in anything meaningful.


I guess this is why I've never bothered with injecting CO2 as it seems like all one is doing is chasing their own tail to some degree.

The second part I can agree with as it puts responsibility back on the hobbyist.


----------



## houseofcards

@Smooch

Well the thing with co2, so many here think it's an algaecide in itself. You need the plant mass. If you have 3 stems and a couple of moss balls all the co2 isn't going to help you, it will probably help the algae. You need uptake. You need clean water. 

If you don't have the plant mass, you need that much better husbandry for the same parameters. This usually involves removing more organics that otherwise would have been removed by the higher uptake. This sounds pretty simple, but keeping this in mind has never disappointed me.


----------



## Smooch

I'm not debating your point and I completely agree that there are people that think CO2 is a algaecide. 

That said, the hobbyist whether they use CO2 or not needs to take some responsibility. Dosing Excel as a 'fix' for not doing water changes is not doing what needs to be done. It is a attempted band aid that will fail at some point. 

I'm not suggesting anybody in this thread does that, but there are people that do.


----------



## roadmaster

Lot's of folk's grow nice plant's with little or no algae and no CO2 injection or excel,or metricide but they aren't blasting 100 PAR either.(not for long they ain't)
Some more demanding plant's will just do better with addition of CO2. but it does not mean high light is needed to achieve the result's wanted IMHO.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

assasin6547 said:


> But if I've understood correctly, the two main take aways are:
> 
> Small amounts of supplemental CO2 drastically increases plant growth/health under low(er) light conditions
> and it's important to avoid strong light without CO2 added
> 
> Does this mean that I could possibly get away with growing HC in an environment with no artificial CO2 sources? What does it mean for plants that have been traditionally "high light"?


A small increase in co2 increases growth at any light intensity, not just low light.

How did you come to conclude the second part?
Especially seeing pictures and video of aquatic plant farms in Asia and the U.S. growing aquatic plants submerged under sunlight without co2 supplemented? You can also check out Dennerle or Tropica in Europe to see if they also grow plants under sunlight without adding co2.

Yes, you can grow HC without adding CO2. You will not, however, be able to grow it without adding light.


----------



## houseofcards

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> ...
> Especially seeing pictures and video of aquatic plant farms in Asia and the U.S. growing aquatic plants submerged under sunlight without co2 supplemented? You can also check out Dennerle or Tropica in Europe to see if they also grow plants under sunlight without adding co2.


Another post sighting an example that has either nothing to do with a hobbyist tank in their home and/or does not know the details of how those plants are grown. Why not show you own tank in the midday sun growing beautiful algae free plants.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Re: BBA
I can get BBA in my non CO2 added tanks if I fertilize. If I don't do water changes and the nutrients build up, BBA grows. Thus, I conclude that BBA, like any other plant or algae, requires nutrients to grow. Excess nutrients accelerates its growth. It has nothing to do with CO2 independently. 

So correlation with no co2 added =no BBA, or "high tech" = BbA, does not mean high tech is the cause. More than likely, high tech has nutrient excess, and if you adopt EI mentality where there's always some nutrient excess, then that increases the likelihood of certain algae. (Unless the nutrients reach toxic levels where algae cannot survive.)

Bump:


houseofcards said:


> Another post sighting an example that has either nothing to do with a hobbyist tank in their home and/or does not know the details of how those plants are grown. Why not show you own tank in the midday sun growing beautiful algae free plants.


RU srs or just trolling me like you always do?

Those plants they grow? Are sold and grown to hobbyists. My LFS buys from FAN. It's the very same plants. You probably have a few originally propagated by them and i have many. So don't be so dismissive of things just because I posted it.


----------



## houseofcards

I have a high-tech, high end EI tank with only hairgrass and some anubias petite growing in PFS. No algae, how could that be? I barely even got diatoms when I set it up.

Bump:


Solcielo lawrencia said:


> RU srs or just trolling me like you always do?


Last thing I want to do is troll you! I have several posts in this thread, you came back in and made another of your examples that isn't relevant IMO.



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Those plants they grow? Are sold and grown to hobbyists. My LFS buys from FAN. It's the very same plants. You probably have a few originally propagated by them and i have many. So don't be so dismissive of things just because I posted it.


What does that have to do with how they are grown. Many plants are grown emersed and they are then put into the hobbyist tanks submersed. What a grower does to achieve maximum growth isn't going to be applicable in a home aquarium with fish and other critters. Let alone tank placement, etc. There is no reason to believe that what are grower does has any relevance to the hobby.


----------



## Hoppy

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> A small increase in co2 increases growth at any light intensity, not just low light.


True, but the percent increase is much greater at low light, because so much less CO2 is needed to achieve maximum growth.


> How did you come to conclude the second part?
> Especially seeing pictures and video of aquatic plant farms in Asia and the U.S. growing aquatic plants submerged under sunlight without co2 supplemented? You can also check out Dennerle or Tropica in Europe to see if they also grow plants under sunlight without adding co2.
> 
> Yes, you can grow HC without adding CO2. You will not, however, be able to grow it without adding light.


As I understand what Pedersen, et al, said in their paper, CO2 reduces the need for light. So, you might be able to grow HC without adding more light if you have reasonably high light to start with.


----------



## burr740

Re the notion that high nutrients cause algae, here's a great post from Ceg over at UKAPS. Explains it very well


Link to the thread - Why dont nutrients cause algae? | UK Aquatic Plant Society



ceg4048 said:


> Aaron,
> I think you're missing the point a bit. To get a better idea of the fundamentals of algal blooms it's helpful to remember that most algae live in a "duality" in the same way for example that a butterfly has a dual nature. A butterfly first exists as a caterpillar. The job of the caterpillar is to accrue as many chemicals as possible from the environment until something triggers the caterpillar to enter metamorphosis. At the end of this transformation there is a butterfly which looks completely different from a caterpillar and also feeds a completely different set of nutritional components.
> 
> Algae first exist as spores. This is their "caterpillar" equivalent. AS far as we have been able to ascertain, spores seek out light+ammonia in some combination, and that's all they look for. If they have plenty of ammonia but no light they cannot enter metamorphosis because there is not the right combination of triggers. If there is plenty of light but little ammonia they can accrue enough to trigger the metamorphosis. If they have plenty of light plus plenty of ammonia the trigger is immediate and they change forms from spore to flagellate so fast your head will spin. It is this flagellate form which we see expressed in our worst nightmares, and this is their "butterfly" equivalent phase.
> 
> Spores do not feed on fertilizers such as PO4 or NO3, therefore PO4 and NO3 cannot possibly trigger a bloom, no matter what the level, however, the butterfly form - the flagellate - does feed on fertilizers and will immediately begin to take advantage of any nutrient source in the water column or on leaves once it changes from spore to flagellate.
> 
> We ought to know by now that algal attacks in a eutrophic environment such as an EI tank (or really, any water column dosed tank) is brutal because the flagellates are feeding voraciously on any available nutrients, however these flagellates then produce spores which, as stated, don't really care about the nutrient content. The spores once again simply seek out more light+ammonia. If you have a water column dosed environment at the same time that you have high light AND ammonia production then the tank is in trouble. However, if your ammonia production was due to malnutrition then that means the ammonia production was due to starving plants and only by feeding the plants will you stop this ammonia production.
> 
> If you have a healthy EI dosed tank and you pour ammonia in the water column you normally will trigger an algae bloom, but it is important to note that only certain species of algae will bloom in this otherwise healthy tank. Typically this would be green water or BGA, and as JamesC has pointed out in another post, certain variants of staghorn, but importantly these will typically not attach to the plants because the leaves themselves are healthy. When you see algae attack a leaf it is specifically because the source of the ammonia is the leaf itself and that usually means that the leaf is decaying as a direct result of malnutrition.
> 
> In the first instance, where ammonia production is from other than a decaying leaf, the dosing can stay unaltered but the ammonia production has to be tracked down and eliminated - so this may mean water changes, removal of dead things, filter cleaning and so forth. This is a very different scenario to that of an algal bloom that is attached to the plants. When this happens it is a sure sign that malnutrition is at fault so dosing normally has to be increased even though it feeds the flagellate forms. You'll just have to live with this short term escalation of algae in order to stop ammonia production due to starvation. The ammonia accrued in the water column that was due to starvation can be abated via frequent water changes and the flagellates can be eliminated via blackout, but it is pointless to reduce the nutrient dosing if starvation was the cause of the ammonia production.
> 
> Thus there is a fundamental difference in the types of algae that develop because there is a difference in the ORIGIN of the ammonia. Folks don't think about this nearly as often as they should and that's why there is so much confusion, so for example, one can have a green water attack and blame NO3/PO4. Withholding NO3/PO4 dosing in this instance then starves the plant and causes other types of algae that are NO3/PO4 starvation related so then one ends up with three or four types of algae needlessly.
> 
> Poor CO2 often causes problems which can escalate beyond belief if we misinterpret the dynamics in the tank and if we don't think about this duality of algae. Check this thread for further details=> Guide for algae?
> 
> Cheers,


----------



## jeffkrol

Following the above train a bit..


> So how do we simulate "winter" to trick algae into remission?
> 
> 1) Healthy plants are capable of absorbing ammonia from the water column so that this trigger is removed when plants are well fed and have adequate and stable CO2. We avoid the first condition. The assembly line works perfectly and there are no weaknesses. The more plants in the tank the more ammonia is removed. I read a lot of post where people find comfort in the idea that "healthy plants out-compete algae for nutrients" I believe this is not really correct as algae can thrive with zero nutrients in the water. I prefer to think of it as plants out-competing algae for ammonia.:idea:
> 
> 2) Lower the light. In Winter there is less light. This is an easy one. That's why 3 day blackouts work. That is also why "noonday siesta" does not work. This is a transient condition which only helps algae.
> 
> 3) Stable conditions in the tank require fewer adjustments by the plants. Each adjustment required by the plant lowers it's production, efficiency and therefore health. That's why regular nutrient dosing several times per week is a better strategy than once a week in high light tanks. In low light tanks once a week works OK because the drop in concentration is slight, especially if there is a high bio-load.


thought that was interesting.. going back to stream and lake ecology.. 

Guide for algae? | UK Aquatic Plant Society
http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/algae.htm


----------



## Smooch

I'm playing devil's advocate here. Take the following for that it is worth which is nothing. 



> Algae first exist as spores. This is their "caterpillar" equivalent. AS far as we have been able to ascertain, spores seek out light+ammonia in some combination, and that's all they look for. If they have plenty of ammonia but no light they cannot enter metamorphosis because there is not the right combination of triggers. If there is plenty of light but little ammonia they can accrue enough to trigger the metamorphosis. If they have plenty of light plus plenty of ammonia the trigger is immediate and they change forms from spore to flagellate so fast your head will spin. It is this flagellate form which we see expressed in our worst nightmares, and this is their "butterfly" equivalent phase.


So in theory, if there was never any exchange of spores from one tank to another, that would mean most of the algae problems would simply go away? Diatoms would be the lone exception?


----------



## Hoppy

For me it is time to do some more research into the life cycle of algae.


----------



## jeffkrol

Smooch said:


> I'm playing devil's advocate here. Take the following for that it is worth which is nothing.
> So in theory, if there was never any exchange of spores from one tank to another, that would mean most of the algae problems would simply go away? Diatoms would be the lone exception?


For most algea (filimentous ect) yes ..for cyanobacter.. no..



> Filament algae and unicellular algae are in the Protista kingdom in the subkingdom Algae. They are eukaryotes: cells are membrane-bound, have structurally discrete nucleus and other well-developed subcellular compartments. Cyanobacteria do not have membrane bound cells, discrete nucleus or subcellular compartments and are probably one of the earliest life-forms to evolve on the planet. Cyanobacteria generate most of the free oxygen on the planet and the bio-available, fixed nitrogen. Lots of kinds of cyanobacteria can produce air-borne spores in order to spread. This is the reason why you probably can't ever 100% prevent the introduction of cyanobacteria into your aquarium; they are ubiquitous in our environment. You can certainly avoid conditions that lead to cyanobacteria reproducing in large amounts by methods described by Tom Barr and others.


 [APD] RE: Algae spores


----------



## Smooch

jeffkrol said:


> For most algea (filimentous ect) yes ..for cyanobacter.. no..
> 
> 
> [APD] RE: Algae spores


That just adds another layer to the conversation barring the whole cyano bacteria side of things. 

If a person has a tank that has nothing but emersed plants that have never been submerged, that tank should remain algae free because there are no spores being introduced. I don't have any true aquatic plants in either of my tanks. All the plants that I have can be easily grown emersed although many I have purchased either went from emersed to submerged or were started submerged. 

This may or may not explain why I've never had to deal with BBA, staghorn and all those other forms of algae. I'm also really picky about who I buy plants from, all of them go through a brief QT period, ect... It would be interesting to do a side by side ( low tech vs high tech) experiment with emersed plants only that have never been submerged to see which or if either one develop algae issues.


----------



## Hoppy

Just to get back on subject: I did some reading in the Barr Report. Tom believed in 2014 that BBA grows especially well if the level of CO2 in the water is low, but not zero, and not high. In other words, around 3 ppm BBA grows very well. This was part (at least) of his argument against using CO2 at much less than 30 ppm, no matter how much light you have.

My experience has been that BBA has attacked my tanks with CO2 levels from zero added CO2 to probably 30 ppm of CO2. When I have used no CO2, but did irregular water changes, I got BBA. When I used DIY CO2, at around 15-30 ppm, but fluctuating, and with no Excel, I got BBA. Now that I am using 3-7 ppm of CO2 (based on drop checker readings) with Metricide, time will tell if I get non-trivial amounts of BBA. If Tom is right, then my idea of using low levels of added CO2 may be headed for failure.


----------



## klibs

TLDR:

Planted tanks are complicated. Do whatever works for you... There is no one way to do things and results may vary.

I for one appreciate Solcielo's contributions regardless of the 'tone' they are delivered at. We always need to be challenging the 'status quo' and certain methods of keeping planted tanks that may not be all that we once thought they were. IMO if you have a very healthy, relatively algae-free nice tank then your method is a 'success' and 'works' regardless of what method you used. High light, low light, high CO2, low CO2, high nutrients, low nutrients... whatever...

I also totally agree in the sense that EI levels of dosing are totally uncalled for and can easily lead newcomers to disastrous situations. I believe to have experienced this firsthand... Saying things like 'you need to dose EI and have 30ppm CO2 to run high light' is simply not true and we should acknowledge that... Why is it wrong for someone to claim that you can grow plants at high light with limited ferts / no CO2? Challenging these dogmas is only going to help the community and should not be bashed.

Does not take long looking through the algae forum to see examples of over-fertilization... I am a big fan of 'everything in moderation' EXCEPT for maybe CO2. Generous amounts of CO2 are not going to harm the system so I would rather have an abundance in my tank.


----------



## Jeff5614

Hoppy said:


> ...As I understand what Pedersen, et al, said in their paper, CO2 reduces the need for light. So, you might be able to grow HC without adding more light if you have reasonably high light to start with.


Something else I found interesting in relation to this from the paper is on page 28 where he mentions that in shallow streams there is high light and lower CO2 levels and the higher light may allow the plants to extract CO2 more efficiently.


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

burr740 said:


> Re the notion that high nutrients cause algae, here's a great post from Ceg over at UKAPS. Explains it very well
> 
> 
> Link to the thread - Why dont nutrients cause algae? | UK Aquatic Plant Society


Ceg is a known EI disciple and this most of his claims can be easily refuted by actual science. To any newbies, don't take his assertions seriously. Use PubMed instead.

Do you want to know how to culture algae according to science? Light, CO2, and nutrients. As long as neither become toxic (a very important point) and are maintained in the optimal growing parameters, it will thrive. Thus, high nutrients do indeed cause algae growth and is strongly supported by actual science. In fact, if you search the literature, you'll even find various nutrient solution recipes on how to culture algae. YES, scientists do actually culture algae which requires the very same nutrients plants require for growth.

Btw, here are dozens of various nutrient recipes for culturing cyanobacteria. Notice how they all require nitrate? This should put an end to the myth that low nitrate causes BGA. Cyano needs a source of nitrogen to grow.

http://www-cyanosite.bio.purdue.edu/media/table/media.html


----------



## houseofcards

klibs said:


> ..Why is it wrong for someone to claim that you can grow plants at high light with limited ferts / no CO2? Challenging these dogmas is only going to help the community and should not be bashed.


It's wrong when an aquatic plants nursery is the reference point and not an aquarium. 

The funny thing about all these arguments is that anything is possible. What I mean by that is, if you want to limit your system to certain plants, plant mass, lighting, stocking, etc. anyone can come on here and claim you can do certain things against conventional wisdom. Let's see actual aquariums that are not extremely limited employing these methods as examples. Otherwise it's just someone talking to get attention.


----------



## Ameisen

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> Ceg is a known EI disciple and this most of his claims can be easily refuted by actual science. To any newbies, don't take his assertions seriously. Use PubMed instead.
> 
> Do you want to know how to culture algae according to science? Light, CO2, and nutrients. As long as neither become toxic (a very important point) and are maintained in the optimal growing parameters, it will thrive. Thus, high nutrients do indeed cause algae growth and is strongly supported by actual science. In fact, if you search the literature, you'll even find various nutrient solution recipes on how to culture algae. YES, scientists do actually culture algae which requires the very same nutrients plants require for growth.
> 
> Btw, here are dozens of various nutrient recipes for culturing cyanobacteria. Notice how they all require nitrate? This should put an end to the myth that low nitrate causes BGA. Cyano needs a source of nitrogen to grow.
> 
> Cyanosite Growth Media Recipes for Cyanobacteria


I wouldn't be surprised if Cyanobacteria were capable of thriving with _less_ nitrogen than eukaryotic plantae (plants, algae). They're far simpler organisms. Just glancing at some papers:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1004008721373

_When using a large-pulse/low-frequency supply mode, the yield of the green alga was higher when ammonium was added as nitrogen source compared to when nitrate was added. By contrast, the yield of the cyanobacterium was higher in the nitrate regime._

Green algae being pretty much equivalent to plants for all intents and purposes.

It's more important that most cyanobacteria are nitrogen-fixing - they can actually thrive in tanks that have few nitrogen sources available as they can fix the atmospheric nitrogen dissolved in the water.


----------



## Hoppy

"Algae" as we know it, is a large group of different organisms. Even our pet names for various algae, as we experience them, may cover several different organisms. We use BBA, GSA, GDA, etc. to quickly describe the general characteristics of the algae we experience, but those are not scientific descriptions of specific algae.

We know that GDA, green dust algae, goes through the spore, flagella, and mature spore generating algae stages. But, I'm not sure the other types of algae we experience go through those same stages. Getting rid of GDA is much easier if we are aware of those stages, but I doubt that our experience with GDA tells us anything about other algae. ceg4048's writeup is very interesting and thought provoking, but whether or not it is applicable to all of our algae forms isn't that clear to me.

In any case, doesn't this discussion fit much better on the algae forum?


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

houseofcards said:


> It's wrong when an aquatic plants nursery is the reference point and not an aquarium.
> 
> The funny thing about all these arguments is that anything is possible. What I mean by that is, if you want to limit your system to certain plants, plant mass, lighting, stocking, etc. anyone can come on here and claim you can do certain things against conventional wisdom. Let's see actual aquariums that are not extremely limited employing these methods as examples. Otherwise it's just someone talking to get attention.


It's very obvious where you stand. You haven't budged a bit in all this time in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Even Tom Barr has budged a bit in the past year, even though he still denies toxicity could ever occur.

Do you know the difference between those nurseries that survive off of their plants and the hobbyist? Experience to know what works and what doesn't. They wouldn't be in business if they couldn't grow plants or delivered plants that melted and died when it's shipped to their customers. Have you even seen the types of healthy plants they can grow both submerged and emergent? Have you checked out those numerous YT vids of those nurseries?

Then you claim/imply that because they grow submergent plants in concrete tanks instead of glass, and they use the sun instead of artificial light, that their tanks are thousands of gallons instead of under 100, that they trim with hedge cutters instead of scissors, that they don't add any CO2, that it's not applicable to the hobby. You are really trying to stretch a false argument here.

To me, they are the true experts at growing aquatic plants, not Tom Barr who contradicts himself on everything. He claims plants grow great at high, 150ppm of chloride. Then he says he can't grow them well for long under the same conditions. He's said that he's had problems growing certain plants, but then later says he can grow tons of them. He's denied that urea is a better source of N but then just suggested to someone to dose urea. He uses articles to support his EI but the articles don't actually support it al all. Worse, he can't even tell that his plants suffer from tox even after I point them out to him. Crinkled old leaves covered in GSA and GDA is "normal". Wait, but he did say on numerous occasions that his tank doesnt have any algae. So to him, GSA and GDA isnt algae. But he claims that kind of ugly growth is the result of "lack of light". Really... lack of light in his 120g tank.

But I digress. According to HoC, anything is possible but nothing that is even slightly superficially different is applicable to this hobby. :icon_roll


----------



## easternlethal

Not directing this at anyone in but I find it pretty amusing how one can claim to have no algae but yet be knowledgeable about how it grows.

It's like saying hey I have no wallichi in my tank so I must know all about growing it


----------



## Smooch

easternlethal said:


> Not directing this at anyone in but I find it pretty amusing how one can claim to have no algae but yet be knowledgeable about how it grows.
> 
> It's like saying hey I have no wallichi in my tank so I must know all about growing it


I have diatoms. I have plenty to share if you'd like some. 

I was just curious why I had to use Excel to prevent BBA. It struck me as putting the cart in front of the horse since I haven't had BBA. *shrugs*


----------



## houseofcards

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> ...
> Do you know the difference between those nurseries that survive off of their plants and the hobbyist? Experience to know what works and what doesn't. They wouldn't be in business if they couldn't grow plants or delivered plants that melted and died when it's shipped to their customers. Have you even seen the types of healthy plants they can grow both submerged and emergent? Have you checked out those numerous YT vids of those nurseries?


Have you purchased plants directly from growers. I have. What does delivering them healthy have anything to do with the way they were grown and whether that growing technique is applicable to an aquarium at home. Of course they will arrive healthy. It's not really rocket science to ship healthy plants and have them arrive healthy. 

I'm still trying to understand how these growers conditions come anywhere close to an aquarium when most are grown emersed anyway. 

Still Water

Tropica




Solcielo lawrencia said:


> To me, they are the true experts at growing aquatic plants, not Tom Barr who contradicts himself on everything. He claims plants grow great at high, 150ppm of chloride. Then he says he can't grow them well for long under the same conditions. He's said that he's had problems growing certain plants, but then later says he can grow tons of them. He's denied that urea is a better source of N but then just suggested to someone to dose urea. He uses articles to support his EI but the articles don't actually support it al all. Worse, he can't even tell that his plants suffer from tox even after I point them out to him. Crinkled old leaves covered in GSA and GDA is "normal". Wait, but he did say on numerous occasions that his tank doesnt have any algae. So to him, GSA and GDA isnt algae. But he claims that kind of ugly growth is the result of "lack of light". Really... lack of light in his 120g tank.


That's your usual EI/Tom Barr bashing paragraph. 



Solcielo lawrencia said:


> But I digress. According to HoC, anything is possible but nothing that is even slightly superficially different is applicable to this hobby. :icon_roll


All you need to do is show my some of your award winning aquascapes and/or your algae free aquariums on the sun porch next to the ice tea and we can have a more fruitful conversation.


----------



## Xiaozhuang

houseofcards said:


> All you need to do is show my some of your award winning aquascapes and/or your algae free aquariums on the sun porch next to the ice tea and we can have a more fruitful conversation.


No hope for this, I've waited years. And that's what I told Solcielo L. as well; ultimately influence in this hobby comes from producing great scapes (or at least photos of great scapes/plants). At this point Barr could tell ppl that adding mercury into their tanks would make their plants redder and they'll do it. I doubt even Amano knows as much plant science as some of our more technical members, but guess who has the influence ? 

Words carry no weight without a portfolio, especially when this is a non-academic, hobbyist forum that is focused on scaping, not farming. 

On Barr - I don't think Barr is infallible, though I think I've learned more from his data/site/examples than from anyone else. Many/most of his recommendations do work well and I (as well as many others) have the scapes to prove it. He does say different things to different audiences; I don't think he is being inconsistent as much as moderating content to fit who he is talking to. 

On the other hand, I do think that there are many different methods to do things; some setups/plant selections do better with certain methods, others do better in others. For some one that wants to study higher lighting, but relatively leaner dosing/lower CO2 in aquascaping, asia has plenty of examples (some turn out well [nature style scapes], others not so[many have trouble with fast growing stems etc]). EI isn't the dominant method here; ADA is popular (and ADA has very lean dosing levels), combined with more moderate CO2. Anyone visiting asia side cities should see the ADA shops and how they're run; plenty of examples of different systems.


----------



## houseofcards

Xiaozhuang said:


> No hope for this, I've waited years. And that's what I told Solcielo L. as well; ultimately influence in this hobby comes from producing great scapes (or at least photos of great scapes/plants). At this point Barr could tell ppl that adding mercury into their tanks would make their plants redder and they'll do it. I doubt even Amano knows as much plant science as some of our more technical members, but guess who has the influence ?
> 
> *Words carry no weight without a portfolio, especially when this is a non-academic, hobbyist forum that is focused on scaping, not farming*.


Yes, exactly, what I've been saying over and over again. It's like taking technical swimming lessons from someone who doesn't swim. 

Amano and many other very well know scapers like Oliver Knott have artistic backgrounds, not scientific, and some how they muddle through. I have nothing against science it just needs to be germane to a hobbyist's tank. 

This is a pretty simple hobby, but it does require good husbandry. Whether it's an EI, ADA or other type of system. One's dedication will prove most valuable.


----------



## Ameisen

I will note, again, since everyone seems to be getting into a tussy, that there does seem to be some dissent and disbelief (mainly from certain people) that algae have different growing conditions from plants.

It depends on the algae.

Green Algae is, well, algae. It's closely related to plants and has nearly identical requirements, but it's far simpler, reproduces easier, and is better at taking advantage of less-than-ideal situations - individual cells can survive, whereas in a plant most of it has to survive.

Golden Brown Algae (Chrysophytæ) are a diverse group of which they aren't all actually related, so it's hard to analyze them. 

Brown Algae (Phæophyceæ) are another group of Heterokonts like GBA. Most seaweeds/kelps are brown algae. I don't know much about them, I can always do some research and get back to people.

Cyanobacteria are actually bacteria, but interestingly generally don't use Chlorophyll A (and rely on different spectra altogether from your regular green plants) but more importantly _can fix nitrogen_, and thus can survive in nitrogen-depleted water as they can fix the free nitrogen in the water. 

There's other kinds of 'algæ' (being a very diverse term) but there's too many to list. Imbalances logically can lead to algal growth as the different kinds of 'algæ' are completely different organisms, and have different requirements. And even just green algae can flourish where more complex plants cannot due to having lower thresholds for survival. And this is an aside from anecdotal evidence.

And yes, I enjoy digraphs like _æ_.


----------



## houseofcards

You forgot BBA which I personally believe was brought here aboard a Martian meteorite and got the whole ball rolling.


----------



## Hoppy

houseofcards said:


> You forgot BBA which I personally believe was brought here aboard a Martian meteorite and got the whole ball rolling.


Since BBA is a red algae, not a black one, we must assume that the ability to see light in the infrared area of the spectrum is common among martians. Otherwise, wouldn't they have called them black algae when they sent the first ones to customers here? I see I need to do more googling.


----------



## Ameisen

BBA is a kind of Rhodophyte (red algæ), and is thus closely related to green algæ and plants. Due to their additional red pigments, that can operate with more frequencies of light than green plants. 

Just glancing up some info on them - some red algæ can use HCO₃ (bicarbonate) as a carbon source, some use CO₂. So... I imagine that if you have the former, adding baking soda (bicarbonate of soda) to the water would cause it to bloom. 

They should be very similar to green algæ otherwise - lower threshold for survival than higher plants, and thus can thrive in less ideal conditions. Capable of using more of the available spectra (though I suspect would be outcompeted by green algæ or higher plants in otherwise-ideal conditions where light favors green plants). Bicarbonate-using algæ will thrive in tanks with alkaline water that are low in CO₂, and may outcompete green algæ or higher plants.


----------



## sfshrimp

I started a new hermetic ghettoquarium which is fueled by c02 and natural sunlight. Anyone who can predict what happened to it on Oct 12th, 2016 will receive a random act of kindness. Inside is five bulbs of giant dwarf hair grass and two pieces of blyxa japonica. The water is distilled, treated with a half cap of excel and prime. I will not open the jug under any circumstances. The substrate is frosted ALA water plastic.


----------



## Ameisen

sfshrimp said:


> I started a new hermetic ghettoquarium which is fueled by c02 and natural sunlight. Anyone who can predict what happened to it on Oct 12th, 2016 will receive a random act of kindness. Inside is five bulbs of giant dwarf hair grass and two pieces of blyxa japonica. The water is distilled, treated with a half cap of excel and prime. I will not open the jug under any circumstances. The substrate is frosted ALA water plastic.


I mean, unless you've come from the future, I suspect that nothing has already happened to it on 10/12/2016.

I suspect that either the top will blow off from overpressure, or that the system will in the end normalize around what is survivable - free nitrogen being fixed into the water by cyanobacteria, CO₂ being reintroduced either by what has degassed being pulled back into the water and also being generated by decay, etc.

Do you have a control ghettoquarium?


----------



## sfshrimp

Ameisen said:


> I mean, unless you've come from the future, I suspect that nothing has already happened to it on 10/12/2016.
> 
> I suspect that either the top will blow off from overpressure, or that the system will in the end normalize around what is survivable - free nitrogen being fixed into the water by cyanobacteria, CO₂ being reintroduced either by what has degassed being pulled back into the water and also being generated by decay, etc.
> 
> Do you have a control ghettoquarium?


Crap I missed the date. How do I make the control ghettoquarium?
I don't have more of that grass or niobium.

The top also has a gas release valve since it's not perfectly hermetic yet.


----------



## Ameisen

sfshrimp said:


> Crap I missed the date. How do I make the control ghettoquarium?
> I don't have more of that grass or niobium.
> 
> The top also has a gas release valve since it's not perfectly hermetic yet.


Control would be just water.


----------



## roadmaster

easternlethal said:


> Not directing this at anyone in but I find it pretty amusing how one can claim to have no algae but yet be knowledgeable about how it grows.
> 
> It's like saying hey I have no wallichi in my tank so I must know all about growing it


 Perhaps I can shed some light.(no pun intended)
For a very,very long time,I struggled growing plant's, but was very proficient at growing all manner of algae.
I have little to no algae these day's, but know exactly how to induce it .
I suspect many have experienced the same as me.?
In low tech NON CO2 tank's for me,,,It was Too much light for too long, and phosphate/nitrate removing media which in effect was working against my effort's at growing plant's .(was expert at growing algae):|
I came seeking help ,and was advised same as I suggest nowday's.
Choose somebody's advice/method that is achieving the result's you desire, and follow their advice rather than trying to incorporate everyone's advice or bit's of several methods.
Is my good luck to have member's here and that includes Tom Barr that helped me form a plan.
I feel I could have done much worse,(and did for long time) and am pleased with my effort's these day's.


----------



## assasin6547

Hmm, I'm just waiting for some scientists to bio-engineer some species specific small scale viruses in the lab or something - that, will surely fix all of our algae problems. Aquatic nanobots programmed to "search and destroy" on the cellular level could also be a good thing, assuming they're able to correctly identify the appropriate targets. _Imagine algae treatment for the typical modern planted aquarium, merely a few nano liters of various liquids dispensed from micropipeters directly into the environment, and poof! All traces of an unwanted microorganisms obliterated overnight. _ 

:grin2:


----------



## Solcielo lawrencia

Xiaozhuang said:


> No hope for this, I've waited years. And that's what I told Solcielo L. as well; ultimately influence in this hobby comes from producing great scapes (or at least photos of great scapes/plants). At this point Barr could tell ppl that adding mercury into their tanks would make their plants redder and they'll do it. I doubt even Amano knows as much plant science as some of our more technical members, but guess who has the influence ?
> 
> Words carry no weight without a portfolio, especially when this is a non-academic, hobbyist forum that is focused on scaping, not farming.


You ppl are incredible. When you cant refute the evidence, you refute it anyway and then change the subject. Tom Barr does the exact same thing. Did you take this tactic out of his playbook? It's not a toxicity because someone placed very high on iaplc a few years ago...? This is illogical and stupid. 

By your logic, plant scientists must be award winning aquascapers, ikebana masters, and landscape artists. Because of if they weren't, no other scientist would be influenced by their research or take it seriously.

So by your logic, Barr isn't an award winning aquascaper. Therefore he doesn't know anything about how to grow plants. I whole heartedly agree and your logic works correctly here because he holds many views that contradict science, but...

Please take the time to truly understand how illogical you ppl are. Did you ppl not learn about logic in school or did you just not pay attention because your teachers weren't award winning poets and writers and so they couldn't know anything about knowledge from books? This is ignorant and arrogant.

Btw, thanks for also insulting Barr with the mercury comment because it's so true!


----------



## roadmaster

assasin6547 said:


> Hmm, I'm just waiting for some scientists to bio-engineer some species specific small scale viruses in the lab or something - that, will surely fix all of our algae problems. Aquatic nanobots programmed to "search and destroy" on the cellular level could also be a good thing, assuming they're able to correctly identify the appropriate targets. _Imagine algae treatment for the typical modern planted aquarium, merely a few nano liters of various liquids dispensed from micropipeters directly into the environment, and poof! All traces of an unwanted microorganisms obliterated overnight. _
> 
> :grin2:


 Perhaps not a fix all for algae,but many accomplished hobbyist's employ algae eating critter's to help .(amano shrimp,otocinclus,nerite snail's ,smaller shrimps to a degree).
But they may not be of much help for self induced algae problem's on larger scale.Doing something fundamentally wrong, most often unwittingly... drives large scale algae issues I believe from my experience.


----------



## roadmaster

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> You ppl are incredible. When you cant refute the evidence, you refute it anyway and then change the subject. Tom Barr does the exact same thing. Did you take this tactic out of his playbook? It's not a toxicity because someone placed very high on iaplc a few years ago...? This is illogical and stupid.
> 
> By your logic, plant scientists must be award winning aquascapers, ikebana masters, and landscape artists. Because of if they weren't, no other scientist would be influenced by their research or take it seriously.
> 
> So by your logic, Barr isn't an award winning aquascaper. Therefore he doesn't know anything about how to grow plants. I whole heartedly agree and your logic works correctly here because he holds many views that contradict science, but...
> 
> Please take the time to truly understand how illogical you ppl are. Did you ppl not learn about logic in school or did you just not pay attention because your teachers weren't award winning poets and writers and so they couldn't know anything about knowledge from books? This is ignorant and arrogant.
> 
> Btw, thanks for also insulting Barr with the mercury comment because it's so true!


 
I fear you will gain even less traction insulting the intelligence of other member's/hobbyist's when you claim to only want to help advance the hobby.(your the one who need's self check)
I am reminded of a spouting porpoise.
Although it has nothing of discernible interest or importance to say,it none the less continues to spout as is it's nature.
I suspect it enjoy's hearing the sound it makes.


----------



## LRJ

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> You ppl are incredible. When you cant refute the evidence, you refute it anyway and then change the subject. Tom Barr does the exact same thing. Did you take this tactic out of his playbook? It's not a toxicity because someone placed very high on iaplc a few years ago...? This is illogical and stupid.
> 
> By your logic, plant scientists must be award winning aquascapers, ikebana masters, and landscape artists. Because of if they weren't, no other scientist would be influenced by their research or take it seriously.
> 
> So by your logic, Barr isn't an award winning aquascaper. Therefore he doesn't know anything about how to grow plants. I whole heartedly agree and your logic works correctly here because he holds many views that contradict science, but...
> 
> Please take the time to truly understand how illogical you ppl are. Did you ppl not learn about logic in school or did you just not pay attention because your teachers weren't award winning poets and writers and so they couldn't know anything about knowledge from books? This is ignorant and arrogant.
> 
> Btw, thanks for also insulting Barr with the mercury comment because it's so true!


You know the saying: a picture is worth a thousand words. If the methods you are implying knowledge of are sound, then offer some pictures of your plants as supporting evidence. That's what people are (logically) requesting. Heck, forget scaping, just show one example of where you've managed to grow, within a single tank, several difficult plants that are as vibrant as Barr's. At this point, I'd even settle for a picture of just one difficult plant that you'd managed to get looking better than what Barr can do with his methods. I am almost sure you have never produced any such thing, or else you'd have shared it by now. Diatribe like that quoted above, twisting of peoples' words and their intended meanings, I am certain you are being intentionally obtuse there.


----------



## Ameisen

I don't have any particular vested interest in this discusison, but Solcielo lawrencia, you seem overly passionate and you also seem to keep bringing up 'evidence' and how people are being 'unscientific'... but I have yet to see you post any evidence of your own or any peer-reviewed research contradicting others. I've seen you elsewhere post that nutrient imbalance does not lead to algal blooms, but at the same time I've posted several times in here that specific forms of algæ have different nutrient needs and thus can prosper in situations plants do not (and thus also derive plants of commonly-needed nutrients).

It's making it difficult to take you seriously, because what you write reads as though you are just _angry_, but I have a lot of trouble discerning what you're angry about, and I haven't read anything that actually backs up your statements.


----------



## Redneck tenner

Ok im going jump in. Ill probably be sorry. I have never grown an aquatic plant in an aquarium. Im not going to discuss my credentials but I have extensive plant, nutient and pathology knowledge and field time. 

Ive been studying my future little 10g tank for 9 months. No water yet. Lol. 

Funny thing is im learning alot of my day job does relate to planted tanks. Ironically what hoppy has recently been duscussing is something I was thinking about several months ago. 

The majority of the users posting in this thread I believe have some valid points that are probably very accurate. 

Such as on land as in our tanks. Cultural factors are numerous and skew the results rather those results be good or bad. Im my business when you add a catalyst during condusive environmental factors a result is decided. 

One thing im studying right now is dry ferts. It seems that more of the pros (so to speak) are in favor of them. My intial thoughts are that dry ferts at rates to positively affect plant health could be beneficial to algae and bacteria. Depending on so many other factors. Largely on how the material is derived. Its coating and the P and K not the N. 

The amount of variables we deal with in our ENCLOSED systems are numerous. Perhaps why more fail than succeed. But determined individuals keep tweeking and trying. 

In my world things constantly change. We have made pushed for more friendly plants and turfs. Less water less ferts less pathogens less pest. 

This can be an extremely complicated science but one can also dumb it down. 

I think everyone is onto something. We should work together. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## Smooch

******* tenner said:


> Ok im going jump in. Ill probably be sorry. I have never grown an aquatic plant in an aquarium. Im not going to discuss my credentials but I have extensive plant, nutient and pathology knowledge and field time.
> 
> Ive been studying my future little 10g tank for 9 months. No water yet. Lol.
> 
> Funny thing is im learning alot of my day job does relate to planted tanks. Ironically what hoppy has recently been duscussing is something I was thinking about several months ago.
> 
> The majority of the users posting in this thread I believe have some valid points that are probably very accurate.
> 
> Such as on land as in our tanks. Cultural factors are numerous and skew the results rather those results be good or bad. Im my business when you add a catalyst during condusive environmental factors a result is decided.
> 
> One thing im studying right now is dry ferts. It seems that more of the pros (so to speak) are in favor of them. My intial thoughts are that dry ferts at rates to positively affect plant health could be beneficial to algae and bacteria. Depending on so many other factors. Largely on how the material is derived. Its coating and the P and K not the N.
> 
> The amount of variables we deal with in our ENCLOSED systems are numerous. Perhaps why more fail than succeed. But determined individuals keep tweeking and trying.
> 
> In my world things constantly change. We have made pushed for more friendly plants and turfs. Less water less ferts less pathogens less pest.
> 
> This can be an extremely complicated science but one can also dumb it down.
> 
> I think everyone is onto something. We should work together.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


Don't take the teeth gnashing and arm wrestling too seriously. There are things to be learned through all the hub-bub. Sometimes though it is clear as mud until things chill out again.


----------



## Redneck tenner

Smooch said:


> Don't take the teeth gnashing and arm wrestling too seriously. There are things to be learned through all the hub-bub. Sometimes though it is clear as mud until things chill out again.


I like your analogy

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## easternlethal

Okay I am totally guilty of going offtopic myself now.



roadmaster said:


> but was very proficient at growing all manner of algae.
> I have little to no algae these day's, but know exactly how to induce it ...was expert at growing algae).



Well we can all grow random algae in random locations in our tanks but that doesn't make us algae experts. In fact they are notoriously difficult to grow and control even in the lab.

How many of us can actually maintain a dutch style algae only tank with say, cyano covering only on the foreground, clado growing only on driftwood, hair algae growing only at the back etc. etc? Or what if we were asked to grow only chrysopycaea on a small piece of driftwood in a tank?

Not possible if you adopt standard aquascaping techniques because they really are different from plants and should be understood differently.


----------



## easternlethal

and whilst I'm at it...



sfshrimp said:


> which is fueled by c02 and natural sunlight. Anyone who can predict what happened to it on Oct 12th.



If under direct sunlight and under say 15 degrees, my guess is the blyx survives but not the hairgrass. and there will be algae. (cause i'm an expert as have grown lots before ;-))


----------



## roadmaster

easternlethal said:


> Okay I am totally guilty of going offtopic myself now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we can all grow random algae in random locations in our tanks but that doesn't make us algae experts. In fact they are notoriously difficult to grow and control even in the lab.
> 
> How many of us can actually maintain a dutch style algae only tank with say, cyano covering only on the foreground, clado growing only on driftwood, hair algae growing only at the back etc. etc? Or what if we were asked to grow only chrysopycaea on a small piece of driftwood in a tank?
> 
> Not possible if you adopt standard aquascaping techniques because they really are different from plants and should be understood differently.


 I stand by my assertion that I was an expert at growing algae time after time after time.
All manner /kind's.:x


----------



## Greggz

So I finally drop into this thread and see Solcielo has emerged once again to unleash his wrath on Tom Barr and all things EI. I didn’t think it possible, but his musings seem to be getting more sinister (Looking forward to some funerals so this hobby can advance). 

It’s as if he is becoming a cartoon caricature of himself. If only he could find the kryptonite to bring Barr down, his tortured mind might finally be at peace. In the meantime, it would be nice if there was a warning label on the threads he has taken over.

Personally, I can only speak of my experience in my own tank. I have high light, co2 injection, and dose about ½ EI with a fully stocked tank. A short time ago, my co2 ran out, and may have been out for 2 or 3 days. I can tell you for sure, that in my tank, algae grew like mad. I had algae I have never seen before, including some thick stuff 3” or 4” long on the glass waving around. I mean this stuff was taking over fast!

Put the co2 back on, and now all is well. So what does that prove? Only that in MY tank, high light + EI ferts – co2 = algae farm. 

And back when I kept a low tech low light tank, every time I tried high light, an algae farm quickly broke out. So for me, high light + no ferts – co2 = algae farm. 

So what does that mean in scientific terms? Nothing.......only means that is what happens in MY tank. 
I'm sure others could chime in and have the opposite results. 

I have never tried low light + co2, but find Hoppy’s observations interesting. My guess is you would still have trouble with most stems, but you will find some plants that will flourish in that mix, and my guess is that you could create a very nice medium tech tank with lower maintenance requirements. That may be a good happy medium for many people.


----------



## Hoppy

Solcielo lawrencia said:


> You ppl are incredible. When you cant refute the evidence, you refute it anyway and then change the subject.


Would it help if you saw yourself as one of "you people"? I just can't see this group as anything other than "us people". As far as I can see people come here and stay here because they share our common interest in having a planted tank that they enjoy, where plants grow in great health, algae is just a distant memory, and fish all live to a ripe old age, retire, and watch the youngsters as they live out their final days. To achieve this, which is, for me, an unobtainable goal, we all share experiences, knowledge, and questions. I can't see any point in viewing it any other way. I will be here as long as I can keep learning more here - probably for a very long time.


----------



## Redneck tenner

Greggz said:


> So I finally drop into this thread and see Solcielo has emerged once again to unleash his wrath on Tom Barr and all things EI. I didn’t think it possible, but his musings seem to be getting more sinister (Looking forward to some funerals so this hobby can advance).
> 
> It’s as if he is becoming a cartoon caricature of himself. If only he could find the kryptonite to bring Barr down, his tortured mind might finally be at peace. In the meantime, it would be nice if there was a warning label on the threads he has taken over.
> 
> Personally, I can only speak of my experience in my own tank. I have high light, co2 injection, and dose about ½ EI with a fully stocked tank. A short time ago, my co2 ran out, and may have been out for 2 or 3 days. I can tell you for sure, that in my tank, algae grew like mad. I had algae I have never seen before, including some thick stuff 3” or 4” long on the glass waving around. I mean this stuff was taking over fast!
> 
> Put the co2 back on, and now all is well. So what does that prove? Only that in MY tank, high light + EI ferts – co2 = algae farm.
> 
> And back when I kept a low tech low light tank, every time I tried high light, an algae farm quickly broke out. So for me, high light + no ferts – co2 = algae farm.
> 
> So what does that mean in scientific terms? Nothing.......only means that is what happens in MY tank.
> I'm sure others could chime in and have the opposite results.
> 
> I have never tried low light + co2, but find Hoppy’s observations interesting. My guess is you would still have trouble with most stems, but you will find some plants that will flourish in that mix, and my guess is that you could create a very nice medium tech tank with lower maintenance requirements. That may be a good happy medium for many people.


Last paragraph is very good IMO. Thats what im hoping to accomplish. I think that great thinking. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## Greggz

Hoppy said:


> Would it help if you saw yourself as one of "you people"? I just can't see this group as anything other than "us people". As far as I can see people come here and stay here because they share our common interest in having a planted tank that they enjoy, where plants grow in great health, algae is just a distant memory, and fish all live to a ripe old age, retire, and watch the youngsters as they live out their final days. To achieve this, which is, for me, an unobtainable goal, we all share experiences, knowledge, and questions. I can't see any point in viewing it any other way. I will be here as long as I can keep learning more here - probably for a very long time.


Hoppy you summed it up and articulated it very well. Thanks for your perspective and your usual level headed reasoned response.


----------



## mistergreen

You guys shouldn't demonize algae. They're the first life forms to produce O2 on the planet so the animals can thrive. So you should be grateful. Algae gave rise to plants. Plants actually absorbed algae as their inner cellular components like the chloroplast. Pretty interesting stuff. So their functions are the same but the only difference is size. That's why you can't control algae in a pretty aquascape while to can trim and move plants around easily.

Lol, I hate bba though.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Ameisen

mistergreen said:


> You guys shouldn't demonize algae. They're the first life forms to produce O2 on the planet so the animals can thrive. So you should be grateful. Algae gave rise to plants. Plants actually absorbed algae as their inner cellular components like the chloroplast. Pretty interesting stuff. So their functions are the same but the only difference is size. That's why you can't control algae in a pretty aquascape while to can trim and move plants around easily.
> 
> Lol, I hate bba though.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


The first organisms to produce oxygen in substantial quantities were photosynthetic prokaryotes, not algæ. Eukaryotes like algæ evolved a few hundred million years _after_ the Great Oxygenation Event.


----------



## burr740

LRJ said:


> You know the saying: a picture is worth a thousand words. If the methods you are implying knowledge of are sound, then offer some pictures of your plants as supporting evidence. That's what people are (logically) requesting. Heck, forget scaping, just show one example of where you've managed to grow, within a single tank, several difficult plants that are as vibrant as Barr's. At this point, I'd even settle for a picture of just one difficult plant that you'd managed to get looking better than what Barr can do with his methods. I am almost sure you have never produced any such thing, or else you'd have shared it by now. Diatribe like that quoted above, twisting of peoples' words and their intended meanings, I am certain you are being intentionally obtuse there.


Sweet tank here. I'd love to see No. 1 

Nature Scape No. 2 | AquaScaping World Forum


----------



## mistergreen

Ameisen said:


> The first organisms to produce oxygen in substantial quantities were photosynthetic prokaryotes, not algæ. Eukaryotes like algæ evolved a few hundred million years _after_ the Great Oxygenation Event.


I was referring to Cyanobacteria which is bga. Yeah, the other algae comes later.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ursamajor

@Hoppy

I think your observations and suggestions in your original post are right on. Even a little CO2 can go a long ways. I have some interesting data points to support this claim as well...

I picked up a copy of Amano's Nature Aquarium World a few weeks ago. All the tanks featured within are from the 80's and early 90's. Amano injected CO2 in every tank in the book, but he was adding TINY amounts. The max I saw was 1 bubble per second. Many had only 1 bubble every 5 seconds.

These tanks were every bit as lush as you would expect from an Amano tank, and of course I never saw a spec of algae. This makes me suspect that Amano was doing exactly what Hoppy advocates in this forum - using low CO2 and low-medium lighting to achieve healthy, sustained, moderate growth.


----------



## Milkman

In my opinion, and from my experience (how little or large) the best way to learn is just to do it and learn from your own mistakes.

Everyone's tanks will behave differently because no one ecosystem is identical and neither are their placements.

I can honestly say I have hardly any algae in my tank now (a little bit of green spot algae still - just old growth that I haven't scraped away) but it took my tank years to mature and get to this stage.

Anyway, what's so bad about algae - we strive to create aquariums and scapes to represent nature but we want to tailor what is being shown. I'm not a fan of algae but I'm just saying, it's interesting.


----------



## Smooch

mistergreen said:


> You guys shouldn't demonize algae. They're the first life forms to produce O2 on the planet so the animals can thrive. So you should be grateful.


Dinosaurs are pretty cool too, but that doesn't mean I want a Velociraptor in my fish tank. Although a v.raptor could be handy when it comes to dealing with the jerks working on the street in front of my house. A whole other issue.


----------



## mistergreen

Smooch said:


> Dinosaurs are pretty cool too, but that doesn't mean I want a Velociraptor in my fish tank. Although a v.raptor could be handy when it comes to dealing with the jerks working on the street in front of my house. A whole other issue.


Yeah but a v raptor wasn't responsible for your existence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## mistergreen

You guys should check out tropica tanks. They use medium co2 (~25ppm) and medium lights. It looks like you can grow any plants.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Xiaozhuang

burr740 said:


> Sweet tank here. I'd love to see No. 1
> 
> Nature Scape No. 2 | AquaScaping World Forum


LOL. you're too unkind... the poor guy probably losing hair talking to us here already.




mistergreen said:


> You guys should check out tropica tanks. They use medium co2 (~25ppm) and medium lights. It looks like you can grow any plants.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


to be honest many of their tanks aren't that well grown; even in the commercial pics that they use on their website which has already been cleaned up. I think that for many commercial systems (including ADA), following a fixed methodology doesn't cater to the wide range of plant selection that planted tanks can have. An iwagumi with just a simple carpet will have very different requirements from a heavy stem plant scape; being able to tweak parameters according to how plants react/grow in a particular tank is important. (also taking into account water parameters from taps all over the world can differ quite a bit). The medium values work generally well for most things, but for people looking to push the boundaries in color or density, or cleanliness etc, there if often plenty to tweak on a tank by tank basis - and that is arguably the skill every aquarist should learn; adaptation by observation, rather than some silver bullet that works for every single scenario.


----------



## houseofcards

Reading thru that thread from ASW that burr referenced it appears some plants, fish, shrimp died. Their demise was blamed on an overdose of CSM+B. Thus the toxic avenger was born!


----------



## Hoppy

ursamajor said:


> @Hoppy
> 
> I think your observations and suggestions in your original post are right on. Even a little CO2 can go a long ways. I have some interesting data points to support this claim as well...
> 
> I picked up a copy of Amano's Nature Aquarium World a few weeks ago. All the tanks featured within are from the 80's and early 90's. Amano injected CO2 in every tank in the book, but he was adding TINY amounts. The max I saw was 1 bubble per second. Many had only 1 bubble every 5 seconds.
> 
> These tanks were every bit as lush as you would expect from an Amano tank, and of course I never saw a spec of algae. This makes me suspect that Amano was doing exactly what Hoppy advocates in this forum - using low CO2 and low-medium lighting to achieve healthy, sustained, moderate growth.


Thank you! I wondered if anyone was going to comment on the real subject of this thread. I agree that originally CO2 was used in very small amounts, and it was the great improvements in the plants that led to the adoption of CO2 by almost everyone.

But, then, as more plants species became available to us, many of those only grew well if you used more light, and more CO2. And, that started the drive to use as much CO2 as is possible, with as much light as possible. I see nothing wrong with that, but for many of us, who just want a low maintenance, low cost tank, I think going back to the tiny doses of CO2 can be a good idea. *But, to me,that is contingent on whether or not using such low CO2 amounts leads to increased BBA, as Tom Barr said back in 2014.* I'm not yet sure if my tank is going to become a BBA haven.


----------



## Redneck tenner

I would think that consistency would be a larger factor than amount. I wonder those with bad cases of bba; either ran out or saw results at 1bps and said 3 must be better. Thats why I PM you about excel usage with co2. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## klibs

Milkman said:


> In my opinion, and from my experience (how little or large) the best way to learn is just to do it and learn from your own mistakes.
> 
> Everyone's tanks will behave differently because no one ecosystem is identical and neither are their placements.
> 
> I can honestly say I have hardly any algae in my tank now (a little bit of green spot algae still - just old growth that I haven't scraped away) but it took my tank years to mature and get to this stage.
> 
> Anyway, what's so bad about algae - we strive to create aquariums and scapes to represent nature but we want to tailor what is being shown. I'm not a fan of algae but I'm just saying, it's interesting.


+10000000 I totally agree with this


----------



## houseofcards

It would make sense that any fairly consistent co2 is better than none. I think when you talk about co2 in itself preventing algae it could give the wrong impression of co2 being an algaecide in itself.

For me it's all about uptake. For example, if your tank is 'clean' enough based on your lighting, plant mass and organic load and your doing fine with 10ppm of co2 and then you drop it to 5ppm and you get algae. What happened? The uptake slowed down, and the organic load isn't being processed as efficiently. I could see up/down co2 having a similar effect. 

On the flip side if your having algae issues at 10ppm of co2 and you increase to 20ppm, the plants take off, uptake increases and the algae slows.

I mean if you have no plants or a few little stems, all the co2 in the world will have no effect, the more plant mass and/or uptake the more co2 will help IMO.


----------



## klibs

houseofcards said:


> It would make sense that any fairly consistent co2 is better than none. I think when you talk about co2 in itself preventing algae it could give the wrong impression of co2 being an algaecide in itself.
> 
> For me it's all about uptake. For example, if your tank is 'clean' enough based on your lighting, plant mass and organic load and your doing fine with 10ppm of co2 and then you drop it to 5ppm and you get algae. What happened? The uptake slowed down, and the organic load isn't being processed as efficiently. I could see up/down co2 having a similar effect.
> 
> On the flip side if your having algae issues at 10ppm of co2 and you increase to 20ppm, the plants take off, uptake increases and the algae slows.
> 
> I mean if you have no plants or a few little stems, all the co2 in the world will have no effect, the more plant mass and/or uptake the more co2 will help IMO.


I agree. Plant mass / uptake is a huge factor that IMO is often overlooked in this hobby.


----------



## Hoppy

Plants are factories that manufacture tissue from carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, etc. Like all factories they have to configure the "assembly line" to work with the different sources and supply rates of those chemical elements. When carbon is hard to get, they set up a more robust machine to get enough carbon to keep the assembly line operating. When carbon is readily and easily available, they can switch to a simpler, less energy demanding machine to get the carbon. (If the assembly line workers go in strike all bets are off!)

So, when the plants have lots of CO2 available for carbon, they use their energy to gather as much light as they can. But, if the supply of CO2 suddenly drops, they aren't tooled up to cope with this, so production stalls, and the products on the line start degrading, until the plant can retool to get the needed carbon. That is like leaving partly baked bread on the table for the ants (algae) to steal. So, the plant finds itself smothered in those ants (algae).

I hate to get so deep into basic botany, but sometimes it's necessary.:laugh2:

All of this to say, keeping a steady supply of CO2 for the plants can help keep the ants (algae) away.


----------



## houseofcards

Hoppy said:


> ... (If the assembly line workers go in strike all bets are off!)
> .


Yes, I agree, but if there's not enough workers (plant mass, uptake) and they start to fall behind they will have too much sludge (organics) to deal with and they will walk off the job, sighting poor working conditions (algae-covered tank).


----------



## HaeSuse

Hoppy said:


> Would it help if you saw yourself as one of "you people"? I just can't see this group as anything other than "us people". As far as I can see people come here and stay here because they share our common interest in having a planted tank that they enjoy, where plants grow in great health, algae is just a distant memory, and fish all live to a ripe old age, retire, and watch the youngsters as they live out their final days. To achieve this, which is, for me, an unobtainable goal, we all share experiences, knowledge, and questions. I can't see any point in viewing it any other way. I will be here as long as I can keep learning more here - probably for a very long time.



Cheers, @Hoppy! Well put.


----------



## HaeSuse

klibs said:


> +10000000 I totally agree with this


Ditto. Likewise, I always was curious why there was a "snail killing" product being sold. I remember the look on my LFS owner's face when I was buying some fish, and I said "HEY! What is THAT Snail???"

He said "uhhhhhh, that's a ramshorn." 

I said "how much do they cost?"

He looked at me, and clearly calculated for a minute (his completely transparent thought was, "i got me a sucker here"), and said "if you want them, reach in there and grab them." But he really thought about charging me for them.

Anyway, that whole "snails = bad", "algae = bad", mindset is a bit weird for me. I don't want a tank filled with BBA. I also don't want a snail farm. But, a little bit of single cellular protozoic algae farting around in my tank? Meh. Let the snails get it.


----------



## roadmaster

Hoppy said:


> Plants are factories that manufacture tissue from carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, etc. Like all factories they have to configure the "assembly line" to work with the different sources and supply rates of those chemical elements. When carbon is hard to get, they set up a more robust machine to get enough carbon to keep the assembly line operating. When carbon is readily and easily available, they can switch to a simpler, less energy demanding machine to get the carbon. (If the assembly line workers go in strike all bets are off!)
> 
> So, when the plants have lots of CO2 available for carbon, they use their energy to gather as much light as they can. But, if the supply of CO2 suddenly drops, they aren't tooled up to cope with this, so production stalls, and the products on the line start degrading, until the plant can retool to get the needed carbon. That is like leaving partly baked bread on the table for the ants (algae) to steal. So, the plant finds itself smothered in those ants (algae).
> 
> I hate to get so deep into basic botany, but sometimes it's necessary.:laugh2:
> 
> All of this to say, keeping a steady supply of CO2 for the plants can help keep the ants (algae) away.


 
+one^
The rubisco mechanisim I referenced earlier is interesting in my humble opinion but a bit thick reading for my old mind when I first researched it.


----------



## hard determinist

mistergreen said:


> yup, 400ppm air is 3ppm water.
> 30ppm(w) water is about 6,816ppm(v) air
> I use this quick formula,
> ppmw = ppmv * 44.01/10000


Are you really sure you are not using a wrong formula?
400 ppm CO2 in the air = 0.6 ppm CO2 dissolved in water at 77°F and at sea level (not 3 ppm!).
20050 ppm CO2 (air) = 30 ppm CO2 (aq)
6816 ppm CO2 (air) = 10.2 ppm CO2 (aq)


----------



## mistergreen

hard determinist said:


> Are you really sure you are not using a wrong formula?
> 400 ppm CO2 in the air = 0.6 ppm CO2 dissolved in water at 77°F and at sea level (not 3 ppm!).
> 20050 ppm CO2 (air) = 30 ppm CO2 (aq)
> 6816 ppm CO2 (air) = 10.2 ppm CO2 (aq)


What formula are you using?

I'm using 1000 kg/m^3 (density of water) = 1000000 mg/l @ 4°C


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jeffkrol

use this:
Parts Per Million (ppm) Converter


----------



## mistergreen

Is mg/m^3 same as ppmw?
I'm reading it is a subunit of ppmw.
If so, 400ppmv of CO2 is .7mg/m^3 or ppmw @ 25C.

I found a handy formula to get mg/m^3 at any temperature.

mg/m3 = (ppmv)(MW) / [(0.08205) (¦K)]

where:
ppmv = air pollutant concentration, in parts per million by volume
mg/m3 = milligrams of pollutant per cubic meter of air
¦K = atmospheric temperature in degrees Kelvin = 273.15 + ¦C
0.08205 = universal gas law constant in (atm+liter)/(gmol+¦K)
MW = molecular weight of the air pollutant (dimensionless)
atm = absolute atmosperic pressure in atmospheres
gmol = gram mole


----------



## mistergreen

Nope mg/m3 (mass in a volume) is not the same as ppmw (mass in a mass). 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## mistergreen

Ok, I got a definitely formula for converting ppmv to ppmw. I'll have to update my calculations. 
400ppmv = .720ppmw 

ppmw = (ppmv)(MW) / [(0.08205) (¦K)] / density of Water

density of Water = 1000 (kg/m3) - use 1000 as default since you'll need to measure the density to get accurate numbers. The density does vary due to temperature but very minor.


----------



## jeffkrol

Hmmm...got 7.75x 10-9 mg/m3 here...

Parts Per Million (ppm) Converter


----------



## mistergreen

jeffkrol said:


> Hmmm...got 7.75x 10-9 mg/m3 here...
> 
> Parts Per Million (ppm) Converter


as mentioned before, mg/m3 is not ppmw, although it is a component of the formula. That calculator is a ppm <-> mg/m3 converter. Follow my formula for the correct output.


----------



## jeffkrol

mistergreen said:


> as mentioned before, mg/m3 is not ppmw, although it is a component of the formula. That calculator is a ppm <-> mg/m3 converter. Follow my formula for the correct output.


okee doky..



> * Therefore, to find how much more dense water is than air all we need to do is find a ratio of water to air. 1000 kg/m^3 divided by 1.275 kg/m^3 yields 784. Therefore, at sea level, air is 784 times less dense than water.*



just divide by 784
400/784 = 0.510

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/216/


----------



## mistergreen

jeffkrol said:


> okee doky..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just divide by 784
> 400/784 = 0.510
> 
> COMPARING THE DENSITY OF AIR TO WATER


Why are you doing this?


> Therefore, to find how much more dense water is than air all we need to do is find a ratio of water to air. 1000 kg/m^3 divided by 1.275 kg/m^3 yields 784. Therefore, at sea level, air is 784 times less dense than water.


Basically you need to convert 400ppmv to mg/m3 (volume) and then divide by the density of water. You need to look for mass (CO2) in another mass (water) - ppmw. You're not accounting for the mole weight of CO2 (44.01g/mole) in your calculation.


----------



## jeffkrol

mistergreen said:


> Why are you doing this?
> 
> 
> Basically you need to convert 400ppmv to mg/m3 (volume) and then divide by the density of water. You need to look for mass (CO2) in another mass (water) - ppmw. You're not accounting for the mole weight of CO2 (44.01g/mole) in your calculation.



Yea sorry.. To be honest I'm not really looking closely and apologize for the babble.. and distraction..
these math/chemistry problems always annoyed me..


----------



## mistergreen

jeffkrol said:


> Yea sorry.. To be honest I'm not really looking closely and apologize for the babble.. and distraction..
> these math/chemistry problems always annoyed me..


It only took me 2 years to figure it out.


----------

