# New to planted tanks. Is CO2 necessary?



## moogoo (Dec 7, 2007)

whether you have CO2 or not is based solely on you. It is not necessary, but you have to have the right setup as well. Basically, light is the controlling factor. The more of it you have, the more nutrients and CO2 the plants will require and the faster they will grow. Turn down the light and the need for everything else decreases as well.

96W over a 50 gallon is just under 2WPG. This is considered low to maybe even med. light. You could probably make do without CO2 or just have a DIY setup or excel dosing. You'll be able to grow a pretty decent variety of plants, but they will grow slower, which isn't a bad thing either. Less maintenance to worry about, etc.

You will have to be careful choosing your plants. Some will require higher light and CO2 to thrive, while others don't. So, ask if you're not sure. 

In summary, for the light you plan on getting, CO2 is not essential, but would be beneficial if you had some.


----------



## BiscuitSlayer (Apr 1, 2005)

The best thing I ever bought with regards to equipment for my tank was my CO2 setup. It really has made a big difference for my plants and the overall look of my tank. I love the high light/ high tech side of things, but it isn't nesicarily for everyone. The cost is high at first. The regulator is the most expensive part and it can run up to $70 to $250 new depending on what you go with. Looking back, I would have spent more money and bought a better regulator. The tanks aren't too bad, and the best thing to do is go with the biggest possible tank you can accomidate. I went with a 10lb tank for my 29 gallon, and it just fits in my stand. Tank fills for me last up to 1 1/2 year to 2 years which is nice. The ongoing costs are minimal, just getting the tank refilled. Some people use controllers to regulate the CO2 injection into their tanks. I just plug my solenoid plug into a power strip that is controlling my lights. The CO2 and my lights are on a timer and they come on at the same time. To me, this makes the most sense since CO2 injection is a waste if the lights aren't on.


----------



## Karackle (Dec 11, 2007)

CO2 is definitely not necessary for a nice looking tank. If you look through the Low Tech threads you'll see some really nice low light, no CO2 tanks, particularly I would take a look at LauraLeeLLBP's threads, she's all low light, low tech and has some gorgeous tanks in my very humble opinion. My tanks are all low light, no CO2 as well, but they're not much to look at right now, the 30g is the only one I've put a lot of time into recently, but my tanks are the bottom of the food chain in terms of how nice you can get with low light and no CO2. Also, I find my low tech tanks extremely easy to care for. I hardly ever dose ferts, do monthly (at most frequent) water changes with top offs in between as needed and that's about it. My 30g has the best growth, probably because it's the only tank I used a nutrient rich substrate for (eco-complete) and is slightly overstocked. I tend to slightly overstock to provide most of my plant fertilizer. I'll dose trace ferts and excel occasionally if I remember and/or with a water change but otherwise i let my mini ecosystems kind of just do their thing. 

Also, an important note is that 96w over a 50g tank is pretty low light IF and ONLY IF we're talking about standard T8 fluorescent lights. If you're talking about any of the other high output lights (MH, CF etc) then you're talking about a med or high light situation. FWIW


----------



## dm76 (Mar 15, 2009)

I was looking at the lights at AH supply which are CF, so is 96 watts too much light of CF for not having CO2?


----------



## dm76 (Mar 15, 2009)

I think that is a good point about the slower growth meaning less maintenance as far as trimming them. If I look at aquariumplants.com and look under anything that needs low to medium light, should I be ok with those at 96 watts CF without CO2? The other option I could do from AH supply are 2-36 watt fixtures, if 96 is too much.


----------



## Karackle (Dec 11, 2007)

I'm not an expert on other kinds of lighting because all I use is standard T8 fluorescent lighting, but from what I understand 96w CF would be quite high for 50g but i'd wait for the experts to chime in


----------



## dm76 (Mar 15, 2009)

So if that is high, what would happen? Would I get lots of algae if I dont inject CO2? Will DIY CO2 help with this, because from the little research I have done, it seems inexpensive and fairly simple.


----------



## BiscuitSlayer (Apr 1, 2005)

Karackle said:


> I'm not an expert on other kinds of lighting because all I use is standard T8 fluorescent lighting, but from what I understand 96w CF would be quite high for 50g but i'd wait for the experts to chime in


If I were going with that setup, I would consider myself in the high light arena. That particular fixture is pretty darn bright. I would think that not running CO2 would put someone on the brink of a potentially problematic setup.


----------



## BiscuitSlayer (Apr 1, 2005)

dm76 said:


> So if that is high, what would happen? Would I get lots of algae if I dont inject CO2? Will DIY CO2 help with this, because from the little research I have done, it seems inexpensive and fairly simple.



Algae would probably be a problem. I would imagine, that multiple kinds would infest the tank and it might be difficult to get things under control.

You probably could do DIY CO2. Some people do it and they get used to the routine. I have done it before and it didn't take me long to come to the conclusion that I needed to go pressurized. I'll never touch DIY CO2 again after having seen the consistiency and outstanding results of pressurized. Thats just my view though.


----------



## dm76 (Mar 15, 2009)

So would having more plants help prevent the algae problem because they would be fighting for nutrients? And just to give me a rough idea, whats the approximate cost for the initial setup of an injected CO2 system in case i have to go that route down the road?


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

BiscuitSlayer said:


> Algae would probably be a problem. I would imagine, that multiple kinds would infest the tank and it might be difficult to get things under control.
> 
> You probably could do DIY CO2. Some people do it and they get used to the routine. I have done it before and it didn't take me long to come to the conclusion that I needed to go pressurized. I'll never touch DIY CO2 again after having seen the consistiency and outstanding results of pressurized. Thats just my view though.


roud:I 2x that 

For comparison purposes I have set up a high tech and some low tech tanks. While the low tech tanks required less effort, IME, I find them nowhere as beautiful as my high tech tank. In my case, algae in either tank was not an issue, the low tech tanks were just as algae free as high tech tanks. The comparison is like that between having terrestrial plants that can be grown in low light(shade/partial shade) vs those that can be grown in full sun. The variety of plants is much greater with those that can grown in sun. You can still arrange a garden so that the garden incorporates both shade/partial shade and full sun plants for the best variety. In a high tech planted tank, you can still grow low light plants. There are a lot of high light and c02 demanding plants that you cannot grow in low tech tanks. In fairness though, I guess you can always set up equally beautiful tanks by working on your hardscape and arranging your plants in typical Amano fashion.

Personally, after seeing how much better(shades of color, growth, variety of plants) plants did in my high tech vs low tech tanks, I would set up another high tech tank and all my future tanks will be high tech. IME, the difference is more than sufficient to justify shelling out the extra $$$ for good lighting and pressurized c02 and going high tech. And high tech does not really mean super high light levels. With 2 watts per gallon and pressurized c02, you should be able to grow a fair number of plants and at that light level it becomes easier to target appropriate c02 levels and tweaking fertilization becomes easier.


----------



## jim lockhart (Apr 26, 2007)

you can certainly have a planted tank with this light setup and no CO2, but you will be somewhat limited in your plant selection (Swords, crypts, anubious , vals, moss, and some of the easier stems). You wont achieve some of the spectacular tanks you see on this site.

I had 96W over my 50 for over a couple of years, but always felt it was not quite enough (it was a CO2 tank). PC light will start out fairly bright, but will decline fairly quickly to something noticeably less. Be prepared to replace the bulb every 9-12 months.

Black Brush Algae (BBA) can be difficult to deal with without CO2, and it's a very nasty algae.


----------



## dm76 (Mar 15, 2009)

Ok, so I guess here is where I can go from here. I need lights, and it seems like by getting a kit from AH supply, I will be getting very good lighting and saving money as compared to pre built fixtures, and this would work better for my situation in my canopy anyways. Looks like I could get the setup and bulb for under $100. So is it safe to say this 96 watt kit is the best choice http://www.ahsupply.com/96watt.htm (or are the 2-36 watts better that they sell)? 

So with that lighting, are you saying I can just grow low to mid light plants with it? Or are you saying I'd need CO2 with it. I'm not sure on the price of the CO2 systems, but I really can't afford to spend any more hundreds. (What is a typical price, and whats involved in it, if it can be summed up briefly?) I want to get this tank started. I figure if its up and looking nice, then I can justify spending a little more on it if I have to, but hate to put out anymore before its even going. So can I start with one of those lights, and if I have problems, then try a DIY system, and if I get tired of that, then upgrade?


----------



## jim lockhart (Apr 26, 2007)

Sure. You can do that. I had no-CO2 with even poorer lighting than you are planning for 4 years before I went to CO2.

I would go with the 96w. (I'm assuming you have a 3' long 50g, which a 96w will fit quite nicely) It will be simpler and cleaner solution. See what you can achieve without CO2. You do not have to go all the way to pressurized CO2 in one step. Their are other carbon options that would be cheaper to get started with, like DIY CO2 or Flourish Excel.


----------



## dm76 (Mar 15, 2009)

Ok that sounds like a good plan then, maybe I will go and order that 96w and see how things do. If I stick to plants that are for low to medium light, and try to use excel or maybe even DIY, would that be a decent setup? I know some of the tanks here look spectacular, but I don't think I have to have them quite that spectacular to be happy. I don't want the fish to get lost in there.


----------



## bartak (Feb 18, 2007)

I think you have the right idea. keep in mind, that 96 watts of light puts you into the med to high category. but thats great because you'll be able to grow just about anything you want. using excel and diy co2 will help and I highly recommend it. I also recommend using the EI method with dry ferts. it's an extremely easy and inexpensive way to get nutrients to your plants. you should be able to get great results with this set up. and if down the road you go pressurized co2 it will be even better. 

Or you can get this light 
and go low-tech all the way. I'm sure you could retro fit that under a canopy


----------



## dm76 (Mar 15, 2009)

I actually was going to get that fixture you mentioned, however I looked at several different stores and had trouble finding 36" T5 standard bulbs. They had plenty of the T5HO, but not the normal ones. So that is what steered me away from those. And two of those fixtures would put it at 84 watts anyways, which is pretty close to the 96. There is no disadvantage to having 96, is there? What is the EI method with dry ferts?


----------



## bartak (Feb 18, 2007)

you can look at it this way, If you dont mind spending more time (and money) taking care of your tank. you can go with the higher lighting, you most likely will end up using co2 and ferts. a low light tank will be easier to take care of but you're limited as far as plant choice and growth is slower. you will have algae issues with both. I like the high tech route, but I like to tweak things. if you're a set it and forget kinda guy low tech might be better.

here is some info on the EI ( Estimative Index) method. read the stickys


----------



## dm76 (Mar 15, 2009)

Ok, I think I see what you are saying. It will take a little more effort because I will spend more time pruning the plants, and dosing, stuff like that right? I guess if I have too much light with that 96, I can always just run it for less hours during the day, right? And maybe use my single strip 30 watt T8 light the rest of the time just for viewing the fish? Does it work that way, by just cutting down on the time the brighter light is on? I just don't want to buy something and then have to buy more later because it is not bright enough. But then again, I don't want that T5 fixture because I had trouble finding bulbs.


----------

