# DIY CO2 Experiment



## BettaBettas (Aug 21, 2016)

good luck!


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

This is all doable.
Used sugar and yeast for years myself.
May need to up your dosing or begin dosing, which ever.
Even without a high driving light plant uptake is greatly increased.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I'm wondering how long the 4L mixture will produce CO2 before needing to be replaced?
Did you use the existing yeast culture with a new sugar/water mix or did you always use new yeast?



Maryland Guppy said:


> This is all doable.
> Used sugar and yeast for years myself.
> May need to up your dosing or begin dosing, which ever.
> Even without a high driving light plant uptake is greatly increased.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> I'm wondering how long the 4L mixture will produce CO2 before needing to be replaced?
> Did you use the existing yeast culture with a new sugar/water mix or did you always use new yeast?


You'll want to replace it when it begins to slow down, ideally just before. Dont wait until it slows way down. The idea is to maintain a constant steady rate over the long haul. This is where many people fail with diy.

Using multiple bottles with staggered start/change time makes it a lot easier to jkeep a steady rate. Using 2 bottles and change out one each week for example.

On my 75 I ran four bottles, changed 2 per week. Had pretty good results for a bout 8 months before going pressurized

I used to get two weeks of fairly steady production from a 2 liter bottle. Theoretically the 4 liter should run steady for longer since there's twice as much water to keep the alcohol diluted, assuming there's enough sugar to feed.

Personally I always used fresh yeast each time, but I know people do it the other way with apparently good success too.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

I always used new yeast.

Re-reading your post, an entire pack of yeast?
My recipe for 3lt was 2 cups sugar, 1tsp baking soda, 1tsp dry yeast.
This would work for about 3 weeks. I too alternated 2-3lt bottles.
I moved to a 3lt soda bottle with the large 38mm caps, much friendlier.
Also it had more water:alcohol ratio for a longer runtime.

I was not real good about mixing bottles.
Every 4-6 weeks or so, CO2 from 15-40ppm, never zero though.

Just hooked up my pressurized within the last week.
No more bottles to mix.:grin2:


----------



## Econde (Oct 13, 2015)

AbbeysDad said:


> I'm wondering how long the 4L mixture will produce CO2 before needing to be replaced?
> Did you use the existing yeast culture with a new sugar/water mix or did you always use new yeast?


I used burr740's method with great success. I used those huge Hawaiian punch 1 gallon jugs, a 2 liter bottle, a small gatorade bottle(bubble counter/gunk remover) and a sun sun powerhead. I have tried your method with putting the hose where the hose hookup should be and found that it was sucking too much c02. I instead put the end of the airline hose into the powerhead intake so that the bubbles were smashed by the impeller. I felt that it was vacuuming out more gas than it could actually produce. Your sealtite container will hold up, but my bottles did not.

With 3 bottles, I would remix 1 container a week basically. 1 gallon jugs using 4 cups of sugar, 1/4 tsp baking soda, 1/2 tsp fleischman active yeast and 2 liter bottle using 2 cups of sugar and everything else the same. I made note of which container needs to be changed, also you can tell which ones are less active by the color of the mixture. Anything closer to milky beige is "active" anything closer to lime juice color is less active.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Thanks for the replies!

Well I have another 4L container I can put in-line. A pkg of yeast Fleishman's baker yeast may be a bit much, but it can't be much more than 2 tsp or 1 tbls.? Based on the bubble count of 1-2 bps, I think perhaps I could use a bit less, but it seems to be working pretty well (remember it's a 4L container). If I continue doing this I may get some active brewers yeast instead (I see some on Amazon).

I call it an experiment because my plants (low tech) were growing well with minimal ferts. Then two things happened. I bought some Val off ebay that seemed like a good deal, but now I'm convinced introduced BBA. Bad enough that I pulled all of the Val out and trashed it and have since been dosing some Excel, plucking and using some peroxide. 
Also, my tank was well established for years before I planted. The plants grew great for several months with modest fertilizer, then it's like they stopped growing. Oh they look okay, just not growing anything like they were. So I've upped the dosing and now added some DIY CO2 to see if I can make the plants happier (again)!

I have the Finnex Planted+ 24/7 and run in 24/7 mode and since the plants responded well for months, I'm staying in 24/7 mode and going at it from the fert/co2 direction. Dipping a toe in the DIY Co2 water (was than a pun?) is so inexpensive, it seemed like I almost had to.

Now because the co2 is running 24/7 (not sure what would happen if I put the elite on a timer), I'm running an air bubble bar during the night to ensure there is ample O2 in the tank at night. This may be somewhat counter productive, but I sure don't want to gas my fish.
Although I get a pretty steady stream of micro bubbles from the elite, after seeing a Youtube, I'm thinking of putting a sponge (fluval pre-filter) over the outlet to see if there might be an even better infusion into the water (the bubble although tiny seem to rise to the surface quickly). Then again, perhaps I'm over thinking it.

Thoughts appreciated.


----------



## Progen (Oct 31, 2016)

I got a nice dual stage regulator off eBay last month, free CO2 from a friend's pub and am never looking back! :-D


----------



## Econde (Oct 13, 2015)

In all honesty, I too just went pressurized Just like Maryland Guppy. I found that after a long run with the DIY, it wasn't cost effective for me. I ended up going the paintball tank and a really cheaply made regulator that I run 24/7 at what appears to be 2bubbles per second. I don't even use an airstone at night. I monitor my fish every morning and every evening to make sure they aren't gasping for air. 

I found it tedious remixing every other container every week to keep the c02 consistent. If you don't mind all that, then by all means, more power to you!


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Not sure how those hagen filters are made, but "pre-diffusing" the co2 using a piece of a chopstick, or a cotton ball stuffed tightly into the line helps alot. The impleller works against small bubbles instead of big ones, better diffusion, and it's quieter. 

Here's when I was using a powerhead along with diy co2, in the end of the line is a piece of regular cotton ball. 












Thread I did on a couple of my DIY set ups, may offer you some additional food for thought.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/2...-others-build-thread-performance-reports.html


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

This is interesting! - I placed the fluval pre-filter over the Elite outlet and there were few if any bubbles rising. I pulled the sponge back off and bubbles were there as before. 
Not sure how to interpret. Is the gas better infused...or not at all?


----------



## Econde (Oct 13, 2015)

AbbeysDad said:


> This is interesting! - I placed the fluval pre-filter over the Elite outlet and there were few if any bubbles rising. I pulled the sponge back off and bubbles were there as before.
> Not sure how to interpret. Is the gas better infused...or not at all?


Hmm I'm not sure. I think it would just get trapped in the foam, accumulate and dissipate upwards. But then again, if the foam keeps the c02 bubbles in there for longer then it might be working.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Update: After a time I began seeing like a mist of super tiny micro bubbles rise above the fluval sponge so I believe the sponge is working to even further diffuse the co2!

But now here's a catch 22... By adding CO2, it follows that an increase in ferts is called for. So will any subsequent plant growth be because of the CO2 or the increase in ferts? <rhetorical unless the plants jump out of the tank - lol>



Econde said:


> Hmm I'm not sure. I think it would just get trapped in the foam, accumulate and dissipate upwards. But then again, if the foam keeps the c02 bubbles in there for longer then it might be working.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Measure pH to see if it is performing well.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

@burr740 - Thank-you for the link to your thread which I've now read. I quite like what you did with check valves and running separate lines to the bubble check bottle. I think I will copy, except that I'll be using the two 4 liter Lock&Lock containers instead of bottles. That may make mine a bit more inconsistent than 4 bottles, but should still work.

Bump: Update #2: A couple of hours after adding the fluval sponge to the Elite I had fish gulping air at the surface!? Perhaps the CO2 is much better diffused than it was before?
I turned on the bubble bar air pump just to be safe. The fish returned to normal after a few minutes. I guess I'll leave the bubble bar on low. I was gonna just use it at night.


----------



## natemcnutty (May 26, 2016)

AbbeysDad said:


> @burr740 - Thank-you for the link to your thread which I've now read. I quite like what you did with check valves and running separate lines to the bubble check bottle. I think I will copy, except that I'll be using the two 4 liter Lock&Lock containers instead of bottles. That may make mine a bit more inconsistent than 4 bottles, but should still work.
> 
> Bump: Update #2: A couple of hours after adding the fluval sponge to the Elite I had fish gulping air at the surface!? Perhaps the CO2 is much better diffused than it was before?
> I turned on the bubble bar air pump just to be safe. The fish returned to normal after a few minutes. I guess I'll leave the bubble bar on low. I was gonna just use it at night.


If less CO2 is now reaching the top and gassing off (more efficient), then you'd want to reduce your input a bit to account for less waste. That's why reactors are so great in that there is less wasted CO2 which lets your tank last longer 

I do find it interesting that the prefiler sponge is working well as I've tried this before and just had it get trapped and then bubble out the path of least resistance. Probably has to do with size of pores (used a fairly fine sponge).


----------



## Progen (Oct 31, 2016)

AbbeysDad said:


> But now here's a catch 22... By adding CO2, it follows that an increase in ferts is called for. So will any subsequent plant growth be because of the CO2 or the increase in ferts? <rhetorical unless the plants jump out of the tank - lol>


Both are dependant on the other.

It's just like working out HARD at the gym. You don't work out hard, you don't need protein supplementation. You take protein but don't work out hard, you're wasting all that good stuff.

Increase fertilisation without CO2 supplementation and adequate lighting (this is assuming your plants need or can do with more) is just a waste of time, money and algae. Swap around the three factors and you'll end up with the same result.

You'll probably see fast gains when you first introduce CO2 but without adequate lighting and fertilisation, you'll hit a plateau and algae pretty fast too.

I know. I'm at the algae stage now. :-D


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Your gym analogy is cute, but I'm in my 60's now so I do power napping! <hehe>

I had a well established tank and then planted heavily. I'm thinking there was a stockpile of nutrients as the plants grew really well with modest ferts. As the plant mass increased and the stockpile diminished, the plants continued to look 'okay', but appeared to almost stop growing. At the same time I got a case of black beard algae from some Vals from ebay (Vals now removed). So I'm dosing with Excel, increased ferts (Flourish Comp/Trace) and added the DIY CO2. I'm running the Finnex Planted+ 24/7 in 24/7 mode, so I could increase the light...but since plants did so well for so long w/o it, I'm holding off. I was shooting for a minimalist low tech 'Nearly Natural Eco-System' and hope to get back to that at some point.



Progen said:


> Both are dependant on the other.
> 
> It's just like working out HARD at the gym. You don't work out hard, you don't need protein supplementation. You take protein but don't work out hard, you're wasting all that good stuff.
> 
> ...


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Based on what I've read, I think my 4L mix should last about 3 weeks or a bit longer. With this in mind (unless the BPS slows down before) I'll add my 2nd 4L mix at about the 2-3 week mark. (I'll have to adjust the swap schedule relative to bubble decline but I may be swapping at the 3 week mark [time will tell]).

I also think the recipe might be adjusted (less yeast) to:
4c sugar
1 tsp baking soda
1 tsp yeast
~4L water

My first batch turned out well so I'll repeat:
I put the 4c sugar and the baking soda in the container. Then filled 3/4 full with hot tap water (120F) and mixed until the sugar dissolved. I added cool water to get the level up and the temperature down to 95F - 110F. Added the yeast and mixed well. Let stand a few minutes and mixed again. I topped off with luke warm water to within an inch or so of the top. Capped off.


----------



## Econde (Oct 13, 2015)

AbbeysDad said:


> Based on what I've read, I think my 4L mix should last about 3 weeks or a bit longer. With this in mind (unless the BPS slows down before) I'll add my 2nd 4L mix at about the 2-3 week mark. (I'll have to adjust the swap schedule relative to bubble decline but I may be swapping at the 3 week mark [time will tell]).
> 
> I also think the recipe might be adjusted (less yeast) to:
> 4c sugar
> ...


It also depends on the ambient temperature of your home. The warmer it is, the faster the mixture will react and basically fizzle out. The colder it is, the slower the reaction and essentially can last longer. But as long as your rotate them out before the last week, you shouldn't have a problem with it.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Econde said:


> It also depends on the ambient temperature of your home. The warmer it is, the faster the mixture will react and basically fizzle out. The colder it is, the slower the reaction and essentially can last longer. But as long as your rotate them out before the last week, you shouldn't have a problem with it.


The canisters will be in the cabinet, under the aquarium in the living room. The temperature is usually room temp 70-72F (give or take) year round.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Following @burr740's lead, I made another bubble check bottle with two inputs with chk valves. I find that using an under sized drill bit and cutting the air tubing on an angle, I can force the tubing through the cap and it self seals.
Prolly be another week or so until I add this and the second 4L container.

Follow-up: Altough I think the self seal would likely be fine, as an added measure, I put some Max 1 (German super glue) around the airline tubes to ensure they were sealed against to cap.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

*The adventure continues...*

This morning there were few, if any, micro bubbles - the bubble count was down to 1 every 2-3 seconds. I elected to go ahead and mix the 2nd 4L canister (see photo of new setup). This time I only used 1 tsp of yeast, so I expect it will be slow to produce and hopefully long lasting...time will tell.
After some playing around (and before the 2nd canister began producing CO2), I got micro bubbles to come back. I think it was an issue with the check valve to the tank.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Be sure to leak check every connection. I like using the bubble solution made for kids to play with, soapy water works too.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

AbbeysDad said:


> Update: After a time I began seeing like a mist of super tiny micro bubbles rise above the fluval sponge so I believe the sponge is working to even further diffuse the co2!
> 
> But now here's a catch 22... By adding CO2, it follows that an increase in ferts is called for. So will any subsequent plant growth be because of the CO2 or the increase in ferts? <rhetorical unless the plants jump out of the tank - lol>


Any increase in plant growth will be a result of both the CO2 and the added nutrients, but without the CO2 you wouldn't get anything from the added nutrients.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Hoppy said:


> Any increase in plant growth will be a result of both the CO2 and the added nutrients, but without the CO2 you wouldn't get anything from the added nutrients.


I planted a well established tank and for 6 months the plants grew like weeds with minimal ferts...the plant mass increased and then the growth stalled. I could make the case that if I increased the ferts, the plants could resume the growth they showed for those 6 months, with or without CO2 (that they didn't have before). Of course, adding CO2, more ferts and more light and they should take off again.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Well after 24+ hours, my 2nd batch isn't generating any CO2...but I used just 1 tsp and proofed the yeast separately in a small bowl. Since my first batch is still going strong, I'll wait until later in the week (original plan - 2 week mark) then heat up the mix to 100-110F and add 2 tsp yeast and mix well (like the first batch that has performed well, except that was with a whole pkg of yeast).


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Sounds like either a leak, or you killed the yeast with too much heat during the proofing phase.

Look closely at the mixture. If you can see tiny micro bubbles popping at the surface then there's probably a leak in the system. If there's no micro bubbling then the yeast is probably no good


My money is on a leak.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

burr740 said:


> Sounds like either a leak, or you killed the yeast with too much heat during the proofing phase.
> 
> Look closely at the mixture. If you can see tiny micro bubbles popping at the surface then there's probably a leak in the system. If there's no micro bubbling then the yeast is probably no good
> 
> My money is on a leak.


The proofing water was 100F and as I recall, yeast can handle 95F - 115F for proofing. It was foaming, but maybe I didn't wait long enough. Also, I just dumped into the wort, but didn't mix in?

Have you ever added the yeast to room temperature sugar/water mix? (wondering if I really need to heat it all up or just do a new proof and dump in.

(In the meantime, I'll double check for any bubbles and/or leaking.)

UPDATE: Okay at first I thought I had some slight activity, but after tapping around the container to release bubbles adhering to the sides, there is seemingly nothing going on in there.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Im no expert on the finer points of yeast but it's my understanding that "Instant" yeast doesnt need proofing, "Active" yeast does.

I always proofed the yeast in a small bowl while making up the other mixture. As long as it was foaming pretty good after 5-10 minutes, I never worried about the particulars. 

Once having the sugar and water mixed in the main container, then I'd just pour the yeast mix directly on top, and not shake or anything further after that.

Not sure if that's significant or not, it's just what I did.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Well this is your basic off the supermarket shelf Fleischmann's Active Dry Yeast for baking. I expect it needs proofing, although if the mix is 95F - 115F, you could just dump & mix in the generator container (which is what I did for the 1st batch I made (that's been working well [although mucho yeast]).


----------



## Econde (Oct 13, 2015)

AbbeysDad said:


> Well this is your basic off the supermarket shelf Fleischmann's Active Dry Yeast for baking. I expect it needs proofing, although if the mix is 95F - 115F, you could just dump & mix in the generator container (which is what I did for the 1st batch I made (that's been working well [although mucho yeast]).


I would whisk a cup of warm water, 1 tablespoon of sugar and 1 tspn of Fleischmann's Active Dry Yeast. Whisk it every so often for the next 5 or so minutes til its bubbly and then pour it into the rest of the mix. This method always worked great for me. I've never tried just adding the yeast into the mix like you mentioned.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

My 2¢
95-100F for everything.
dissolve sugar in 95-100
1/4 cup of 95-100 and stir yeast until none is left floating and water is really murky, 2 minutes maybe?
Dump the yeast & 1/4 cup in with sugar and shake once to distribute.

Bubbles in 6-10 hours usually.

I have never had a package of yeast that was bad per say.
Cannot count how many bottles made just this way.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

It seems to me that if the sugar, baking soda, water is mixed at say 100F, then you could just add the yeast and mix well. Wait a few minutes and mix again - should be good to go with no need to proof separately as it 'proofs' right in the container. 
A reason to proof separately would be say if the mix was at room temperature (which might make for a longer lasting mix as perhaps the sugar consumption by the yeast is slower at lower temperatures?)...Then again, it prolly doesn't take long for a mix at 100F ish to get to room temp.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

This morning it seemed was clear that my original batch bubbles had slowed way down (1 day short of the 2 week mark). I took my failed batch and heated it on the stove to 110F. After reading some posts (other forums) about the merit of protein powers in the mix (enhancing the performance of the yeast in both bubble count and mix longevity). I added a scoop of 'Organic Greens' to the mix along with a tsp+ of yeast. I mixed well, waited a few minutes and mixed again.
Now the 'Organic Greens' is a dietary supplement with many attributes, but not really a protein powder per se so we'll see what it does in the mix performance.

Within 30 minutes or so, the mix was generating 3+ BPS CO2. I Opened the relief valve slightly to slow it down some. This quick and high rate of production may likely result in reduced run life, but time will tell for sure. I left the 1st container attached until it's totally exhausted.

Later tonight....due to the continued high performance of the new batch, I disconnected for the night and will reconnect in the morning.
I don't know if the high rate of CO2 is too much yeast or adding the supplement.


----------



## Econde (Oct 13, 2015)

That is interesting. It probably will run out sooner. But who knows. 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Well, after two days the output was still 3-4 BPS while my other container was still yielding a bubble every 2-3 seconds. For the sake of the fish, I disconnected it last night and stepped up the bubble bar to provide more O2 for the gasping fish.
This morning I decided to dump it and start a new batch that would hopefully yield a slower bps, and long lasting yield. (I think I'd rather see 1-2bps)

This recipe:
4c sugar (1lb, 11oz)
1 tsp baking soda
1 tbls organic supplement
4~L water 100F
1 tsp baking yeast


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> For the sake of the fish, I disconnected it last night and stepped up the bubble bar to provide more O2 for the gasping fish.


Have you measured pH in tank vs. de-gassed sample to determine CO2 levels?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Have you measured pH in tank vs. de-gassed sample to determine CO2 levels?


Not exactly, but I just tested the tank and my filtered (well) tap.
Colors are tough - tank is a very light green (6.6~) while the tap is a very light blue/green (7.2~). I saved the tank sample and will test again later/tomorrow (unless there's a way to degas quicker?). This concerns me a little (as in perhaps too much CO2 in the tank), but I suppose the tank water could be more acidic than my source water. (I prolly should order one of those drop checker kits).


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> (unless there's a way to degas quicker?).
> 
> (I prolly should order one of those drop checker kits).


Air stone in a sample for 30 minutes = de-gassed usually.

pH pen and 7.0 calibration solution would maybe be a better investment.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Use a PH pen


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

burr740 said:


> Use a PH pen


Many choices, some inexpensive, others not so much...
What about one like this:


https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Calibration-Compact-Balance-Aquarium/dp/B01LWMJVPG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483205500&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=ph+pen&psc=1


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Degassed looks like 6.8 - 7.0 (more like 6.8), making a .2 - .4 difference (call it .2). Will be getting a digital meter as I feel that the API liquid test / color chart is just to iffy.

So is .2 difference okay or what do we shoot for?


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Your Amazon link is the same one I have.

.2 is not much and should surely not bother your fish.
A 1.0 drop in pH is about 30ppm of CO2

(pH de-gassed - pH in tank)*30 = CO2 ppm roughly.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> Many choices, some inexpensive, others not so much...
> What about one like this:
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Cali...1483205500&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=ph+pen&psc=1


Something like that is fine. 

As MG said, a full 1 point drop is what most people shoot for, minimum. This equals roughly 30 ppm. Of course 10-15 ppm is better than none. 

The main thing is to keep it stable, meaning the same every day. This will be especially challenging with diy.

It's much better to have a constant 15 ppm instead of 30 for a few days, then 20 as the mix slows down, then 10...then back up to 30, etc.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Thanks for the info.
I ordered the digital pH meter.

Since pH drop (CO2 level) wasn't that much, I'm curious why some fish seemed to be gulping/gasping at the surface.

(I continue to turn the bubble bar on/off as needed (on at night time when plants stop using CO2).

Footnote: New batch is releasing bubbles, but very curious...old batch will release a bubble, stop, new batch will release 3 bubbles, stop, old batch release a bubble, new batch 3 bubbles...repeats. It's as though the pressure from one restricts the other...not sure why this is...but I have also ordered some new check valves as these valves seem to require a bit of pressure to pass through.



Maryland Guppy said:


> Your Amazon link is the same one I have.
> .2 is not much and should surely not bother your fish.
> A 1.0 drop in pH is about 30ppm of CO2
> (pH de-gassed - pH in tank)*30 = CO2 ppm roughly.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

burr740 said:


> The main thing is to keep it stable, meaning the same every day. This will be especially challenging with diy.
> It's much better to have a constant 15 ppm instead of 30 for a few days, then 20 as the mix slows down, then 10...then back up to 30, etc.


I'm hopeful that I can stagger the two 4L containers such that there is a constant steady CO2 supply.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Check for leaks. Even the check valves themselves, should be fairly easy to submerge them in a bowl of water (judging from the earlier pic)


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

burr740 said:


> Check for leaks. Even the check valves themselves, should be fairly easy to submerge them in a bowl of water (judging from the earlier pic)


I don't think it's leakage, but rather back pressure created by the check valves - when I remove a check valve, a release of pressure can be heard/felt. I have temporarily replaced the check valves going to the bubble bottle with turn valves. Now bubbles are acting more 'normal'. I'll put new chk valves back on after they arrive.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

My original mix/batch (with the full pkg of yeast) has stopped producing bubbles (2 week mark). On the up side, the new mix/batch (mixed yesterday) is producing about 1 bps (and I think this recipe will be better and perhaps last longer). 

With the combination of Excel, CO2, more ferts and more light, the plants are definitely responding... albeit a shotgun method going from low tech to medium tech.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

Excel? Still needed or are you treating algae?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Excel? Still needed or are you treating algae?


I got stung with what appeared to be a good deal on ebay for Jungle Val that brought with it Black Beard Algae! I ripped out all the Jungle Val but am still fighting some BBA ....on the up side, after about a week or so it's clearly dying off so I should be able to reduce/stop using soon (knock wood).


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

It's 'funny'...when you get into something like this DIY CO2 and research it, you dig up all sorts of stuff....

-> One fellow suggests that the container and mix should be sterilized with boiling water as bacteria can kill the yeast.
-> One fellow uses champagne yeast and 100% fruit juice instead of sugar to both make CO2 and a hobo wine of sorts.
-> Another fellow adds sugar to apple cider, w/brewers yeast and makes CO2 and apple cider 'wine' (I'd call it "hard cider").
-> One fellow adds protein powder thinking that the yeast will use the added nutrients in addition to the sugar when fermenting.
-> One fellow adds starch (flour, potato or corn starch) to feed the yeast.
-> One fellow adds a cap of Flourish Comp (same reasoning as above).
-> An article suggests that supplements work in an aerobic (yeast mix) environment but not in an anaerobic environment that we create on our DIY CO2 generators. (This is not unlike 'feeding' a sourdough starter).
-> One fellow uses gelatin (or Jello) in the mix with the sugar. He sets the gelatin mix in the fridge, then brings to room temp. He proofs the yeast in a cup of warm water (with sugar), then adds on top of the jello mix. He indicates that the gelatin slows the yeast down making a more consistent and longer lasting mix of up to 4 weeks...and you can see the mix change as the gelatinized sugar depletes.
-> some debate over the merit of using baking soda. More important with source water with lower kH.

A couple of things seem very clear in my research:
-> Less yeast makes for a lower CO2 output over a longer period. More yeast makes for a higher CO2 output for a shorter period.
-> Bakers yeast works fine, but brewers yeast will make for a longer lasting mix as it holds up to alcohol better (alcohol kills yeast). Champagne yeast is even better. 

It's all interesting stuff, but I guess we have to do our own experiments to 'separate the wheat from the chaff'. I might consider the sterilization process and maybe even the gelatin to see if either really makes a difference. 

Based on my current bubble output of 1 bps, I think 1 tsp yeast is about right for my 4L (1 gal) mix. Since this 2nd batch has less yeast than the 1st batch (1 tsp vs. 1 pkg), I'll be interested to see how long it will last before the bps falls off.


----------



## The Big Buddha (Jul 30, 2012)

It's great seeing people doing the DIY method, myself I could never get it to a stable point even running multiple containers. I always fought algae due to inconsistent co2 levels. Once I went pressurized I realized how much time and money I had wasted in my attempts of going DIY.
Congrats to those who have success with the DIY co2, but after going pressurized I regret every penny and second I wasted trying the DIY route. Nothing more frustrating than spending more time and money, than the cost of just buying the better equipment from the get go.
Just my experience with co2 though. I still love DIY projects, nothing beats the feeling of great success after DIY.

.


----------



## jrill (Nov 20, 2013)

The way I see it, for say a 20 gal tank and under you can save money going diy. My choice in diy is citric acid and baking soda. Any bigger than 20 then pressure is a better choice.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I'm just dipping my toe in CO2...ran fine (low tech) for 8 months w/o it. 
As far as cost, I already had the containers. I spent about $10 on the Elite filter (diffuser) and another $5-$10 on tubing and check valves (although they were on hand already as well). Time for projects I enjoy is free. So the cost is in sugar and yeast which is a pretty low cost to 'play' with CO2. So I spent $25 or so to add DIY CO2 to the tank. I'd have to spend around $150~? ish for a pressure system (that I'm not sure I'd use long term).

I think with a good recipe, decent schedule, and good diffusion, alternating two 4L canisters could yield a fairly stable CO2 output - at a cost of 4c of sugar and a tsp of yeast every 2 weeks. Will it be sufficient for a 60g? Some would argue 'no', but then again, I'm not really shooting for top shelf high tech and any CO2 increase is bound to be beneficial assuming light and ferts are in line.

Time will tell.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> Will it be sufficient for a 60g? Some would argue 'no', but then again, I'm not really shooting for top shelf high tech and any CO2 increase is bound to be beneficial assuming light and ferts are in line.


10-15ppm of CO2 would help any planted tank!
Up the lighting and the game changes.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

If we don't add CO2, our tanks are running on about 3 ppm of CO2 from the atmospheric CO2. If we add 3 ppm of CO2 to those tanks we have doubled the CO2 available to the plants. That is a significant change. If we add 5-10 ppm of CO2, it is a major addition. With less than high light you can get very obvious benefits from just 5-10 ppm of added CO2. I have done this with my 65 gallon tank, and was amazed by how much better the plants did.

It is possible that CO2 levels below 30 ppm can encourage BBA. I haven't yet proved that to myself, either positive or negative. So, that is a potential downside to using low levels of added CO2. But, I have no doubt at all that using DIY CO2 on larger tanks, and getting only around 5-10 ppm of CO2 from it, greatly improves plant growth, and is well worth the effort *if you don't have high light*.


----------



## Econde (Oct 13, 2015)

AbbeysDad said:


> I'm just dipping my toe in CO2...ran fine (low tech) for 8 months w/o it.
> As far as cost, I already had the containers. I spent about $10 on the Elite filter (diffuser) and another $5-$10 on tubing and check valves (although they were on hand already as well). Time for projects I enjoy is free. So the cost is in sugar and yeast which is a pretty low cost to 'play' with CO2. So I spent $25 or so to add DIY CO2 to the tank. I'd have to spend around $150~? ish for a pressure system (that I'm not sure I'd use long term).
> 
> I think with a good recipe, decent schedule, and good diffusion, alternating two 4L canisters could yield a fairly stable CO2 output - at a cost of 4c of sugar and a tsp of yeast every 2 weeks. Will it be sufficient for a 60g? Some would argue 'no', but then again, I'm not really shooting for top shelf high tech and any CO2 increase is bound to be beneficial assuming light and ferts are in line.
> ...


I use a very low tech pressurized c02. 
Paintball ASA valve, brass needle valve from home depot, bubble counter from eBay. Then I use a cheap sunsun power head l and empire 24oz paintball cylinder. After all said and done, I spent about 50-60. Its not very elegant, but it gets the job done. I check my pH using the api master test kit. 

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Hoppy said:


> If we don't add CO2, our tanks are running on about 3 ppm of CO2 from the atmospheric CO2. If we add 3 ppm of CO2 to those tanks we have doubled the CO2 available to the plants. That is a significant change. If we add 5-10 ppm of CO2, it is a major addition. With less than high light you can get very obvious benefits from just 5-10 ppm of added CO2. I have done this with my 65 gallon tank, and was amazed by how much better the plants did.
> 
> It is possible that CO2 levels below 30 ppm can encourage BBA. I haven't yet proved that to myself, either positive or negative. So, that is a potential downside to using low levels of added CO2. But, I have no doubt at all that using DIY CO2 on larger tanks, and getting only around 5-10 ppm of CO2 from it, greatly improves plant growth, and is well worth the effort *if you don't have high light*.


Good to know there is DIY success with larger tanks (like my 60g). As I mentioned previously, the [admittedly shotgun] addition of Excel (fighting BBA), DIY CO2, increased ferts, and slightly increased light is showing excellent results - no question. I'll soon be cutting back some, but so far, I like what I'm seeing!


----------



## theatermusic87 (Jun 22, 2014)

Something i've discovered as I recently started diy co2 (around thanksgiving so around a month) is that if you use the citric acid and baking soda kit lids https://www.amazon.com/DIY-CO2-Aquarium-Plant-System/dp/B008CUZJF6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483408028&sr=8-1&keywords=diy+co2 only you use it with yeast and sugar, that you can use the "needle valve" to control how much co2 you're adding and in my case it stores a sizeable amount under pressure and it lasts a week to a week and a half before i swap out 1 of 3 bottles.

I also am following the hooch method of diy co2 (my intrest is not in plant growth but what concoctions i can brew up lol) from this thread here so far it's actually fairly decent. Not sure if i'm going to keep it up long term, but in the process I'm getting some beverages and decently accelerated plant growth

If you're into measuring how much co2 you're actually diffusing into the water, besides using the ph drop method you can do a diy drop checker solution of various kh levels (the standard one is 4) and use the chart from this thread for comparison to measure lower levels of co2


----------



## GrampsGrunge (Jun 18, 2012)

I've got Fleischmann's Yeast  but I've wanted to try out some Champagne Yeast and actually have something I can drink after the yeast has finished it's job making CO2. :laugh2:


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I think the 'hobo wine' approach is interesting, but I just never acquired a taste for wine. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a beer (or two) with supper, but I guess I just lack the sophisticated/refined pallet for wine....On the other hand, I might be tempted down the road to use a similar approach to make some hard apple cider! I see there's a special yeast available for cider. Not sure for a 4L container how much sugar to use with the cider - I'm thinking 3 cups instead of 4? But for now, I'll just shoot for a stable, long lasting mix to alternate the two canisters and provide a constant CO2 delivery to the tank.

Current Recipe for 4L (1g) canister:

4c (1lb, 12oz) Sugar
1 tsp Baking Soda
1 tsp yeast
4L~ water

Update: I just ordered some Red Star Champagne yeast that's supposed to hold up longer to the alcohol.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I replaced all three check valves with new Jardin check valves. When I blow through these new valves to test, they seem less restrictive than the previous chk valves.

The red star champagne yeast arrived. I'm anxious to start a new mix which I just may do a few days ahead of schedule as I see my bubble count is slowing down just a bit to 1 bubble every 2~3 seconds.

Update: I mixed the new batch. I proofed the (1 tsp) champagne yeast separate from the sugar/water mix. It looked good and activated so I poured in and lightly mixed. After testing for over an hour, I'd only get a bubble every 10+ seconds. Hmm. I proofed another 1 tsp of the champagne yeast and added to the mix. Still no joy on the bubble yield test. I heated the mix to 105F, poured back in the canister and added 1/2 tsp bread yeast. The subsequent testing was good at nearly 1 bps. I've got to let this play out but I'm toying with the idea of using 1/2 tsp champagne yeast and 1/2 tsp bread yeast for short/long term CO2 production. My thinking is that as the alcohol kills off the bread yeast, the champagne yeast will keep producing CO2 for a while longer....But I'll need to give the champagne yeast another trial alone just to rule out a batch fluke this time.
Just now I noticed that the new batch was generating about 3 bps and the old batch bubbles had suddenly stopped. I vented the new batch canister so only 1bps was produced and the old batch began producing bubbles again. I guess if one batch is over pressuring the bubble bottle, the other stops.....interesting.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

By the next day, the new mix (Container #1) was generating 3-4 bps. In addition to the other batch (#2) that was still producing 1 bubble every 2 seconds, I felt this was way to fast, delivering too much to the tank (or vent and lose it) and wouldn't last very long. I took it off line, put in a pot and boiled for 5 min to sterilize and kill the yeast. I let cool to 105F and added 1 tsp of champagne yeast and mixed. I setup for a bubble test and did not see any bubbles after an hour or two! Not sure what the deal is with this champagne yeast! It proofs fine, but just doesn't seem to produce gas in the canister like bread yeast. I proofed a 1/2 tsp of bread yeast and added to the mix. Within an hour I was getting 1-2bps so hooked into the system. 
I think moving forward I will be using 1/2 tsp champagne yeast and 1/2 tsp bread yeast in my mix. The bread yeast seems to generate better consistent gas early on, but will likely be killed off when the alcohol increases. The champagne yeast is slow to generate CO2, but should live longer at higher levels of alcohol. An on-going experiment I guess.


----------



## theatermusic87 (Jun 22, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> By the next day, the new mix (Container #1) was generating 3-4 bps. In addition to the other batch (#2) that was still producing 1 bubble every 2 seconds, I felt this was way to fast, delivering too much to the tank (or vent and lose it) and wouldn't last very long. I took it off line, put in a pot and boiled for 5 min to sterilize and kill the yeast. I let cool to 105F and added 1 tsp of champagne yeast and mixed. I setup for a bubble test and did not see any bubbles after an hour or two! Not sure what the deal is with this champagne yeast! It proofs fine, but just doesn't seem to produce gas in the canister like bread yeast. I proofed a 1/2 tsp of bread yeast and added to the mix. Within an hour I was getting 1-2bps so hooked into the system.
> I think moving forward I will be using 1/2 tsp champagne yeast and 1/2 tsp bread yeast in my mix. The bread yeast seems to generate better consistent gas early on, but will likely be killed off when the alcohol increases. The champagne yeast is slow to generate CO2, but should live longer at higher levels of alcohol. An on-going experiment I guess.


Please let us know how a mix of yeast works for you, might be a bit of a solution to the length of time it produces drawback with yeast co2


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

theatermusic87 said:


> Please let us know how a mix of yeast works for you, might be a bit of a solution to the length of time it produces drawback with yeast co2


Yes I will. My first batch (whole pkg of bread yeast) lasted just 2 weeks and my 2nd batch only about the same (I expected 3+ weeks from a 4L mix. Given a standard sugar mix (1c per liter) we conclude that more yeast produces a higher bps for a shorter duration and less yeast produces a lower bps for a longer period. But then there's temperature and the alcohol factor. I've also read that there may be value in sterilizing the mix before adding the yeast so I will likely boil the water, mix the sugar and cool to 105F~ and add the yeast.
As for temperature, after I test the 50/50 yeast mix, I just might try using a heat mat (same as used for starting plants) under the canisters to determine the effect. This could take the mix 10F+ above room temperature. Then again, this may just make the yeast slightly more active resulting in a slightly higher bps for a shorter period.
I've read about using raw sugar, molasses along with sugar, corn starch in the mix, as well as using a gelatin mix. I'm not sure how far I want to experiment with these.

The objective of course is to maintain a steady 1bps bubble count for as long as possible. With some overlap of the two containers, this should provide a fairly stable delivery of CO2.

I also need to experiment with my bubble bar at night. I've been running in from midnight to 6am for fear of gassing the fish at night. This may be counter productive in the the little CO2 being added is off gassed every night. Perhaps I'll cut back the time the air pump is on and see what happens?

Then on the tank side, there's the question of light and ferts - I think my head will soon explode! lol


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Canister #2 quit producing on Friday so I prepped a new mix today...

4c sugar (1lb. 12oz)
1 tsp baking soda
1/2 tsp bread yeast
1/2 tsp champagne yeast
4L (1g)~ sterilized water

I boiled the water for 5 minutes to sterilize. I let it cool to about 120F then mixed into the canister with the sugar. I prepped each of the yeasts separately in about 1/2 - 1 cup or so of the boiled water (cooled to @105F) and a tsp of sugar. I let proof until the sugar/water mix had cooled to about 100F. Both proofs looked very active so I lightly mixed into the batch.
I hooked into the system, but after a couple of hours there were no bubbles. When I disconnected from the check valve there was a pressure release. The check valve had stuck so I replaced. After a bit I started getting about 1 bps (about the same as canister #1).
We'll see how long these last.

Note: I do not know if sterilizing the water makes a difference, but in my research, some felt it was important. I have untreated well water and there could be some type(s) of bacteria that might negatively impact the yeast and since sterilizing the water can't hurt, I thought why not do it as a precaution?


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Mix #1 stopped producing CO2, again at the 2 week mark. Mix #2 is just past the 1 week mark and going strong. This (#2 mix) was the reboiled mix. I prepped a new mix, but by morning it [still] wasn't producing any bubbles. I disconnected and got a slight pressure release. I went ahead and heated the mix on the stove to 100F, xfered back to the canister, and added 1/2 tsp bread yeast directly to the mix, waited a bit and then stirred in. I left on the counter until it began producing bubbles in a glass of water, then I hooked into the system. After a couple of hours, it was/is producing very well.
I was thinking that for the mix volume (4L/1g) I should get about 3 weeks...especially with the champagne yeast potentially lasting longer. Then again, in some regards, a longer use life may be a lower bubble output. The experimenting continues. When I proof the yeasts, the bread yeast seems more active/aggressive then the champagne yeast. Moving forward, I may try 1 tsp champagne yeast to 1/2 tsp bread yeast. (Although, in spite of what I've read, I'm not yet convinced that the champagne yeast really lives any longer than bread yeast).

*Plant response*:
First I should mention that I backed off on the Excel (as the BBA fight is nearly won [knock on wood]) and I'm now leaving the light (Finnex Planted+ 24/7) in 24/7 mode as for a time I was putting on max from 10am - 3/4pm. I'm a bit 'wishy washy' as to run 24/7 or not - time will tell.
I have maintained a slightly increased dose of Seachem Flourish Comprehensive. When I do my 20g WWC, I add two capfuls of flourish, then another cap during the week. I also mix/add a tsp or two of Seachem Equilibrium as my filtered well water could stand the extra minerals.

- The wisteria has sprung to life with thicker stems, broader leaves, and is growing bushier and taller.
- The amazon swords are also growing taller with broader leaves.
- The dwarf sag was quite small and almost dormant, and is now growing much larger.

I attribute the enhanced growth to both the increased ferts as well as the CO2 (and perhaps the period that I boosted the lighting).


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> I have maintained a slightly increased dose of Seachem Flourish Comprehensive.
> 
> I attribute the enhanced growth to both the increased ferts as well as the CO2 (and perhaps the period that I boosted the lighting).


Now, do you need to make a choice, moving to the hi-tech side of things?
Don't forget the N,P,K requirements or deficiencies will start.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

I tried wine yeast one time. It didnt produce as much as the regular (using an equal amount) 

Not sure if it would've lasted any longer or not. I had like 6 bottles running at the time, and the system was pretty dialed in. I wasnt really in a mood to experiment so I only used it for one cycle in two bottles.

@AbbeysDad , are you sure those containers are leak proof? They look suspect. The smallest seepage anywhere will throw the whole system out of whack.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Now, do you need to make a choice, moving to the hi-tech side of things?
> Don't forget the N,P,K requirements or deficiencies will start.


I really like the surrealism of the dawn to dusk/moonlight of 24/7 mode. I run 24/7 mode from 6am to midnight. To go to high tech, I'd need to run the light in max for say 6 hours or so.
So right now, I'll hang in what I'd call medium tech - low tech with DIY CO2 and slightly increased ferts. I think this will give me better plant growth, but still hold on to the plus side of low tech. It's looking good so far.
But I do have the down range option.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

burr740 said:


> I tried wine yeast one time. It didnt produce as much as the regular (using an equal amount)
> 
> Not sure if it would've lasted any longer or not. I had like 6 bottles running at the time, and the system was pretty dialed in. I wasn't really in a mood to experiment so I only used it for one cycle in two bottles.
> 
> @AbbeysDad , are you sure those containers are leak proof? They look suspect. The smallest seepage anywhere will throw the whole system out of whack.


Well so far I'm also seeing that the champagne yeast is not as 'potent' as bread yeast. I've seen claims that it lives longer at higher levels of alcohol, but then I've also seen reports that suggest it doesn't last any longer than bread yeast. I'm going to keep using it at least until it's gone, but I'll still also keep using the bread yeast...and may just end up using bread yeast.

I had previously used these Lock & Lock canisters as a filter filled with Matrix/DeNitrate (attempting to culture anaerobic bacteria) and they were consistently water tight. (you will see from the link they are rated to be air tight). 

In this setup I have also seen on two occasions where the check valve stuck so back pressure built up (when I removed the tube from the check valve there was a large CO2 gas release, which wouldn't be the case if they leaked). I may eventually need to use an 'O' ring lubricant/sealant around the seal, but so far this seems unnecessary.

Note: I seem to have a challenge with the check valves sticking (or restricting flow) between the mix canisters and the bubble bottle (and perhaps the bubble bottle and the tank). It may not be the chk valve sticking...I'm seeing a pressure buildup in the bubble bottle that causes water to be pushed up the disconnected tube (to outside the bottle but not to the chk valve). When the new mix is hooked up, I think a fair amount of pressure is required to push the water out.
Another curious observation: The time I used too much yeast in one container. the other had been producing 1 bps. This new mix was doing 3-4 bps and the resulting pressure in the bubble bottle caused the other to create back pressure in that line ans stop the bubbles. If I disconnected the new mix, the old mix would produce excessive bubbles for several seconds...as if the one side over pressured and shut down the other. So why is pressure building up in the bubble bottle? Unless there's back pressure in the line to the tank???

Footnote: I believe there is some slight back pressure in the line to the tank. I notice that the Elite meters out the CO2, but if I lower the Elite any lower in the tank, CO2 flow will stop. If one container over produces CO2, the back pressure will increase in the bubble bottle such that the chk valve on the other container will stop the CO2 flow (which then builds back pressure in that canister). Then when the pressure is released, the CO2 flow equalizes.

With the two canisters producing about 1bps, the tank becomes a mass of tiny micro-bubbles. I decided to put the pre-filter sponge back over the Elite output to filter/reduce the bubbles. I think this might also make for even better diffusion as the tiny bubbles are forced with water pressure against the inside of the foam chamber.


----------



## theatermusic87 (Jun 22, 2014)

The deeper in the tank the co2 diffuser is the more water pressure it will experience. I think it's somewhere around 1/2lb per foot of depth. Might not seem like much and with a pressurized cow system is not noticable, but in diy where pressures are lower it is noticable. This would cause an appearance of back pressure when you disconnect the bottles


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

theatermusic87 said:


> The deeper in the tank the co2 diffuser is the more water pressure it will experience. I think it's somewhere around 1/2lb per foot of depth. Might not seem like much and with a pressurized cow system is not noticable, but in diy where pressures are lower it is noticable. This would cause an appearance of back pressure when you disconnect the bottles


Yea, I tried pushing the Elite down to near the bottom, next to the filter inlet tube thinking some of the tiny bubbles would go through the filter for an even better diffusion. However, not far below 6" deep or so and the bubbles just stopped...even though to a point, the Elite actually creates a slight vacuum and pulls the CO2 out. Anyway, I had to settle for the higher dispersion point. But with the pre-filter sponge over the Elite outlet and the inlet flow from the filter, it should be fine.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Mix #2 (1/15) hit the 3 week mark today and is still going strong. Mix #1 (1/25), now at about a week and a half, seemed to slow down quite a bit like it was going to quit. I gave it a shake (more like rocked it back and forth a bit) and the bps picked back up and held through the night.

I am happy to break the (previous record) 2 week mark. Perhaps sterilizing the mix and/or the mix of bread and champagne yeast. I'll make a point to remember the shake routine as a mixes bps starts to fall off as right now anyway, it seems to bring it back into better production. I wonder if there's some settling that stifles some of the yeast?

In addition to better plant growth the fish are growing too! (okay, the fish are growing because my tank has turned into a grow out tank for numerous fry - nothing to do with the CO2. I just wanted to see if anyone was paying attention to me rambling on! lol)

Note: in the photo below, my 60g is 24" tall.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

*I might be on to something...*

On Thursday (2/9/17) at about the 2 week mark, Mix #1 appeared to slow to 1 bubble every 2-3 seconds (jostling the container would only improve briefly), so I proofed and added 1/2 tsp of champagne yeast. The yield picked up since and has sustained a bubble every 1 - 1.5 seconds.

HOWEVER, Mix #2 hit the *4 week mark* today and is still producing approximately a bubble every 1 to 1.5 seconds. Since the previous batches only lasted about 2 weeks, I kept 'watch-dogging' it expecting it to peter out, but it just keeps pumping out the CO2.
Considering the rotation I should prolly start a fresh mix, but I'm going to let it run out to shoot for the most 'use life'. Between the 2 mixes, I'm getting 1-1.5/2.0 bps which is a decent steady rate.

Footnotes: 
1) This new run life 'record' could be the result of the sterilized mix and/or the mix of the bread yeast and champagne yeast. In any case, it's encouraging. (I could easily live with making a new batch once every 2 weeks.) 

2) At Friday's water change, I pulled, cut and replanted the Wisteria jungle (I'm impressed with the growth). I had been using Flourish Comp/Flourish Trace, but decided I need to add a little macro for better balance. I ordered some 'Easy Green' that contains NPk from Aquarium Co-op. I may eventually try dry, but right now I think a couple of pumps of Easy Green followed a day later with a cap (or two) of Flourish Comp should be good (gotta at least use it up).

3) I had stopped using Excel, but started again as the BBA was hanging on in places (even with some major trimming of BBA loaded leaves). I finished the bottle so I'm now using Metricide 14 at an excel mix ratio (200ml distilled water to 300ml Metricide).


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

2 days short of 5 weeks, I pulled and restarted mix #2. It was still producing CO2 but the rate had slowed to 1 bubble every 3 seconds or so. I feel this is a respectable run life.
The new mix/method as follows:

Recipe:
4 cups (1lb, 12oz) sugar
1 tsp baking soda
1 tsp champagne yeast
1/2 tsp bread yeast
4 L~ water (boiled)

Boiled water for 5 minutes and added in canister to 1lb., 12oz of granular sugar with 1 tsp baking soda. Separately, I proofed 1tsp champagne yeast and 1/2 tsp bread yeast, both in a 1/2 cup or so of warm (100F) water with a tsp of sugar. When the mix temperature was down to about 100F, I added approx. 1 cup of reserved previous mix and the two proofed yeast mixtures and stirred all of this together.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Two days after putting new mix #2 in-line, mix #1 petered out, 2 days short of 4 weeks. I'll hold off making a new mix #1 until mix #2 hits the 2 week mark.
I think in the next batch, I'll cut the champagne yeast back to 1/2 tsp.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I refreshed Mix #1 canister. I could not locate the baking soda, so I added a tsp of seachem alkaline buffer along with 1/2 tsp of Equilibrium. I tried to only add the 1/2 tsp of champagne yeast (along with the 1/2 tsp of bread yeast), but after a couple of hours, the bubble ouput was not acceptable so I proofed and added another 1/2 tsp of champagne yeast.

I've resigned that my 4L (1g) mixes will last 4-5 weeks. This means for a rotation, I'll refresh alternating mixes every 2 - 2 1/2 weeks.

I'm thinking this will likely be my last post in this thread, although the experiment with minor tweaks will continue. 

Footnote: Plants are doing really well!...


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I replaced mix #2 on Friday at the 4 week mark even though it was still producing a bubble every 2-3 seconds (note that when this mix started, it produced 1-2 bbs). 
Out of curiosity, I dipped a finger in the wort and had a taste. It was still very sweet. I wonder if the reduction in bubbles is the alcohol killing the yeast even when there's plenty of sugar remaining. I think I'll experiment with reducing the sugar in the mix.


----------



## theatermusic87 (Jun 22, 2014)

AbbeysDad said:


> I replaced mix #2 on Friday at the 4 week mark even though it was still producing a bubble every 2-3 seconds (note that when this mix started, it produced 1-2 bbs).
> Out of curiosity, I dipped a finger in the wort and had a taste. It was still very sweet. I wonder if the reduction in bubbles is the alcohol killing the yeast even when there's plenty of sugar remaining. I think I'll experiment with reducing the sugar in the mix.


I would expect you would want to keep the sugar at about the same amount. Reducing it might lead to the yeast running out of food earlier, though you are more than welcome to continue experimenting.

It might also still taste sweet because the champagne yeast is still fermenting; though if my memory is right it ferments at a slightly slower rate, hence less bps


----------



## davidsep (Apr 11, 2017)

i might be confused but are you running two bubble counters and two diffusers or just one.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

davidsep said:


> i might be confused but are you running two bubble counters and two diffusers or just one.


Two canisters separately feed into a single bubble bottle counter (see photo) with a single outlet to the tank (into the Elite filter as diffuser).


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

I thought that I'd come back to 'close' this experiment/thread with a summary.
I have since stopped the DIY bio CO2 experiment. I believe the CO2 accelerated plant growth beyond what would be achieved in 'normal' low tech. But I don't know that faster growth is necessarily better than slower growth. 
About three months after stopping the CO2, the plants continue to look really good. Growth may be slower, but that seems fine. I'll attach a current photo.
In the end, for me anyway, the experiment was fun, but long term, I'm not sure the effort is worth the bother. And I'm glad not to have invested in an expensive pressurized system. Each to his/her own.


----------

