# Seachem Excel vs. CO2



## 2wheelsx2 (Jan 27, 2006)

Excel provides carbon, so does CO2. So they do the same thing in different ways. What affects the decision for people are:

1) size of tank - Excel will get expensive pretty quickly if your tank is 75 or bigger.
2) lighting levels - same as above - higher light = higher carbon uptake

If you are comparing Excel to DIY, Excel is way easier. And in a small tank, Excel makes perfect since. With DIY, you have big swings in CO2 output (at least I did).

If you go DIY, the best route is to go with Excel to supplement also.


----------



## Blacksunshine (Oct 11, 2006)

ehh.. I don't personally think you get the same benefit from Excel as you do with true CO2. I used to use Excel and DIY on my 20 gal. All I wound up with is green sludge. once you get to a certain light level excel just dosen't cut it. 

IMO Plants have to work harder to utlize Excel then they do CO2. and as such do not grow nearly as well. I do use excel in my large tank and my nano. since I haven't gotten around to setting up CO2 for them. But without a doubt I'd rather run CO2 then excel anyday. Sure upfront it costs more. But in the long run its way cheaper. And down the road if you decide you want out. you can still sell your equip and make a decent amount of money back. Where with Excel all you can do is recycle the plastic bottles. 

As for your DIY setup. not seeing bubbles is actually normal. there isn't enough pressure to make a high constant flow of CO2 bubbles like with pressurized. So long as you feel pressure in the bottle you should be ok and know that the CO2 that is making it's way in is getting fully diffused. (a good thing). To be totally sure you can still put a bubble counter in there somewhere.

There is no "carbon" in Excel. It is polysysloglutaracetal that fills the place of carbon and can be converted by most plants to fill the void of carbon. However some plants are not tollerant of excel and will melt away if exposed to it.


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

> There is no "carbon" in Excel. It is a synthetic polymer that fills the place of carbon and can be converted by most plants to fill the void of carbon. However some plants are not tollerant of excel and will melt away if exposed to it.


Actually there is carbon in Excel. Otherwise it could not have carbon for the plants to use. I have yet to see any plants with a small fission or fusion reactor.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Blacksunshine said:


> ehh.. I don't personally think you get the same benefit from Excel as you do with true CO2. I used to use Excel and DIY on my 20 gal. All I wound up with is green sludge. once you get to a certain light level excel just dosen't cut it.
> 
> IMO Plants have to work harder to utlize Excel then they do CO2. and as such do not grow nearly as well. I do use excel in my large tank and my nano. since I haven't gotten around to setting up CO2 for them. But without a doubt I'd rather run CO2 then excel anyday. Sure upfront it costs more. But in the long run its way cheaper. And down the road if you decide you want out. you can still sell your equip and make a decent amount of money back. Where with Excel all you can do is recycle the plastic bottles.
> 
> ...


In some ways Excel is actually easier for plants to use for a carbon source than CO2.

Excel is this month's Product Spotlight at Seachem. Go to: Flourish Excel. Under the Excel bottle on the left side, you'll see:

Flourish Excel™ is this 
month's Product Spotlight. 
Learn More

Click on the site's Learn More and see what it says.

Near the end, it says: "...the reason plants need CO2 is to produce longer chain carbon compounds also known as photosynthetic intermediates. Photosynthetic intermediates includes compounds such as ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate, and 2-carboxy-3-keto-D-arabinitol 1,5 bisphosphate. Although the names are complicated, the structures are quite simple (5 carbon chains). See Figure 2. Flourish Excel™ does not contain these specific compounds per se, but one that is quite similar. By dosing with Flourish Excel™ you bypass the involvement of CO2 and introduce the already finished, structurally similar compounds. It is in its structural similarity that Flourish Excel™ is able to be utilized in the carbon chain building process of photosynthesis. Simple chemical or enzymatic steps can easily convert it to any one of the above named compounds (or a variety of others). Because Flourish Excel™ is an organic carbon source it does not impact pH."


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Excel works fine, but is not the equivalent of 30 ppm of CO2 in the water. On the other side of the ledger, Excel keeps some algae in check better than CO2 does. (CO2 doesn't keep algae down, it just makes the plants grow better so the algae doesn't.)


----------



## Blacksunshine (Oct 11, 2006)

"synthetic polymer" HAHAH What an idiot! 
Its a Photosynthetic..

Newb. 
lolz


----------



## Alexplosive (Mar 24, 2006)

I never use Excel anymore, I killed some plants using it.


----------



## Boz (Jan 8, 2007)

Are there any other known plants aside from anacharis that are sensitive to Excel. I know Vals are as well, but wasn't sure of any others.


----------



## Blacksunshine (Oct 11, 2006)

Most all mosses will melt shrivle and die. Riccia also does not like direct treatments of excel.


----------



## Boz (Jan 8, 2007)

^Unfortunately, I found about the riccia the hard way. Didn't know that about the moss. Thanks. 

So when using it, will the above mentioned plants do ok if it's underdosed?


----------



## Blacksunshine (Oct 11, 2006)

really depends on the type of plant. But at least with ricca and mosses I would douse on the oppisite side of the tank to allow it to disperse and so the moss/riccia dosen't take a heavy direct dose. I don't think even that will help much with Vals and anacharis. I learned that the hard way when my beautiful anacharis and vals melted to mush.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Jan 27, 2006)

I dose Excel regularly in tanks with Vals (Jungle and corkscrew). But I don't do general dosing, I use a syringe to target areas (I use it in those tanks mostly for spot bba control), and I turn off my pumps. I do not inject Excel on any of my Vals, because as many here have already posted, they have an adverse effect on them. If you do not use the overdose method, the Vals won't be affected too much by Excel.


----------



## argblarg (Aug 7, 2006)

I am weighing my options on Excel vs pressurized since I am looking at a new 75 gallon tank. Everyone would probably suggest pressurized but it really looks like about even to me on the benefits and costs.

You would dose 7.5 ml, 6 days a week and 37.5 mL on water change day in a 75 gallon tank. So 48 weeks to use 4 liters of Excel.

You can buy a 4L bottle for $45. If you figure you will skip some days here or there and push back your water change a few days every once in a while then that bottle will last you about a year.

You add up tank ($50), regulator ($150), tubing ($10), glass diffusers ($20) for $230 initial cost not counting if you go with a pH controller or not.

So it would take 5 years for pressurized to break even with Excel as far as cost. If you figure in $10 to refill your tank at least yearly, then more than that. So Excel wins there. 

The downside of Excel would be melting of certain plants. Not that big of a deal to me at this point. I guess you could put daily dosing as a downside but with a syringe it takes 15 seconds and I was going to use EI dosing anyway.

The downside of CO2 would be possibilities of end of tank dumps or any other mechanical failures. If we are looking at 5 years from now, who knows if a better product will be out or if the regulator/diffuser will last that long.

Anyone want to weigh in on this? Are there any comparisons between an Excel tank and a 30 ppm tank?


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Jan 27, 2006)

The biggest downside to Excel, unless you rig up an autodoser, is maintenance time. If you go away for a week, the tank could be a mess. With an automated pressurized setup, all your time is spent enjoying your tank.

I know there have been reports of end of tank dumps, but how many are there exactly? Maybe you should put up a poll. In my local club, I don't know a single person who's experienced it.

The downside to pressurized is that it's not going KILL algae if you get it, whereas Excel will.


----------



## argblarg (Aug 7, 2006)

Yeah the constant dosing is a big downside. Of course if you are gone for a week you could just turn the lights down, you wouldn't be dosing ferts anyways.


----------



## Alexplosive (Mar 24, 2006)

argblarg said:


> Yeah the constant dosing is a big downside. Of course if you are gone for a week you could just turn the lights down, you wouldn't be dosing ferts anyways.


I think pressurized would be better in the long run. Especially if you're spending the money to setup a nice 75 gallon tank.


----------



## macclellan (Dec 22, 2006)

argblarg said:


> You add up tank ($50), regulator ($150), tubing ($10), glass diffusers ($20) for $230 initial cost not counting if you go with a pH controller or not.
> 
> So it would take 5 years for pressurized to break even with Excel as far as cost. If you figure in $10 to refill your tank at least yearly, then more than that. So Excel wins there.


I just bought a 10lb. tank for $55 and everything else for $95. That is $150, or about 3 years of excel dosing. And then I can still sell the regulator and tank it I want.

How much is your time worth? Dosing excel, 30 seconds a day for 5 years...sounds like a lot of money to me, and a royal PITA.


----------



## Alexplosive (Mar 24, 2006)

macclellan said:


> I just bought a 10lb. tank for $55 and everything else for $95. That is $150, or about 3 years of excel dosing. And then I can still sell the regulator and tank it I want.
> 
> How much is your time worth? Dosing excel, 30 seconds a day for 5 years...sounds like a lot of money to me, and a royal PITA.


I'm going to have to agree with Macclellan on this. I just dont think Excel can fully replace pressurized CO2. You can try it but I dont think you're going to be happy with the results. Some plants dont even do well on Excel. I killed several of my plants with excel and I didnt even use it all the time. You will definitely save yourself alot of hassle and can even sell your equipment at the end like Macclellan said.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Jan 27, 2006)

I think a big advantage of pressurized CO2 is tweakability. Not enough? Crank it up. Too much? Crank it down. Poor dispersion? Use a manifold and have two outputs? Don't like diffusors? Use an inline reactor. Basically, you have a lot of flexibility to tailor your system to meet your tank's needs, whereas if you have complications with Excel, like your growing Vals, but you need more carbon, you won't be able to just put more Excel in.


----------



## A Hill (Jul 25, 2005)

Blacksunshine said:


> Most all mosses will melt shrivle and die. Riccia also does not like direct treatments of excel.


I'm not sure what mosses you have, But I have most if not all the common and many uncommon aquarium mosses and I have spot treated, and 4x dosed excel with no ill effects... Ricca didn't like that though!

I personally would go with Pressurized on anything larger than 40g. For me the problem is My parents think that having a pressurized co2 setup is crazy and unnecessary.. So I'm stuck with some other alternatives until then. No CO2 works... and DIY does too... I'm probably going to get a few L of excel sooner or later though.

-Andrew


----------



## Blacksunshine (Oct 11, 2006)

My Java didn't care for it much. turned to crap.


----------



## crazy loaches (Sep 29, 2006)

I think Tom Barr mentioned somewhere how effective excel was compared to co2, think it was somewhere in the 25%-50% range. My personal opinion would be that excel is better suited to a low tech tank perhaps (and spot treating algea). If you want a stunning planted tank with high lighting and pearling, presurized is the only way to go on a decent sized tank. So it really depends on what you want. I have an excel only tank (45G) and I am seriously thinking about converting it to pressurized. Besides effectiveness, the problem with me is the daily dosing is a PITA and it often goes a few days here or there without dosing. I'd gladly pay extra for the automation, even though in the long run your really not paying much more. Next step, autodosing nutrients.


----------



## dylanserbin (Oct 19, 2008)

for a 5g, how much excel would you dose on a daily basis?


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

> for a 5g, how much excel would you dose on a daily basis?


*For a 5g you would dose 2.5 mL of Excel after a water change and then 0.5 mL daily.*

Check out the following Seachem dosing calculator. It is the attachment at the bottom of post #1.
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...achem-dosing-calculator-chart.html#post335784



From: http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/FlourishExcel.html

*Directions*

On initial use or after a major (> 40%) water change, use 1 capful (5 mL) for every 40 L (10 gallons*). Thereafter use 1 capful for every 200 L (50 gallons*) daily or every other day. Dosing may be slowly increased in high-growth aquariums. For smaller dosing please note that each cap thread is approximately 1 mL.


----------



## malaybiswas (Nov 2, 2008)

Excel would be a much expensive option in not so long run. Pressurized is expensive to start with but way cheaper in long run (specially if you plan high tech setup).

Besides as some other pointed out before they will affect some plants to the point of death.

Finally, Excel is a good cure for certain algae but I would rather use it as needed for that specific purpose.


----------



## hbosman (Oct 5, 2006)

I've killed Vals with Excel before. I left the roots in and the Vals grew back and then they were just fine. IMHO, Excel by itself is a waist of time for a carbon source. It will supplement well if you combine it with DIY or better yet, pressurized CO2.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jul 18, 2003)

Blacksunshine said:


> "synthetic polymer" HAHAH What an idiot!
> Its a Photosynthetic..
> 
> Newb.
> lolz



Actually, Dr. Morin the father, Dr. Morin the son, and Dr. Batten are very smart guys. They're the ones doing the research for the company and know quite a bit about what they do. 

They claim that the active ingredient in Excel is a photosynthetic intermediate. I can't claim to know the biochemistry of every step in the photosynthetic pathway but I can trust that the good doctors know what they're talking about.

The active ingredient in Excel is a synthetic polymer. All that means is that it's a chain of molecules that is made in a laboratory or other artificial environment. 

Please do a little research before pointing people out and calling them idiots.


Phil Edwards


----------



## timwag2001 (Jul 3, 2009)

...


----------



## Darkblade48 (Jan 4, 2008)

Phil Edwards said:


> They claim that the active ingredient in Excel is a *photosynthetic intermediate*. I can't claim to know the biochemistry of every step in the photosynthetic pathway but I can trust that the good doctors know what they're talking about.


I doubt this is true. It is hard to believe that we are adding intermediates from the light/dark cycle reactions. I believe it is widely acknowledged that Excel's active ingredient is a "polymer" of glutaraldehyde.


----------



## Frogmanx82 (Dec 8, 2009)

2wheelsx2 said:


> The biggest downside to Excel, unless you rig up an autodoser, is maintenance time. If you go away for a week, the tank could be a mess. With an automated pressurized setup, all your time is spent enjoying your tank.
> 
> I know there have been reports of end of tank dumps, but how many are there exactly? Maybe you should put up a poll. In my local club, I don't know a single person who's experienced it.
> 
> The downside to pressurized is that it's not going KILL algae if you get it, whereas Excel will.


You could set up excel to dose with a metering pump as well and I have read many threads were people came back from vacation to find the CO2 caused a tank crash. A metering pump on the excel does up the capital cost but its not that hard to automate. You got to feed the fish while you're gone too.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Jan 27, 2006)

Wow...I sent that post 3 years ago....


----------

