Hi Ceg that is interesting... so on that basis if one had an established 200l, low tech tank, with low lighting & then decided to add co2 at a very low rate, let just say 1bps, it would in fact cause problems rather than benefits?
Well remember that I did not say that one bad thing happens to the exclusion of the good thing. I said that both good and bad things happen. How good the good thing is compared to how bad the bad thing is determines failure or success.
The difference in CO2 concentration level from non-injection to very low injection is small. So both the good and bad changes that happen are small. They may be small enough that you notice one thing and ignore the other. CO2 addition is always a help. As I mentioned earlier, increased CO2 reduces the CO2 uptake ability but it also INCREASES the efficiency of the Nitrogen uptake and assimilation mechanisms. Nitrogen is an important component of Chlorophyll and so more CO2 enables the plant to make better use of lower light.
The Matrix teaches us that when we decide to add CO2 to a tank then it is mandatory to use more light,when in fact plants are better able to use LESS light.
So, in the scenario given, the low lighting is likely NOT be an issue, the CO2 increase is likely to improve growth rate by a small amount and the susceptibility to poorly delivered 1BPS is likely to increase a small amount.
Tally the above and imagine what the likely outcome overall is - good or bad?
But that's not the end of the story. In our initial analysis we
assume that the 1BPS is applied competently, but what if there is incompetence? What is the probability of incompetence? I suggest a 95.9% incompetence factor. We also assume that Nitrogen dosing is accomplished to take advantage of improved uptake efficiency. What are the probability of test kits being used to determine Nitrogen levels I suggest a 80% test kit lover factor...and if the user suffers symptoms of Nitrate paranoia? I suggest a 98% Nitrogen paranoid delusional syndrome (NPDS).
Now, re-evaluate the scenario for probable outcome.......problems or benefits?
That makes sense. Ceg, in your opinion, do you think it's better I keep high CO2 levels in quite low light tank? I've reach the mark of 100 ppm o CO2 or even more. I'm using 2 drop Checkers, one at 8,5 ºdh and another with 20,5 °dh. The first one is yellow and the second is lime green! Do you think I'm exaggerating in CO2?
I really can't say for sure mate. What I can say for sure is that even if you measured 100ppm with your DC the plants probably were only seeing 10ppm. The more CO2 you add to the tank the faster it escapes and it is never the same at any two points in the tank. So the numbers look cool and no doubt the calculations were performed accurately, but in the end it doesn't mean much. If your distribution is excellent then the plants will see a high percentage than if you have poo distribution.
I don't try to drive my tanks to ppm numbers because they are an illusion. Look at CO2 as a
system, not a number. If my plants were suffering a CO2 deficiency syndrome I would immediately look at reducing the light increasing CO2 and improving flow distribution. As I mentioned before, when you have fish in the tank you will have to be a lot more careful how you increase the injection. It's fine now without fish but you need to also consider that if you have high injection rates and are still suffer melting then flow/distribution and gas dissolution methods need to be investigated.
That makes sense. Ceg, in your opinion, do you think it's better I keep high CO2 levels in quite low light tank?
Sure, why not? But as I mentioned to foxfish if you don't add the high CO2 properly you can have problems, probably not as severe as if the light were high though. CO2 is good for
any light.
Should I increase my light to compensate this huge CO2 level?
Only if you want to have more problems. Adding more light never compensates for anything.
I have no idea without seeing images of the configuration and getting more data, but generally I'd say it's probable your distribution is suspect.
Cheers,