-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
CO2 at 400 ppm
- Thread starter Victor
- Start date
It's because I want the same amount of CO2 that we find in the atmosfhere. I want to see what happens to underwater plants at this level of CO2. I also have some plants with transparent leaves. With CO2 at 50 ppm the leaves don't have improved.
Andy Thurston
Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 2,811
No livestock...
Nuke away make sure flow, macro and micro are good and if your plants still look a little unhealthy reduce the lighting.
I think you would be pretty lucky to achieve 400ppm though. When i started my tank i lowered ph as much as i could. I only got it to 4.8 and that was in fairly soft water
Nuke away make sure flow, macro and micro are good and if your plants still look a little unhealthy reduce the lighting.
I think you would be pretty lucky to achieve 400ppm though. When i started my tank i lowered ph as much as i could. I only got it to 4.8 and that was in fairly soft water
My water is very soft too. I think I'll also reach this ph
Andy Thurston
Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 2,811
I'm not sure but i think i've read a post by clive, saying it wouldn't do any harm unless livestock was present.
My fish/shrimp seem fairly happy now at ph 5.9 from 7.4
My fish/shrimp seem fairly happy now at ph 5.9 from 7.4
Nils Axelsson
Seedling
I'm far from an expert at this but I read about this not long ago on a swedish forum. It was a thread about a CO2 meter presented on kickstarter. And a discussion about the difference in ppm in air vs ppm in water occured. Therefore one person asked Tim, who started the Kickastarter-project.
Again, the question was something about ppm in air vs ppm in water and the difference or if it is the same thing. This is the answer:
"Tim Burton says:
Hi Martin, thanks for your email. There's actually a yes-and-no answer to
your question, and I have to explain it first by saying that there are two
distinct types of units called 'ppm' (parts per million); ppm can refer to
parts per million by volume or parts per million by weight(or mass). The
ppm we tend to use in planted aquarium is ppmw, and the ones used by
atmospheric scientists is ppmv. So, when we say we ~30 ppm of CO2 in our
aquarium, this unit is not the same (and not easily convertible to) the 395
to 405 ppmv that atmospheric scientists are quoting. In order to equate
these, need to know temperature and pressure of the atmosphere at the point
we are measuring. So, as a general idea, at sea level for our aquariums, a
~400 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 is roughly the same as 3 ppmw inside our
aquarium. So to finally answer your question, yes the variance of +- 5
ppmv atmospheric CO2 will change the calibration of the CO2 sensor
slightly, but that will only amount to be ~0.1 ppmw of CO2 as measured in
our aquarium. Considering that we change the CO2 in our tanks by 20-30 ppm
over a 24 hour period, I feel that this is an acceptable level of
inaccuracy."
http://www.plantswap.se/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18654&start=10
Add as much CO2 as you want and just get on with it. These are all fantasy numbers anyway. Nobody really knows what concentration levels are in the tank and it's not the same from point to point in the tank anyway. What the plants see are about 10% of what you imagine is there.
Just know that if you need to go over the top with your injection to solve deficiency problems then it probably means you have either too much light or poor flow/distribution, or both, which is something you'll have to address eventually when you want to add fish. OTT CO2 injection is great for tank startup, but eventually you'll need to find a middle ground.
Cheers,
Just know that if you need to go over the top with your injection to solve deficiency problems then it probably means you have either too much light or poor flow/distribution, or both, which is something you'll have to address eventually when you want to add fish. OTT CO2 injection is great for tank startup, but eventually you'll need to find a middle ground.
Cheers,
I think the problem is just poor CO2. My flow and distribution is very good (20 x tank volume per hour passing by the filters and pumps and very well distributed by all tank lengh). I'm using only 2x 30wT8 tubes with reflectors over my 300 L tank. The tubes aren't side by side. Thank you, Ceg!
Higher CO2 concentration levels allow the plant to put on more weight faster, and it allows you to use higher levels of lighting, which will improve the rate of growth, however there are drawbacks. As the CO2 concentration level increases the CO2 uptake efficiency of the plant DECREASES. That's because the plant knows that it can now allocate more of it's resources to other things, such as pigmentation, Nitrogen uptake and so forth. The CO2 uptake system is a very expensive, high maintenance system.
Having purposely reduced the robustness of it's own CO2 uptake system, ironically, the plant now becomes more susceptible to CO2 shortfalls. So when the tank is at very high CO2 levels, even minor downward fluctuations of the CO2 concentration will have a major negative effect on plant health, exactly because the CO2 uptake system has become flimsy. At lower CO2 concentration levels, the plants knows that it must dedicate a large proportion of it's energy to ensuring CO2 uptake, so at low levels it can more easily tolerate larger percentage gaps, drops and fluctuations.
CO2 therefore, is as Barr described it - a narcotic; the more you feed them the more you'll need to feed them.
This is exactly why people who decide to add CO2 to their tanks immediately begin to suffer CO2 related deficiency syndromes. Then they go into denial because they think: "but I'm adding CO2 now so how can melting and hair algae possibly be due to CO2 deficiency?"
Cheers,
Having purposely reduced the robustness of it's own CO2 uptake system, ironically, the plant now becomes more susceptible to CO2 shortfalls. So when the tank is at very high CO2 levels, even minor downward fluctuations of the CO2 concentration will have a major negative effect on plant health, exactly because the CO2 uptake system has become flimsy. At lower CO2 concentration levels, the plants knows that it must dedicate a large proportion of it's energy to ensuring CO2 uptake, so at low levels it can more easily tolerate larger percentage gaps, drops and fluctuations.
CO2 therefore, is as Barr described it - a narcotic; the more you feed them the more you'll need to feed them.
This is exactly why people who decide to add CO2 to their tanks immediately begin to suffer CO2 related deficiency syndromes. Then they go into denial because they think: "but I'm adding CO2 now so how can melting and hair algae possibly be due to CO2 deficiency?"
Cheers,
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? Should I increase my light to compensate this huge CO2 level? I'm using a line composed of two T8 tubes that extends by all tank lenght. Each tube has 30 w and I'm using good reflectors over each one. My tank has 300 L (200 cm lenght x 40 cm witdh x 45 cm height) and I have a very good flow. I'm really confused now. I'll wait for more advices. Thank you so much!
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?
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.
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.
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,
Perfect! Ceg, I really love yours explanations 😉. Take a look at this video (it's from my tank). As you can see my plants are a bit fragile. My hemianthus micranthemoides, rotala green, didiplis diandra and glossos are growing mainly upwards. I've increase the CO2 level 2 days ago. What do you think about the flow? And about CO2 diffusion? Thank you.
