Another user with CO2 Issues

[Sacha]

You shouldn't need the Co2 to come on 4 hours before the lights. Your pH is dropping one whole point in 2 hours, so I would say have your Co2 come on 2.5 hours before the lights. Then it can go off maybe 3 hours before the lights do.

 

[ceg4048]

I'd also like to attempt a later CO2 on time if I can to avoid wasting CO2. Should I be aiming to get a full pH point drop between CO2 on and Lights on or go with the drop checker colour?

the target pH drop depends on your KH. You have not yet supplied that information.

It shouldn't require 4 hours to drop the pH by one unit assuming a moderate to low KH.

Cheers,

 

[sonicninja]

I'll do a KH test tonight.

 

[sonicninja]

Just checked my tank water and the KH is 80mg/l
I used a Hagen liquid test

 

[Sacha]

I believe that equates to a dKH of 4.5.

Based on this chart:

Your Co2 concentration yesterday was 85.2 PPM.

So I think based on this, in combination with the readings in my other thread, and the fact that these charts suggest that Iain Sutherland is running his Co2 at levels in excess of 200 PPM, we can safely throw all our pH test kits and KH/ pH/ Co2 charts out of the top floor window of the tallest building we can find.

 

[sonicninja]

hahahaha, all that's happened is I'm super confused. Im going to put this to bed for the moment and just see how the plants develop. I can physically see a mist of CO2 throughout the aquarium evenly so I might just let it settle for a while and see how things go!

 

[sonicninja]

So it seems to be going well generally, the CO2 is stable now and that part of the set-up working well. As you suggested Clive I'm going to employ the use of an additional powerhead. The main area that seems problematic is the right hand side of the aquarium where im trying to grow stauro repens. The small bunch of stauro in the centre of the tank is responding well to the new spray bar arrangement and as its directly below the central powerhead gets a consistent supply of CO2. I think the flow in the tank is good but perhaps its the spread of this flow that is the issue, hopefully by placing two identical powerheads equidistant from each side of the tank will re-address this problem and help with flow to the dead area on the right hand side.
I am still having issues with some plants looking a bit off, for example holes in leaves but this might be down to my dosing regime which I'll increase until hopefully this goes away. I'll post a picture of the new powerhead arrangement when the equipment gets here.
Cheers!

 

[ceg4048]

I am still having issues with some plants looking a bit off, for example holes in leaves but this might be down to my dosing regime which I'll increase until hopefully this goes away.

No. Holes in leaves is another CO2 issue. Sorry to rain on your parade

Symmetry is always a problem and that's why I prefer to put all my eggs in a muscular filter that is man enough to power a long spraybar. That will even out the gas distribution across the length of the tank, however, as you suggest, spacing the powerheads will be the next best thing. Can you tweak the injection rate up some more?

Cheers,

 

[sonicninja]

Holes in leaves is another CO2 issue. Sorry to rain on your parade

You've rained on it and denied me an umbrella too! I have been looking around for a more powerpul filter but with my funds being low I'll have to hold off.

I can up to injection rate which i'll do at the weekend when I can be around to check on the fish, generally plants die off in a standard way in my tank. The leaves look pale or transparent, fall off and the plant fails to root at all, eventually Im left with a stem. Some plants have stayed in 'stasis' for months neither completely dying or growing at all, again ive has plants in there for about 4 months (or more) which just dont grow roots. Hopefully the powerheads and increase in CO2 will prompt things to kick off.....or i'll cry.

 

[ceg4048]

Well, as the flow/distribution scheme improves the deterioration should be arrested. What you describe is a typical CO2 failure mode. When plants neither grow nor die they are producing just enough fuel to survive but not enough to grow. When they melt or deteriorate they are using more fuel than they can produce.

Cheers,

 

[sonicninja]

well fingers crossed for the powerhead and CO2 increase. I was saying to sacha the other day, I have absolutely no idea how Takashi Amano gets such good growth with a tiny glass diffuser sat on the opposite side to his filter output with next to no visible signs of flow. This has been far harder than I had ever imagined.

 

[ceg4048]

Because he uses low lighting. He is NOT a Klingon.

Cheers,

 

[Sacha]

I was under the impression that most of Amano's tanks were high lighting...

Otherwise, how does he get such vicious pearling?

 

[tim]

I was under the impression that most of Amano's tanks were high lighting...

Otherwise, how does he get such vicious pearling?

Plenty of threads on the forum about amanos lighting and I'd have to agree its low to medium, massive pearling really healthy plants or a massive water Change pre photo.

 

[ceg4048]

I was under the impression that most of Amano's tanks were high lighting...
Otherwise, how does he get such vicious pearling?

As discussed previously, there are more factors that contribute to pearling than just light. CO2, temperature, nutrients all play a role.

Here is an extract from Tom Barr's visit to the 2008 Aqua Forest event:

ADA lighting at Aqua Forest and nice low PAr values-who knew?
I just got back today from Aqua Forest's gracious event and demo. I took my PAR meter and Ian brought his as well to the event. Every tank I measured, the one that ranked 20th in the ADA contest last year in the wolrd ranking had no more than 150 micromol at the surface of the tank right near the HQI MH light. At the bottom all along the front, 35-40micrmol and near the window at noon time(north face), 50-55 micro mol.

Gloss, HC, E tennellus, moss etc, no issues..............

This is very low light overall.

PAR meters do not care about brands, lux, lumens, funky nutty correlation tables, the water, reflections, distance etc, they can drop down and measure the parameter that makes the plant produce sugars via photosynthesis right at the surface of individual leaves.

Someone said "there is a redder plant, measure there", so I did: no difference.
On to other tanks, exact same trends, all very low, 30-50micromol ranges at the bottoms, 150 or so at the highest, did not matter if if was a 180cm, 120cm, 90cm, 60cm, 45 cm sized tank, all where pretty much lower light tanks in each and every case.

I was a bit mythed about the ADA lights, they are really inefficient or set up that way to limit folk's from going wild with the lighting.

Many think more is better, so reducing it down helps folks do better and have better luck with CO2, so many think the ADA lights are better.

But not when tested...........

Almost 1/2 of what my lights are at home.
Much less.

How might this influence what folks think and assume about CO2 and stability?
How about nutrient demand and uptake?

If you cut the light by 1/2, what do you expect?

This was not some aberration, this was done in front of 50 plant hobbyists in the club here. I'm not pulling anyone's leg here with some baloney.

This was not merely 1 or 2 tank,s this was 7 tanks and other folks' I've gone to to measure had similar values and results.

I've heard about every crazed idea about measuring light that's out there, yet few have ever bothered to measure the one that matters the most in situ and compare. I have a bit more lately and the cost is not much now either.

I have 2-3x as much light in some of my tanks, yet I also have no issues, but much faster growth rates.

I also scale up the nutrients, and the CO2.
If you don't, then you have a lot of issues.

So keep light low, not high!
BTW, the T5's rock and produce some of the best light and are very even. I like them, but.......I like HQI and ripples light real sun light too

Regards,
Tom Barr

Yes there are minimum light values and they will vary species to species.
Obviously if you have non limiting CO2, nutrients, good KH/GH etc.....clean low organic waters.......you will be able to determine minimum thresholds, whereas other folks that have not provided non limiting condition(or assume that they have, when in fact, they have not- belief can get you into trouble here), will have to have higher light levels.

With this idea in mind, what condition do you think will allow less light and still have good growth:

Tank#1: 25 micromol + good rich CO2/nutrients/fishwaste and sediment nutrients
Tank #2: 35 micromol + non CO2 and sediment nutrients(only) and fish waste

I think many assume that non CO2 methods have the lowest light of all aquariums, but this is simply not true. They are not light limited, they are CO2 limited. The light is mildly limiting in a few cases, but generally, it's CO2 that is the stronger limiting factor. Also, the strength of the limitation for nutrients is pretty low since both light and CO2 are limiting(non CO2).

So if you wanted to try really low light, then you'd want CO2.

This provides the best combination.
It is not this malarky about Powersand, various little bottles of marketed snake oils, iron tabs etc, nor secret liquid ferts and ratios etc.

The ADA tanks are very low light, they can easily target CO2 and nutrients from any source, the ADA aqua soil is rich, folks dose the routine daily, they also do weekly 50% water changes, ........or more...............

Now some of those parameters start to make sense.
But Amano will never tell this

At least it would surprise me if he did.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[sonicninja]

Very interesting, either way id be chuffed if my tank looks half as good as any of the amano tanks (or Tom Barr!)

I've added another powerhead to my tank, the nozzles are 13cm from each side. Ignore the extra plant mass, I got some cheap hygrophilia so I could monitor flow throughout the tank.

 

[ceg4048]

Perform another pH profile check when you have the opportunity.

Cheers,

 

[sonicninja]

I will do one Sunday

Also it did occur to me that as I'm running a filter with 16mm hose and I've stepped it down to 12mm to fit the intake and spray bar that this could be reducing the flow...?

 

[Sacha]

Nope. Any effect on flow will be negligible.

 

[foxfish]

I am surprised you say that Sacha, I would of thought reducing the filter pipe diameter would affect the flow quite a bit?
It would depend or the pumps power rateing and impeller design but certainly, some pumps can be dramatically effected by any flow restriction via pipe diameter or elbow bends.