Biological liquid carbon

[Matt @ ScapeEasy]

Even if just doing at recommended levels on the bottle?

 

[micheljq]

I do wonder whether you'd cause your kH to crash out if adding too much citric acid?

That could only happens if you overdose like mad i think, but it's a good idea to check the KH.

I have just bought some... one thing that occurred to me though... is there any reason I could use guteraldehyde and citric acid products at the same time?

You can, Dennerle for instance, on their web site, encourages to do it, just more carbon for the plants, but less $$ in your pockets. You are the boss.

Michel.

 

[Matt @ ScapeEasy]

Thanks I'll keep dosing both as my plants do seem to be doing well recently (only been a few weeks) and see how I get on.

 

[Matt @ ScapeEasy]

See: https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/biological-liquid-carbon.53795/

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

So if humic acid and DOC are beneficial to plant growth would just adding Almond leaves not just achieve the same thing for a fraction of the price with the bonus of the mild sterilising affect and heavy metal binding with tannins not do the same thing?

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

So if humic acid and DOC are beneficial to plant growth would just adding Almond leaves not just achieve the same thing for a fraction of the price with the bonus of the mild sterilising affect and heavy metal binding with tannins not do the same thing?

My suspicion would be that it wouldn't make much difference to plant growth.

The main problem is that nobody knows the exact mechanism by which liquid carbon increases photosynthesis.

Raising the amount of DIC (Dissolved Inorganic Carbon) definitely increases photosynthesis and the obvious way would be to add CO2, but a compound like <"sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3)"> also works.

The paper that @X3NiTH posted suggests that some DOC sources (sodium acetate (C2H3NaO2), D-glucose) aid the growth of the unicellular green algae Chlorella, and Chlorella would have the <"same basic photosynthetic pathways"> as all the higher plants.

We also know that citric acid (C6H8O7) can potentially act as a carbon source for photosynthesis. Have a look at this thread from 2009/2014 <"citric acid source of carbon">, it covers this area in some detail.

cheers Darrel

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

The main problem is that nobody knows the exact mechanism by which liquid carbon increases photosynthesis.

It's a contentious issue for sure which does seem bizarre at times but at least we are discussing it at some length. You would have thought at some point enough was known about LC and its benefits or not as the case may be but even people at the top of their game still seem to be either undecided or on one side of the fence or the other. I'm in a few facebook groups which I think a few respected members here are also, I've certainly seen them pop up. I'm more of a lurker there than contributor, you can pick up a few handy tips but I'm more there to look at other people's tanks. LC on many of them is not even up for discussion, in fact, just using the term is enough to get you ridiculed! It's fair to say that there does seem to be a bit of campaign going on to get rid LC in certain communities.

Most of the plant growing manufacturers seem to have their own brand of LC going on which begs the question what evidence are they using when manufacturing a product do they have that it has any benefit at all when nobody seems to be able to agree whether or not it actually does.

For instance, we have our own dear old Clive who if you ask him what time it is he will take your your watch apart and show you how it works he would suggest OD'ing LC to get extra carbon and that you can use LC at quite high doses and its not toxic to Flora or Fauna. Then you get on the other end of the spectrum a guy I come across a lot called Kevin Grant, respected in the community with some serious biology qualifications, friends with Tom, George and even Walsted who has carried out a research paper on Glute and concluded that it does squat. Suggesting any improvement seen is more pacebo and that the carbon you get from using "LC" you could achieve more by actually doing nothing other than oxygenating the water a bit better going on to say that plants that have been exposed to glute show damage to the plants structure. Then you here that Tom Barr is the only person who actually knows and he's been sworn to secrecy by an NDA with Seachem yet I have seen him advise people to use LC to solve a problem yet I got tore a new one by him in a facebook group once for suggesting that someone use LC to add a little bit of LC to a tank that looked to me like it may benefit.

Go figure, it's all a bit confusing for me. now we're on with Citric acid which again no one seems to know why it works and Dennerle won't tell you why I think the safest option all round is go low tech or go gas. No arguments there and unlike the Forest Gump box of chocolates products that seem to be coming out you do know what you're getting.

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

Sorry if I sounded a bit negative there but I have more of a simplistic approach to plant keeping and in life in general. Just seems at times that anything that results in a carbon molecule being released these days manufacturers want to cash in on it without any decent explanations why. My rudimentary failed GCSE understanding of it all is that above water there's loads of co2, we like to keep plants because they look nice that in many cases don't want to live under water or wouldn't naturally spend all of their lives there because there's not enough co2 for them to thrive so the answer is to raise the amount of co2 available underwater by dissolving co2 gas in there and controlling how much light forces the speed of growth until we hit a point where hopefully the plant doesn't dissolve through starvation.

A lot of these elixir of life things seem to provide a tiny amount of carbon which could be created by any number natural processes anyway but seem to piggy back in on other chemicals which are at best dubious and at worst known to be extremely toxic to at least humans. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing LC, I have some here that I spot dose with now and again which I seem to use less and less these days now that I don't tend to push my plant growth to breaking point I just feel that the best best is to do one or the other at times either gas or don't. Especially when the mantra of most is nature and I tend to find nature and harsh chemicals have never really mixed. In fairness to Dennerle they seem to have a more natural approach to getting that carbon molecule than harsh chemicals.

Anyone who hasn't experienced the joys of suggesting LC in US/Canadian based plant keeping groups and thinks they can fight their corner get yourself in there I look forward to watching the showdown. Just don't forget your crash helmet

 

[Edvet]

I never have or ever will use LC, but there are to many which seem to report positive effects to completely be ineffective. Just my 2 €ct's

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

I think the last case I heard in its defence Ed was that the algaecide properties which it definitely possess meant that less spores in the column gave less competition for nutrients and the plant leaves were kept relatively algae free giving better exchange across the leaves which could be true as I've heard George suggesting giving the leaves a wipe during your maintenance regime to remove algae and bio-film. There could be benefits but the argument being it is wrongly labelled and sold as "Liquid Carbon". I tried to argue the point that it does indeed add a minute amount of carbon and that if you have a well gas exchanged tank using atmospheric co2 and this adds a little bit more then it might be the difference a tank right on the edge of low tech needs to improve but tbh I got my blahblahblahblah handed to me and my GCSE chemistry fell apart at the seems. I think using LC also uses up some o2 so not sure how that figures into the above equation.

 

[Edvet]

Oh i don't mean to say i understand the chemistry behind it, and i am well aware of "placebo"effects.

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

Oh i don't mean to say i understand the chemistry behind it, and i am well aware of "placebo"effects.

Nor me Bro, but if you fancy your chances...

" And these are the calculations for people who wonder how much carbon is there really in Excel... Espen Fjellheim/ Using Glut as a proxy; chemical formula C5H8O2, atomic weight of molecule = 100 (5x12[C], 8x1[H], 2x16[O]). Glut is 60% carbon by mass (5x12[C] / weight of molecule). Excel is approximately 1.5% Glut, according to dosing instructions, max dose, 5ml in 40L => 0.015x5 [mass of water = 5grams]. So dosing (maximum dose) according to instructions, we get 0.075grams or 75 milligrams of carbon in a 10 gallon tank. That's about the mass of 3 large grains of sand (diameter 2mm approx). Plants are about 45% carbon dry mass, dry mass = 5-10% of fresh/wet mass. However, we also know that Glut breaks down into CO2 through bacterial decomposition... assuming total breakdown, 0.075grams of carbon from Glut will give 0.275 grams of CO2. In a 40L/10gal tank; if Glut decomposed immediately in an instant it adds 6.9 ppm of CO2 into the tank, but since we also know it bio-degrades in an aerobic environment with a half-life of 10 hours. Assuming dosing is done upon lights on, and degradation is linear one gets 0.35ppm of CO2 per hour for the first 10 hours. Equilibrium CO2 in non-CO2 injected tanks is about 3 ppm. Natural lakes and rivers have about 2-3 times this amount. (So the idea that equilibrium levels of low tech tanks mirror that of nature is also false for most cases). For CO2 injected tanks it can range between 15ppm to 50ppm. So is Glut a catalyst, placebo, or does the meager 10% additional CO2 assuming ideal conditions make a large difference......"

There's also a sub argument that they call it liquid carbon because of certain restrictions on selling algaecide.

 

[Matt @ ScapeEasy]

This is really interesting and I think the 10% carbon vs the cost of the product says to me personally... why bother? I also believe in keeping things simple so that fits with this viewpoint. I'd be really interested if the same chemistry style calc can be done for citric acid... especially in terms of the %increase in co2 over time as I believe that this product does not break down in the same way during the day... but even saying that now I'm starting to wonder again... well how does it work then!?

 

[ian_m]

Excel is approximately 1.5% Glut, according to dosing instructions

Newer Excel is not "standard" glutaraldehyde, the material safety data sheet says polycycloglutaracetal (at 2.5%).

Polycycloglutaracetal, a polymerized isomer version of glutaraldehyde. It is claimed that this provides a greater bio available carbon source for plants (compared to glutaraldehyde). Being polymerised it is less reactive whilst in the water, until it gets unpolymerized in the plant/algae.

Normal glutaraldehyde will polymerise in strong aqueous solution but reaction is extremely slow (days/months) and has to be strong solution. Commercial glutaraldehyde, for disinfection use often has something in to stop it polymerising over time.

Polycycloglutaracetal & glutaraldehyde can use used by plants as a carbon source but not algae, which is why it acts as an algicide.

In my experience using both Excel and glutaraldehyde extensively, Excel is a much superior algicide, especially when spot dosing BBA. As for plant growth well no idea.

Also they both smell completely different. EasyCarbo smells the same as Excel.

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

Newer Excel is not "standard" glutaraldehyde,

Which is probably the bit Tom can't talk about Ian.

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

This is really interesting and I think the 10% carbon vs the cost of the product says to me personally...

I guess that depends on whether you run a tank that is just bordering on being pushed for carbon and the 10% could make a difference plus the other benefits I mentioned earlier. I guess more water changes and stroking your leaves could sort that with a reduction in light would achieve the same as adding LC.

 

[Edvet]

stroking your leaves

How about:

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

well how does it work then!?

Does adding any acid to any any base not result in a reaction that produces co2? So if you have water that is high in KH and you add something acidic.... Again, apologies for my GCSE Chemistry

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

What was that graph Darrel often puts up where DOC converts to co2 as the PH lowers? Is that related maybe?

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk

 

[Edvet]

Does adding any acid to any any base not result in a reaction that produces co2

Nah thats H20 (H+ plus OH-)