• 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

Liquid carbon/lighting

Paul Lambton

Paul Lambton

Seedling
Joined
4 Nov 2018
Messages
3
Location
Sunderland, UK
Is there a specific amount of liquid carbon I should dose in relation to the lighting I have in tank?
125l tank
Dose 1.5 ml of TNC ferts daily
Dose 2 ml easy life liquid carbon daily
Lights in 7 hours per day
 
No, not really. Dose the liquid carbon based on the instructions on the bottle and your water volume. You can dose above the recommended dose, but be conscious that liquid carbon is toxic in large amounts. 2 or even 3 times the recommended dose is often referenced as "safe" by folk here, but you are taking a punt. If you over dose then build up to it and monitor what happens in your tank. The more sensible thing would be to.reduce the light intensity if you have a problem with insufficient carbon.

K
 
Hi Paul.
Welcome to the green side :))
Have a read trough the tutorial section of the forum a lot of the things U will need to know are well explained there.
Often the duration of the light is less important than intensity.Many folk are unable to dim there light units so in order to reduce lighting if needed they cut the lenght of the photoperiod.
Will be good to share more information regarding your setup.Filtration+ water circulation, light unit used (led,T5,T8) and output,what kind of plants are U growing,how the tank is stocked,how long has been running,do U have algae issues.....pictures/ video are very helpful for other members in order to advise you correctly as every tank has its own uniqueness
Do not be shy to share

Regards Konsa
 
Not to seem like a thread high jack but from what I have read there seems to be a direct correlation between pressurised co2 use and intensity/duration of lights and from what I am reading above this correlation does not exist using liquid carbon?
 
Konsa said:
Hi Paul.
Welcome to the green side :))
Have a read trough the tutorial section of the forum a lot of the things U will need to know are well explained there.
Often the duration of the light is less important than intensity.Many folk are unable to dim there light units so in order to reduce lighting if needed they cut the lenght of the photoperiod.
Will be good to share more information regarding your setup.Filtration+ water circulation, light unit used (led,T5,T8) and output,what kind of plants are U growing,how the tank is stocked,how long has been running,do U have algae issues.....pictures/ video are very helpful for other members in order to advise you correctly as every tank has its own uniqueness
Do not be shy to share

Regards Konsa
Click to expand...
Thanks for replying.
I’ll get some details posted tomorrow.
 
@cvx195 both liquid carbon and co2 gas are harmful to livestock in your tank if added in excess, but for different reasons. Liquid carbon is chemically toxic, co2 deoxygenates the water (chemists will correct me!).

While higher levels of light create a higher level of demand for carbon from plants you cant just keep increasing light intensity forever but adding more and more carbon. Theres an upper limit.

With co2 gas it seems generally accepted that 30ppm is the highest you can go while still having a tank that livestock can live in. I think there's also a view that beyond 30ppm adding additional co2 makes little difference to plant growth.

The amount of liquid carbon you can add is limited by the fact that it'll be toxic to your fish beyond a certain point, and your plants! It seems that this is generally accepted as being higher than manufacturers guidelines but you still need to be careful. The light intensity you can use with a tank using liquid carbon is generally lower because you can't add loads of it safely.

Does that make sense?
 
I see so the fact that the liquid carbon becomes toxic is where the limit is. Currently using liquid carbon but thinking of going to proper co2 as seems too be greater support and more consistent results.

Thanks for taking the time to explain more fully.
 
You can achieve outstanding results with liquid carbon and it is hugely easier to work with and arguably safer than gas. You can very precisely dose using a syringe in a way that you just cant using gas.

I would not rush to gas in the belief its a fast track to bettwr results. It adds yet another variable to mess with and yet more potential for stuff to go wrong. Many struggle to get it working for them.

Keep it simple and be patient would be my general advice for the least stressful tank.possible.

K
 
Kezzab said:
co2 deoxygenates the water
Click to expand...
CO2 in the water will reduce the amount of CO2 the fish can shed from the body thus reducing "ventilation" and hence the heave "breathing" at the surface:oops:
 
Moved to a planted tank as didn't want the stress that came with marine tank I used to run so sound advice avoiding gas for the moment maybe.
 
In general terms there are two ventilation mechanisms that make creatures breath, the need for oxygen or the need to expel carbon dioxide. Humans need to expel carbon dioxide and will happily asphyxiate in an atmosphere with no carbon dioxide and no oxygen. Research on fish appears to be limited to commercial fish farming for food. However I make an assumption that fish from a high pH environment are carbon dioxide less tolerant than those from lower pH waters.' Liquid carbon' at about 10ml per 40 litres or 10 gals appears to be well tolerated and has a short biological half life, assuming planting/biological filtration are up to scratch.

Chose plants and fish that are happy in a low to medium tech tank and enjoy the hobby. Some plants are too fiddly to lose sleep over. Lighting can be attenuated with floating plants and reduced by increasing the the physical distance between the light source and the substrate. Point source inverse square of the distance. Linear source inverse distance. Infinite planar source no decrease.

In the early days the Dennerle system of bubbles of CO2 rising against a downward stream of water along a helical pathway would not deliver the high amounts of CO2 that are now considered the norm, but plants grew and fish lived. It makes you wonder how we all managed in the good old days.

Chill and enjoy, all best wishes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top