# CO2 choices and decisions ???



## Gfish (18 Aug 2010)

Hi,

Firstly, please excuse the ignornance, I'm reading as many related threads as I can but just can't help wondering how to decide all the following points when setting up CO2 injection:-

I realise I will need a large bottle, as my tank is 5x2x2.5 and probably holds around 540litres after wood, stone and sand are taken into account. 
Is a bottle a bottle? Can I buy and use any regulator with any gas bottle? What needs considering here? 

Needle valve, solenoid and non return valve. Ive read of these items but want to know if they're all necessary and how to go about choosing what's right for my setup?

I gather CO2 hose is fairly standard? Do we just need this and a handful of olives to help connect it all up?

Diffuser. How do I choose the best for my tank, again, what do I need to consider?

Once all these important decisions have been made and I have all the gear, what should determine my bubble count setting? And where to place the diffuser? 
It was at first suggested to me that it should go beneath one of my filter intakes, but I've read here that this can cause erosion of rubber seals in the filter so I'm reluctant to follow this advice.

Solenoid for running a timer. I was also initially advised to have a 2 bubble per second rate set and have it run 24/7. I'm worried to try this, what are the feelings on this considering the fish I have? 

Are there any items ive missed? 

My tank is by most folks standards a low ish lit tank. It has two 4ft 54watt T5 and a mini strip T8 for a moonlight bulb. However, as the tank is designed around the fish I keep, eartheater Geophagus cichlids, (as well as silver dollars and plecs) the substrate is fairly plant free apart from 3 onion plants. The majority of my plants are on wood and some sit high in the tank, so although it's considered low light, for these plants they've got to be experiencing a high light existence.

My flow is strong and filtration is by 1x FX5 and 1 x eheim pro 2 2028. I have the fx5 making minimal surface disturbance at the rear left, and the eheim flow via a spraybar which blasts along the surface at the front right. 
I raised this to give more oxygenation when fish were breathing fast recently, and its helped enormously so I'd be worried to take this away from them.

I realise this is an unusual setup on here and I've already posted to get advice regarding my plants and Blackbush algae. My decision to try CO2 is pretty solid now, so it's time to learn and get my act together.

Cheers

Gavin


----------



## gollum456 (18 Aug 2010)

someone can correct me here, but i'm led to believe the silver dollars will demolish anything you put in the tank. you might want to research that first.

however if you still want to go ahead this thread is a good read:- http://www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=266


----------



## Gfish (18 Aug 2010)

I've had the silver dollars now from an inch in size to 6 inches and they've take the occasional nibble but have never demolished any plant I've had. I even bought a cheap as chips very soft leaved stem plant that the shop assistant said they'd eat, and I hoped they would. They tried it and then left it alone.
The ones I have are black barred silver dollars, Myleus Schomburgkii, and in my tank now the new leaves of my anubias sometimes get chomped but I have a feeling its the Geophagus that are doing it. Either way, once I increase growth with CO2, and add alot more plants to the tank this will hardly be noticeable.
All the horror stories I heard of silver dollars demolishing tanks, the bit they seem to forget to mention are things like, they were moved into a small holding tank and they ate the plants, they weren't fed for a while and they ate the plants, etc etc.  Ive found that if they're fed well they steer clear, and that goes for smaller fish too. They supposedly eat tetras too you see.
They're still one of my favourite fish. Stunning creatures!

Right, I will read that link now. Cheers


----------



## pauld (18 Aug 2010)

hi i can only go by my experience of silver dollars you may wish to read this
http://www.lfkc.co.uk/index.php?topic=4 ... 39#msg3339
i to am a fish person who also wanted plants you may be able to save yourself a few pounds if you read it . i still have that tank with fish , but as my intrest in plants has grown ive decided to get another tank for plants which is large like yours its been running 5 wks now and its a battle to get the co2 distribution correct the lighting correct its not as easy as attaching a co2 cylinder and you end up with a great fish and plant tank you may be lucky . my plan at the moment is to beat the algae i have now, get the planted tank how i want it and then introduce some dwarf cichilids , if i can help you with any of the mistakes ive made feel free to ask .


----------



## gollum456 (18 Aug 2010)

Gfish said:
			
		

> I've had the silver dollars now from an inch in size to 6 inches and they've take the occasional nibble but have never demolished any plant I've had. I even bought a cheap as chips very soft leaved stem plant that the shop assistant said they'd eat, and I hoped they would. They tried it and then left it alone.
> The ones I have are black barred silver dollars, Myleus Schomburgkii, and in my tank now the new leaves of my anubias sometimes get chomped but I have a feeling its the Geophagus that are doing it. Either way, once I increase growth with CO2, and add alot more plants to the tank this will hardly be noticeable.
> All the horror stories I heard of silver dollars demolishing tanks, the bit they seem to forget to mention are things like, they were moved into a small holding tank and they ate the plants, they weren't fed for a while and they ate the plants, etc etc.  Ive found that if they're fed well they steer clear, and that goes for smaller fish too. They supposedly eat tetras too you see.
> They're still one of my favourite fish. Stunning creatures!
> ...



wish i'd known that as both the missus and i really fancied these but were put off in a number of aquatic stores which advised against it. too late now, i'm fully stocked!


----------



## Gfish (18 Aug 2010)

I think with silver dollars, there are things to be careful of and obviously choice of plants is important.
What I've also learnt is that the many kinds of silver dollar seem to have very different feeding preferences. Mine are not the regular silver dollars, they're black barred silver dollars and they are eating machines, especially when they're small. They beat any fish in the tank to the food, any food, and their appetite is huge. 

People feed these fish lettuce leaves, and to me that's like giving a puppy a shoe to play with, then scolding it for chewing your shoes down the line. I've never fed mine lettuce leaves. For greens they get spirulina flake. 

I'm not saying they don't eat the plants, because they do occasionally nibble new leaves, but its never been enough to ruin the look of a tank, and I dont have access to a pc often enough to post pics up, but if you or anyone else sends me a PM with email address I'd really like to send pics of my planted tank and the fish I keep. 

Another mistake I think is buying small numbers of these. The more there are the more they stick together it seems. Id never have less than 6 dollars, and one day I'd like to try 20 

Ok, back to the post, like I tried to say, the fish really are not my problem, the algae is, im cutting leaves away quicker than theyre growing, and I put this down to imbalance of Co2 more than anything else, as I use a liquid additive so far rather than CO2 injection.

So with added growth rate from CO2 it should minimise visible nibbled leaves and minimise the Blackbeard algae.
I have to give this a go, and hey, if down the line I sell my cool fish and decide to buy a handful of tetras instead I shall already have the co2 set up to build a conventional planted tank. 
At this stage I just can't help it, I want the fish I have in a stunning tank.
This is what I'm wanting help with.

Cheers


----------



## ceg4048 (18 Aug 2010)

Gfish said:
			
		

> I realise I will need a large bottle, as my tank is 5x2x2.5 and probably holds around 540litres after wood, stone and sand are taken into account.
> Is a bottle a bottle? Can I buy and use any regulator with any gas bottle? What needs considering here?


Hi Gavin,
    FE cylinders and other industrial refillable cylinders use a standard shutoff valve which means the connector to the regulator is also standard. This is the same regulator and connector that you would find in a welding supply shop for example.

The disposable type bottles, as see here=> Disposable CO2 Systems have proprietary fittings which must have an adapter to fit on to the industrial standard cylinders. These are not for your case.

Look at this assembly => AE Regulator & Solenoid Assembly You can probably find the components on e-bay or other places for cheaper but at least this gives you an idea of what to get. Enlarge the photo and you see that on the right end are the two gauges. One gauge tells you the cylinder pressure and the other gauge tells you the reduced working pressure. At the lower middle of the assembly (just below the TMC logo) you can see the hex-head nut which attaches to the cylinder valve. I think this is a 7/8ths inch hex nut. This is the entry point from the cylinder to the regulator. On the left end of the assembly is the solenoid, which is the black object on the bottom (you can see the power cord on the far lower left) and at the upper left is the knurled head of the needle valve as well as the exit port. This valve controls the bubble rate of the injected gas.
Here is an example of a non return valve Aquarium Gardening Check Valve They are sold as metal or plastic. Obviously the metal valves are sturdier, if a bit more expensive. You need to install this valve at the exit port of the regulator or further downstream to prevent water from flooding your regulator. The arrow follows the direction of gas flow which means the arrowhead points away from the regulator.
You need to buy CO2 resistant tubing, not just any old airline tubing. Nuff said.

If I were you, and if it is affordable, I would contact the B.O.C. because they have serious cylinders and re-fill service. Tell them you need a vapor cylinder and check the prices. The CO2 inside the cylinder is liquid but vapor cylinders allow the CO2 to expand to gaseous form. The other type of cylinder (liquid) is used for freezing pipes and so forth, and is most often used in other industrial application. Do not get this type of cylinder.

For a large tank such as yours I would suggest an in-line diffuser such as an Aquamedic 1000 which is mounted outside the tank. This give much better diffusing but must be attached to the filter outlet. Best to drive it via dedicated filter to be sent to the spraybar. If possible, buy extra sections of spraybar to run the length of the back wall.

You'll also need to measure your CO2 content, so you'll need any Dropchecker that strikes your fancy. Please be sure to read the Tutorial CO2 MEASUREMENT USING A DROP CHECKER


Cheers


----------



## Gfish (19 Aug 2010)

Hi,

That's exactly what I need, thanks so much!

I will take a quick look around at alternative regulators with solenoids, but I've no wish to order off eBay from Taiwan or Hong Kong to save me money, I'd rather pay the price and get the backup service and advice from a UK retail establishment/mail-order business. There seems to be only a handful that really impress, and I think we should support them. Thats my feelings anyway.

I will try contacting BOC, and I must ask for a vapour type CO2 bottle yes?
I'm also going to be asking around friends and family who perhaps know folk who run pubs etc to find a large CO2 bottle for me.  
Once I have it all which will hopefully be in the first half of September, I'll be coming back to ask what bubble rate to start off with. I appreciate it's all trial and error for a while but it would be nice to get it started somewhere near right.

Would having the Co2 come in through the diffuser and via a long spraybar along the back of the tank be best? And if so, should it be near the surface but pointed down at an angle? Would a small external be ok for this? I'm running out of room 
If I manage to find a big cylinder, its going in the next room. I must mention that one to the missus soon. 
I have looked at a 5kg Fire extinguisher and it would be too tall with the regulator on to fit in my cabinet. 

And then there's the dry ferts! Oh that's for another day 

Thanks again, you're a font of knowledge with a no nonsense approach that's very much appreciated. And I think I saw your name said by another guy here somewhere. Are you Clive?

One final important question; are all TMC CO2 V2 regulators the same? Ive reserved one and im just wondering if the 'V2' is the model and I've reserved the correct thing????


Cheers

Gavin


----------



## ceg4048 (19 Aug 2010)

Yep, that's me!

Get some ideas about spraybar and powerhead placement it in these threads: 
Difference in drop checker readings in different positions
Water flow in the planted aquarium?

Yeah, suppliers of Pub CO2 bottles are also a good source. Will probably be cheaper than BOC as well.

The AE website shows two different versions of the regulator. I'd probably avoid the one shown with a single gauge as I'm not familiar enough with that brand. I would only get the one that I reference in my earlier post. I know that one fits the standard cylinders. Besides, the assembly comes complete and ought to be worry free.

Cheers,


----------



## Always Broke (19 Aug 2010)

My Co2 bottle is from a pub gas supplier. Its around 40Kg . I rent this from them at a annual cost of about Â£35 and its about the same amount to get it refilled. I also have a couple of 6kg ones from them which I use when the big bottle runs out as I can only get to them at certain times depending on work.
Buy the best Regulator / soliniod and needle valve you can afford. Its money well spent.

6.5kg bottle with the 40kg+ one.
My bottles live outside now.







Simon


----------



## Gfish (19 Aug 2010)

Hi Simon,

So what size tank is yours and how long does that huge cylinder last you?
Yes, ive been reading up and I think I'll be following advice on here for the All singing and dancing regulator with all the toys attached. Now I need to get my head around the expense of a good diffuser. 

It's certainly mounting in cost this CO2 injection.

Clive,

I read up on the spraybar and it makes sense. However I have good circulation already with the FX5 and pro2 facing eachother but one in the far left corner, the other in the front right on a short spraybar. 
Also, my plants are high in the tank, so the need to circulate Co2 down the front glass is not as important. If I have a long spraybar directed at an angle it will hit about 80% of my plants straight away and then get circulated through the tank. I think 

Cheers for now

Gavin

P.s. Your plants look great by the way. I couldn't see any fish though


----------



## ceg4048 (20 Aug 2010)

Hi Gavin,
             You need to keep a sense of perspective regarding CO2. Not everyone uses the same amount of gas, and having spent the cash for equipment, it's costs are amortized over the length of your time of your hobby. If your lighting is low and the risk to your particular type of fish is high, then you will use much less CO2 and live with a slower growth rate than someone whose main focus is maximum plant growth rate alone.

From an economic standpoint, the cost of using Easycarbo to accomplish what you can achieve with gas would be astronomical as well as possibly being highly toxic.

Your injection technique is a means to an end, so you can increase growth rates generally and maintain CO2 stability to minimize some forms of algae. The larger the fish, generally the more susceptible they are to blood acidosis due to CO2, so you have to sacrifice top end growth rate because _your_ fish are much larger than a rummy nose tetras, for example, which are almost impervious to CO2. Because you already have fish in your tank you have to approach CO2 with caution and respect, otherwise you can annihilate the fish in your tank in less time than it takes to say "Turn down the bubble rate".

If you are handy, you can have a go at Ed Seeley's DIY Reactor - pictures, assembly and testing which is as effective as the other reactors mentioned for a fraction of the cost.

Simon's exercise can be found here=> My venture into my new 760 ltr planted tank But this is a completely different set of objectives.

Cheers,


----------



## gollum456 (20 Aug 2010)

just built my reactor, modified to fit my cabinet slightly. honestly a piece of cake.


----------



## Gfish (20 Aug 2010)

Clive,

I'm just trying to work out if keeping a smaller cylinder for my tank which fits in the cabinet will be ok. If it only lasts a few weeks that's no good, but if as you say I'm not going to be using much gas then I wonder how long I'd get out of let's say a 3.5kg bottle?

That thread on building your own reactor couldn't have done a better job of putting me off! I so wanted to give it a go when I first started reading, but by about page 7 when the design was showing flaws and endless trials on bleed valves, and other things, with occasional mentions of leaking and bubbles not doing what they're meant to do, well, by the time I got to page 13 or whatever at about 18 months later the guy still seemed like he hadn't  perfected it, and he certainly hadn't supplied other guys with their built reactors.

Time is at a premium with me, possibly moreso than money (and I don't have bags of that either!) I think if a home made job costs close to half what the AQuamedic 1000 does, and with all the time and possible mistakes to be made then I'll probably just buy the latter.

Hi gollum..., 
How much do you think yours cost you? And was it the same design or slightly different? Is there any need for the bleed valve? And did you have a T piece inline to introduce the Co2 before the reactor or does yours bring the gas straight into the cylinder?

I now have a couple of rather important questions to raise:-

Do any folk run low level of bubbles and run it 24/7 ? 
Ive heard they do, but I'm not sure of the pros and cons. The obvious worry is too much Co2 for the fish at night. But could airpumps on a timer counteract that?

Also, is there varying grades or qualities of Co2?

And that project of Simons is awesome! I'll read it all eventually  cheers
He's a very technically minded fella who has designed an impressive setup, and admits he has no artistic flare.
Id like to think of myself with more artistic flare than technical ability, but I'm fighting it, and trying to learn this side of  fishkeeping too 

Cheers

Gavin


----------



## CeeJay (20 Aug 2010)

Hi Gavin



			
				Gfish said:
			
		

> Do any folk run low level of bubbles and run it 24/7 ?
> Ive heard they do, but I'm not sure of the pros and cons. The obvious worry is too much Co2 for the fish at night. But could airpumps on a timer counteract that?


As plants don't use CO2 at night it's a no brainer really, especially on larger tanks. If you have no problems with good circulation you will have no problems achieving the correct levels if you turn your gas on 2 hours before lights on. It also gives your fish a break. Why waste it?


			
				Gfish said:
			
		

> Also, is there varying grades or qualities of Co2?


Yes there is, but don't let that worry you. Buy the cheapest you can get. CO2 is CO2 so your plants won't care what grade it is


----------



## ceg4048 (20 Aug 2010)

Gfish said:
			
		

> I'm just trying to work out if keeping a smaller cylinder for my tank which fits in the cabinet will be ok. If it only lasts a few weeks that's no good, but if as you say I'm not going to be using much gas then I wonder how long I'd get out of let's say a 3.5kg bottle?


Hi mate,
   Well normally, for those with very high lighting and very large tanks, 4Kg is annoying because it doesn't last very long. But it's very difficult for other people to assess your situation from a distance. If you can borrow or rent a 4Kg pub bottle on the cheap then it's best to try it out and see how it goes. The technology and techniques are the same whether you use 4Kg or 40Kg, so in this sense it doesn't matter for now. If your lighting is on the low side and if you're just getting your feet wet then there is no need to start out with a massive cylinder. Figure out your consumption first before committing to massive projects. The BOC is always an option, but if pub cylinder suppliers fit your need then there is no need to stress.



			
				Gfish said:
			
		

> That thread on building your own reactor couldn't have done a better job of putting me off! I so wanted to give it a go when I first started reading, but by about page 7 when the design was showing flaws and endless trials on bleed valves, and other things, with occasional mentions of leaking and bubbles not doing what they're meant to do, well, by the time I got to page 13 or whatever at about 18 months later the guy still seemed like he hadn't  perfected it, and he certainly hadn't supplied other guys with their built reactors.


Hmm, oh well, it just goes to show how different people can read the same thing and come away with completely different opinions.   I thought it was a smashing success.  Maybe it's because we understand reactors and CO2 injection a little more than you do. Ed is a schoolteacher and is very busy, plus he was trying to build units for a half a dozen other people and his supplier dried up. The thread was all about trying to optimize  the unit, first having the tube empty and then using bio-balls and then with other media. He concluded that empty was better, but he had to try it to find out. There were some issues with leaky fittings and so forth but nothing major. Other people copied his design and had no issues whatsoever. Some had to actually lower their injection rate because the unit was so efficient at dissolving CO2. Some decided to shorten the tube, or to use different materials to fit their needs. These were all good things. CO2 application is the single most difficult exercise in a planted tank. Nothing else even compares in degree of difficulty, simply because of it's toxicity, yet it's worthwhile because of it's outstanding effects.


			
				Gfish said:
			
		

> Time is at a premium with me, possibly moreso than money (and I don't have bags of that either!) I think if a home made job costs close to half what the AQuamedic 1000 does, and with all the time and possible mistakes to be made then I'll probably just buy the latter.


Fair enough mate. AM1000 is a good unit, but it does use an undersized diameter input hose which makes it inefficient. This was one of the issues Ed solved by using the 16mm inside diameter hose. You'll have to ensure therefore that you have a strong filter to power the AM1000, otherwise it increases your CO2 consumption.


Cheers


----------



## Gfish (20 Aug 2010)

Ceejay,

May sound odd, but I'm more worried about the fish than the plants  ???
I'm wondering if anyone ever keeps big fish in a nice planted tank??? I feel all alone sometimes.  lol



Clive,

So there's not even a perfect commercially available reactor!? Ah, maybe I'll design and build my own afterall.
If I did use the Aquamedic, would a Pro 2 2028 be strong enough?
What do you use by the way?

Cheers

Gavin


----------



## ceg4048 (20 Aug 2010)

Gfish said:
			
		

> So there's not even a perfect commercially available reactor!? Ah, maybe I'll design and build my own afterall.
> If I did use the Aquamedic, would a Pro 2 2028 be strong enough?
> What do you use by the way?


 No there are no perfect reactors. The DIY ones come the closest. I use two of 17mm variety of these=> Cal Aqua In-Line Diffusers

I'm not sure where you can buy these now. AquaEssentials used to sell them. Contact Richard and he might be able to source them. They are very small but very expensive. If space and convenience are at a premium then these ought to be considered. 
They look something like this installed, which takes up about 10X less space than an AM1000:





Just about any filter can power these reactors, but generally their efficiency and effectiveness improve vastly as the filter flow rate increases. The 2028 is on the low end of the power spectrum for mating to AM1000, especially since the inlet spuds to the reactor are so absurdly narrow, 12mm I believe. This chokes the flow from the filter, reducing their efficiency.

Cheers,


----------



## CeeJay (20 Aug 2010)

Hi all

The AM 1000 now comes with tapered tail pieces. An obvious improvement on previous models.
So if you are using pipe with a 12mm internal diameter no further action is required, just push the pipe straight on. If you want to use 16mm internal diameter pipe then the tail piece has to be cut back to the fatter part (if that makes sense).
Every picture you see on the web of the AM1000 shows the older model with the straight 12mm tail piece.
I'm running mine on the 16mm pipe.
I think the original design had one fundamental flaw. They say it is good for a 500 gallon tank and expected you to supply it through a 12 mm pipe. Let's get real for a minute   
Hope that helps.


----------



## ceg4048 (21 Aug 2010)

Good info Chris. Didn't realize they had changed the design. Gotta give it to Am for listening.

Cheers,


----------



## Gfish (21 Aug 2010)

That's great news as I may be purchasing one fairly soon so thanks for that, makes me feel my moneys well spent now.

I was starting to think about building one for use on my FX5, as longterm my plans are to use two FX5 on this tank, so I'd be selling my Pro2 on. 

As the pipe size is huge on the fX5 is there still ways to introduce CO2 in the same way, but I guess this would mean id be building one huh? And buying straight pipe to replace the ribbed one fluvals come with.

Cheers


----------



## ceg4048 (21 Aug 2010)

Yep, unless you can find reducing hardware to get the ribbed hose down to the inlet spud size. Then of course you'd be back-pressuring the FX and effectively killing your flow rate from that unit.

Cheers,


----------



## Gfish (21 Aug 2010)

Whats to stop me just having a length of hard tube that a new smooth pipe for the FX5 outflow would fit over and having a few baffles of some sort on it to diffuse the CO2. 
I could drill into the side of the tube to bring CO2 into it. And if I do this instead of increasing the diameter considerably for the diffusion chamber, I'd expect to get away with the need for a bleed valve. 
Hmmm id be interested to hear from folk who've designed their own so far, as to whether they think this would work. 
I'm thinking this would be very cheap and very easy.

Cheers


----------



## gollum456 (23 Aug 2010)

> Hi gollum...,
> How much do you think yours cost you? And was it the same design or slightly different? Is there any need for the bleed valve? And did you have a T piece inline to introduce the Co2 before the reactor or does yours bring the gas straight into the cylinder?



mine cost about Â£25 to make, and i have not installed a bleed valve, for the simple reason i saw no need to. my gas is turned off at night so any build up will dissipate. i chose to insert the gas at the reactor as is done on the rex grigg model. i have tested for leaks with a hosepipe turned up full and the opposite end blocked up, far more pressure than will ever be created by the filter. i have not used it yet as i'm waiting for my pipe brush to be delivered and i will clean the pipes and install the reactor at the same time.

hope that helps.


----------



## Gfish (28 Aug 2010)

Please come back to me and let me know how it works once up and running on the tank.

I'm thinking that on a large diameter outflow pipe if we stick CO2 into it somewhere nearer the filter, it will diffuse before it reaches the tank outflow end, especially if the majority of that length of hose is the fluval ribbed stuff. But I'm no expert :-/

Ive yet to work out what's so special about a reactor as far as dimensions go. Length to diameter ratio, and the reactor diameter compared to hose diameter. Are these important factors at all?????

Cheers

Gavin


----------



## Gfish (1 Sep 2010)

Hi all

Ok, my CO2 kit is all on order. After much deliberation and looking at many things that were not appropriate and  things that could have perhaps saved me money, I ordered a slightly tweaked TGM kit. This will get me started and if down the line I choose to buy a bigger bottle, well, I'll have a spare.
I will be running a diffuser mounted on the tank glass beneath the intake of my FX5 filter so we'll see how that goes. How long the seals last and how good the diffusion and efficiency turns out to be. 

My next major puzzler for me is where to start with a bubble count for my tank.

The points to consider:-
1.)
At the moment it's not heavily planted. 3 onion plants, 3 bunches of java, and alot of  anubias (approx 5 tropica XL anubias caladefolia) that has 70% been cut back to dispose of torn and badly damaged leaves.

2.)
The fish I have, that im wanting to be cautious of with high CO2 and high nitrates through dry ferts dosing, are the young adult Geophagus aff. Altifrons group I have.

So where do I start with setting the close to correct bubble count rate???

And where do I start with the dry ferts dosing???

I have read the long post on dry ferts but I'm wary of following someone elses guidelines for a tank that has plants as a priority and a small amount of small fish, compared to my own stocking.

Hope I'm not causing too many groans :-/

All help is hugely appreciated!

Cheers

Gavin


----------



## ceg4048 (1 Sep 2010)

GROAN...  

Nothing more can be said if your mind is already set. No one has ever killed these types of fish by adding EI levels of KNO3 or KH2PO4. The more you continue to fear nutrients then the more problems you'll have...

CO2 toxicity is the only real concern. For a 180G tank you can start with about 8 bubbles per second.

Cheers,


----------



## Gfish (2 Sep 2010)

Clive,

What were you referring to 'if your mind is already set' ?
My choice of CO2 kit, the diffusion through the filter? ?

Its not so much that im worried about using dry ferts, it's more the point that whatever ferts I use will be adding nitrates, and I know the plants will take up these nitrates, but what I want to do is er' on the side of caution to avoid excess nitrate levels which I know will harm the fish I have. So I guess it's the 'take up rate' that's important here, and whereas in your post on EI you talked of the ideal situation where the plants are never at any time short of nutrients, I'd be happier if at the latter stages, before the next dosing, they actually did run out. 
Id rather this than there be an unnecessary nitrate level left and then I'm adding more. Do you know what I mean?

Everything I've read and all the south American cichlid keepers I've talked to stress the same thing over and over, Geophagus NEED low nitrate levels. So this is something I've been very conscious of from the start.

My tank is about 187 US gallon, so with all the decor its probably holding 140 to 150. Is 8 bubbles per second a good starting rate then?
And if I started out dosing less than you'd recommend would my plants be ok? I mean would it be best to have this bubble count and half dose for a while? Or half dose CO2 and nutrients together?

What would happen if I stopped dosing ferts let's say if I ran out? Would the set bubble count of CO2 be harmful in any way to fish or plants?

I'd like to avoid the situation you mentioned earlier of 'turn the bubble count down'

Cheers

Gavin


----------



## ceg4048 (2 Sep 2010)

Hi Gavin,
             What I mean is that everyone seems to have their mind set on this theory that NO3 is the boogieman. Everyone accepts it without ever having tested it for themselves. Do you really think that the only benefit of doing a water change for example is solely to get rid of nitrate? Has anyone actually done controlled experiments with these fish to determine the short term and long term effects? Has anyone ever seen the results of a postmortem when a fish dies to see if in fact the death was caused by excessive NO3? Without any data it's all speculation.

So all these chiclid keepers talk about the need for low nitrates but how do they accomplish it? Do they simply use nitrate absorbing resins without doing a water change? I'll bet they do large regular water changes and therefore they can never really separate the effects of nitrate removal from any other toxicity removal. The fish do well and so all this seems to validate their principles. But this is something psychologists call "confirmation bias", where the individual tends to pay attention to only the evidence that supports their preconceptions, and to ignore evidence to the contrary. In the article, at the very top is a paragraph entitled "The Fear of Dry Powders" in which I addressed this issue and I tried to reassure the reader that:





> Even the most sensitive species are completely unaffected by addition of the dry salts and will breed quiet happily assuming breeding parameters are satisfactory.


Because most people can't be bothered to learn the science of a phenomenon they can only go by what a majority of other people say, but what if the majority don't study the science either? If not then they can easily be wrong. While the available data indicates that there is a toxic limit to NO3 level, we are nowhere near this limit. What I always try to explain to the paranoid, is that there are a lot more toxic things in the water than NO3. In fact, adding food to the tank generates more toxicity than adding KNO3. NO3 is actually nature way of detoxifying the environment. Check the following thread and the links it contains;
About to start EI dosing a 190L

Folks inevitably discover that dosing inorganic NO3 is not a big deal and that it's actually a benefit to the fish because of what it enables the plants to accomplish with the water chemistry. More KNO3 generates more photosynthesis, which in turn generates more Oxygen. More Oxygen means more nitrifying bacteria which reduce the NH3 and NO2 content which are the real boogiemen. More Oxygen also is better for fish. Keeping the tank clean is one of the most important things you can do. It's the organic waste in the tank that you need to worry about, not the NO3.


			
				Gfish said:
			
		

> My tank is about 187 US gallon, so with all the decor its probably holding 140 to 150. Is 8 bubbles per second a good starting rate then?


Everything that we calculate already takes into account the amount of water in the tank so the suggested initial bubble rates are what they are.


			
				Gfish said:
			
		

> And if I started out dosing less than you'd recommend would my plants be ok?


Dosing less than baseline might easily work out to be fantastic. I cannot answer the question honestly because every tank is different. I do know that in general, large tanks have to be dosed more, not less in order to account for the inefficiencies caused by the large volumes. But again, this is a question borne of paranoia. The idea is always to start with the baseline numbers and to either go up or to go down based on the results.



			
				Gfish said:
			
		

> What would happen if I stopped dosing ferts let's say if I ran out? Would the set bubble count of CO2 be harmful in any way to fish or plants?


CO2 is toxic because the concentration level in the water affects the fishes ability to expel CO2 from their bloodstream. When this happens the blood CO2 levels rise and a small amount of Carbonic acid forms in the blood. This acid interrupts the electrochemical processes that occur naturally in the tissues, such as the nervous system. This toxic effect is independent of any other component in the water column so that the nutrient level has a negligible effect. It could be argued however, that a nutrient shortfall will also cause a decline in CO2 uptake, thereby increasing the water's concentration level. The change in level won't be significant though. CO2 is not toxic to plants, only to fauna and vermin such as snails.

If you review the dropchecker article you'll see where we suggest to do this on a day off where you can monitor the tank. Don't just set the bubble rate and then go off to play rugby or something like that. In that size tank an 8bps should be fine as a starting point and will probably not move the dropchecker color all that much. I have a 150G and I can't even count the bubbles. I just listen to the singing tone as the bubbles enter the system. It's like a flute. D sharp means I'm good to go, B flat means I'll have hair algae within days...

Cheers,


----------



## Gfish (3 Sep 2010)

Clive 

We could talk about this for hours couldn't we, but I know very little and as you say, I'm going on all I've read on the Internet as I'm still an inexperienced fishkeeper who wants to learn more.
I was under the impression that other than nitrate, other toxicity could be ammonia and nitrite. And these can be caused by a number of things, I do know that, but I thought that with filters working correctly these are taken care of. But again, its only what I've read 

Thanks for your time on this, I have to say, I'm wondering what you do for a living? 

Ok, I sat down with the EI page of James' Tank guide and worked out amounts to start dosing the dry ferts. I chose this page to work from as it dealt quite simply with the 3 tubs available from Aquaessentials.

Now taking into account, my low lighting (less than 1 watt per gallon) and the lesser amount of plants stocked at this stage, he suggests 50% of the guidelines he wrote for various tank sizes. So ive worked out these amounts for the 3 times a week dosing:-
0.83 tsp KNO3
0.25 tsp KH2PO4
0.25 tsp Traces

Does this sound like about right for starting measures?
And with your suggested 8 bps rate?
Is the bubble rate easy to set? Having not yet held or looked at all this equipment, I'm not sure of what I'm going to be doing when it comes to setting up and making adjustments.

Also, how many light hours do you suggest? 
Its amazing, I cannot imagine how bright my tank would be with twice the amount of light. I think my lighting is perfect, and yet nobody seems to have such a low wattage as mine??? 
I have two 54watt T5 one a bright White Phillips, the other a sylvania growlux. And I also have a short 18inch White tube for moonlight which is on for an hour or so in the far left corner, late evenings.

I've got to try get this tank looking good, and I will obviously be doing all I can to keep the place clean and to preserve fish health. 

Thanks again for your patience, 

Gavin


----------



## ceg4048 (4 Sep 2010)

Hi Gavin,
              Yes it's clear that most of what we "know" is what we are told or what we read. AS it turns out, we only truly "know" something when we study and experience it for ourselves. If you think about it. most of us don't even "know" our own language. We just hear our parents mumbling from the time we're in the crib, simply repeat whet we hear them say. When we finally start uttering words it's really only because we start life out as parrots. It's only when we grow a bit and study English or Danish, or whatever, that we understand the how and why of what we say.

My opinion is that if I'm going to read what someone else says of a thing then it's best to read from someone who actually gets paid to  study that same thing that I'm interested in. As I mentioned before, few people even bother trying to understand why ammonia, nitrite and nitrate are toxic or even what the mitigating factors could be. I encourage you to study a document such as: Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems: A global assessment a modern assessment of nitrogen pollution worldwide. Nitrogen poisoning due to agricultural use of fertilizers and the run-off, which infects the ground and surface waters, has been implicated in a wide variety of species decline such as amphibians (frogs, salamanders and so forth). You have to buy the article, which immediately puts people off. People don't mind spending money for rubbish such as pH Down, Phosphozorb and the like, but paying money for knowledge? No way, it's better to stumble around in the dark. 
In any case, the article has a very good description of the toxic mechanisms.  Lets start with ammonia.


> The ionized ammonia (NH4+) and unionized ammonia (NH3) are interrelated through the chemical equilibrium NH4+-OH-?NH3·H2O?NH3+H2O
> The relative concentrations of NH4+ and NH3 are basically dependent on the pH and temperature of the water: as values of pH and temperature tend to increase, the concentration of NH3 also increases but the concentration of NH4+ decreases. The concentration of total ammonia is the sum of NH4+ and NH3 concentrations, and it is total ammonia that is analytically measured in water samples.


From this basic description you can immediately tell for example that your fish, being in a high pH and high temperature environment are more susceptible to ammonia/ammonium poisoning than fish kept in more acidic and/or cooler conditions. This means that controlling ammonia buildup via water changes are critical in a Rift Lake Chiclid Tank. Lets hear some more:


> Unionized ammonia is very toxic to aquatic animals, particularly to fish, whereas ionized ammonia is nontoxic or appreciably less toxic. Moreover, unionized ammonia can cause toxicity to Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria, inhibiting the nitrification process. This inhibition can also result in increased accumulation of NH4+ (plus NH3) in the aquatic environment, intensifying the toxicity to bacteria and aquatic animals.


So what does that tell you about the lunatics who dump ammonia into their tanks thinking that this speeds up the cycling of the tank?


> The toxic action of unionized ammonia on aquatic animals, particularly on fish, may be due to one or more of the following
> causes
> (1) damage to the gill epithelium causing asphyxiation;
> (2) stimulation of glycolisis and suppression of Krebs cycle causing progressive acidosis and reduction in blood oxygen-carrying capacity;
> ...



OK, lets see what's said about Nitrite Toxicity(NO2):


> The nitrite ion (NO2
> -) and unionized nitrous acid (HNO2) are interrelated through the chemical equilibrium (NO2-)+(H+)?HNO2
> The relative concentrations of (NO2-) and HNO2 are basically dependent on the pH of the water: as the value of pH tends to increase, the concentration of (NO2-) can also increase, but the concentration of HNO2 decreases. The HNO2
> concentration is 4–5 orders of magnitude less than the (NO2-)
> ...


No surprises there. Lets see the mechanism:


> The main toxic action of nitrite on aquatic animals, particularly on fish and crayfish, is due to the conversion of oxygen-carrying pigments to forms that are incapable of carrying oxygen, causing hypoxia and ultimately death. In fish, entry of nitrite into the red blood cells is associated with the oxidation of iron atoms (Fe2+?
> Fe3+), functional hemoglobin being converted into methemoglobin that is unable to release oxygen to body tissues because of its high dissociation constant. Similarly, in crayfish, entry of nitrite into the blood plasma is associated with the oxidation of copper atoms (Cu1+?Cu2+), whereby functional hemocyanin is converted into methemocyanin that cannot bind reversibly to molecular oxygen. In addition, the following toxic effects of nitrite on fish and crayfish have been found:
> (1) depletion of extracellular and intracellular Chloride (Cl-) levels causing severe electrolyte imbalance;
> (2) depletion of intracellular K+ and elevation of extracellular K+ levels affecting membrane potentials, neurotransmission, skeletal muscle contractions, and heart function;
> ...


OK, lets hear about Nitrate:


> The nitrate ion (NO3âˆ’) does not form an unionized species in the aquatic environment (i.e., HNO3 is completely dissociated to H+ and (NO3-), and consequently nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals is due to nitrate ions. As in the case of nitrite, the main toxic action of nitrate on aquatic animals, particularly on fish and crayfish, seems to be the conversion of oxygen-carrying pigments (hemoglobin, hemocyanin) to forms that are incapable of carrying oxygen (methemoglobin, methemocyanin). In fact, before it becomes toxic, nitrate must be converted into nitrite under internal body conditions. Nevertheless, owing to the low branchial permeability to nitrate ions, the NO3 - uptake in aquatic animals is more limited than the NO2 - uptake, which contributes to the relatively low toxicity of nitrate. The toxicity of nitrate ions in aquatic ecosystems has been traditionally considered to be irrelevant, despite the fact that elevated nitrate concentrations can actually exceed values as high as 25 mg NO3-N/L in surface waters and 100 mg NO3-N/L in ground waters. Furthermore, several laboratory studies have shown
> that a nitrate concentration of 10 mg NO3–N/L (USA federal maximum level for drinking water) can adversely affect, at least during long-term exposures, sensitive aquatic animals. Freshwater animals appear to be more sensitive to nitrate toxicity than seawater animals, owing to the likely ameliorating effect of water salinity. However, early developmental stages of some marine invertebrates, naturally well adapted to low nitrate concentrations, may be so sensitive to nitrate ions as freshwater animals despite the ameliorating effect of water salinity. Among the different taxonomic groups of freshwater invertebrates and fish that have been exposed to nitrate toxicity, certain caddisflies, amphipods, and salmonid fishes seem to be the most sensitive, exhibiting short-term safe levels (120-hour LC0.01) and no observed effect concentrations (30-day NOEC) lower than 5 mg NO3–N/L.
> On the basis of toxicity data, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2003) has recommended water quality criteria, ranging 2.9–3.6 mg NO3–N/L, to protect freshwater and marine life, and Camargo et al. (2005a) have recently
> proposed a maximum level of 2 mg NO3–N/L for the protection of sensitive aquatic animals.


So here we see that nitrate itself isn't even toxic. Only when internal functions of the fish reduce it to Nitrite is the toxicity caused. Even so, we see that the fishes uptake of NO3 is nowhere near the uptake of NO2.

A lot of this data come from the Canadian Fisheries branch, and it was determined that certain caddisflies, amphipods, and salmonid fishes were the most sensitive, therefore, the suggest concentration maxima are to protect these species. But does this apply to the species we keep. It's difficult to find data specific to our hobby but I was able to find this report: Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry. This is an old study, 1977, but the data is still valid. If you just read the abstract, you can see that the difference in toxicity between ammonia and nitrate was several orders of magnitude - and that was for the fry, not the adults. Well, wild type guppies are bulletproof anyway so it not fair to say that your species have the same resistance to nitrate as these. It's likely that yours fall somewhere between the two extremes.

Also, when you read the parameters such as 72-h lc50 199 and 1.26 mg L-1 -N, you've got to interpret them properly. The fish were placed in a properly controlled and aerated tank. The chemical were added and fish kill was counted after a certain amount of time. the 72-h means 72 hours, or 3 days. LC50 refers to the Lethal Concentration that caused 50% of the fish to die. The -N only refers to the Nitrogen component of the compound, so the concentration of the compound has be calculated based on the ratio of Nitrogen in that compound. So 199ppm NO3-N  has to be multiplied by 4.4 in order to determine the concentration of NO3 in the water. That means at a concentration of 875ppm NO3, 50% of the fish died after 3 days. Compare this number to the 15-20ppm NO3 per week suggestion and you'll see that we are nowhere close to the toxicity levels for this species anyway.

Of course these are short term data, so one could easily argue; my dosing may not kill the fish outright, but may lower their life expectancy. This is a valid argument, but the only way to know for sure is to do it. Fish die for lots of reasons. Somewhere in the data of causal factors will be the effects of long term exposure to nitrogenous salts. My own data indicates a negligible effect long term at dosing levels up to 3 times these values. Comfort levels are unaffected as the fish breed quite regularly and the fry grow to adulthood if they are not eaten. Apart from traumatic causes such as jumping, predation, CO2 overdose and so forth I see no decline in longevity for species that I keep.



 

The dosing numbers that you propose are fine, but you need to get more plants. Much more.
Bubble rates are easy. Just turn the knurled knob of the needle valve and count. I assume you have a bubble counter or that the diffuser you are using is transparent enough to see the bubbles enter the chamber?
As far as the brightness of your tank, try not to compare the wattage numbers. They are not relevant in this size tank because your bulbs are probably 5 feet long and that's a lot of light. The only true measure of lighting is measurement of the incident energy using a PAR meter.

Cheers,


----------



## Whitebeam (5 Sep 2010)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Hi Gavin...


... and then went on to provide a truly superb treatise on Nitrogen toxicity. This remarkable post should be required reading. May I suggest that it is extracted to an article or a sticky somewhere? It would be criminal for it to get lost into the depths of the archive.

Peter


----------



## Tom (5 Sep 2010)

Just extract Clive's entire post history and publish it  It would be a bit more like Jeremy Clarkson's books compiled of chronological newspaper columns, only it would make sense and have some use...


----------



## Gfish (5 Sep 2010)

Clive and all, 

Feels like an attempt to totally baffle me with science! 
It worked lol
I will try reading it again. And again. And maybe again. But if knowledge of all this was what fishkeeping was all about, then most folk really wouldn't bother. 
Its important that FACTs are documented, and as you say Clive, folk do automatically believe what they read (when it's easy to understand) but, most folks lives are all too often busy, chaotic, stressful, etc etc. that I can't help feeling a hobby like this should be less stressful  than our everyday lives. That said there will always be those who wish to take their hobbies to the next level and excel in their results. This forum is excellent in helping those folk. I'm kind of in the middle, being a relative beginner, and also still more into the fish than the plants, but yet, feeling i need to learn more to keep my tank looking good as well as keeping the fish I really want to keep. 
I smiled throughout reading this knowing it will take me a long tome to get near to understanding it. All I kept thinking was, " yeah but can he put a Rowntrees fruit pastel in his mouth without chewing it?" 

Cheers for now, and as I said, I'll be reading that again very soon.

Gavin

P.s. What do you do Clive? Whats your profession?


----------



## Whitebeam (5 Sep 2010)

Gfish said:
			
		

> I'm kind of in the middle, being a relative beginner, and also still more into the fish than the plants, but yet, feeling i need to learn more to keep my tank looking good as well as keeping the fish I really want to keep.


You and me both!

Peter


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Sep 2010)

Hey, Jeremy Clarkson is my favorite car reviewer!  

But seriously, it was not the intent at all to baffle. I tried to summarize the data taken from the journals so we could focus on, and discuss the key points. There is a ton of data and although some of the phrases are very technical, they are certainly not beyond our comprehension. We can google the phrase to learn more about it. So for example ammonia "causes damage to the gill epithelium causing asphyxiation". Just look up "epithelium" and you find that this is the tissue that line the cavities and surfaces of structures throughout the body. So if gill tissues are damaged the fish cannot breathe right? So this causes asphyxiation.

In trying to understand the information you'll learn more than you bargained for. This is an investment in time and energy and in the end you'll know more which will enhance your decision making. So in fact, the hobby will be less stressful in the long run. That way, no one will be able to sell you a load of rubbish, because you'll understand the truth. It just takes more energy in the beginning.



			
				Gfish said:
			
		

> " yeah but can he put a Rowntrees fruit pastel in his mouth without chewing it?"


YES, I did it on a dare. Lots of salivating though. It wasn't a pretty sight by all accounts.  



			
				Gfish said:
			
		

> P.s. What do you do Clive? Whats your profession?


Well I'm not a biologist. That's just a hobby. I started out as a test engineer involved in validating/certifying aerospace systems and military products. Now I'm involved with troubleshooting these products/systems while deployed in the field.

Cheers,


----------



## Gfish (6 Sep 2010)

You crack me up Clive, and as I said, I will refer back to this last very informative post and many others as time goes by.
For the moment I'm setting this CO2 system up,probably this evening. The Long rear spraybar went in yesterday. Works a treat but does change everything in my tank, from the way food is moved around to the way fish face when feeding and when just milling around. I have a feeling it will help more debris to be sucked up by the intakes too. 

Must go to work now, but thanks again. And cheers for the tips on how to use google, I'll take a look at that one day  hehe


----------



## sciencefiction (11 Mar 2013)

I know it is an old thread and the info is what I've read myself but the interpretation of nitrate toxicity above is rather vague and doesn't disapprove that fresh water fish we keep aren't sensitive to nitrates. In fact, it says fresh water fish are more sensitive to them but it's salt water fish keepers who keep these levels low for the benefit of the fish  And the discussion here accents on mortality rate for which the accute toxicity levels must be rather high I agree. However when it comes to fish health, growth rates,etc, the levels of NO3-N at which some fish and inverts don't suffer chronic damage and side effects that indirectly can lead to death, are rather low in comparisson.
Here is one scientific article I was reading in relation to this
http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Reports/report-review-nitrate-toxicity-freshwater-aquatic-species-000609-web.pdf

And in relation to the "lunatics who dump ammonia into their tanks" I've cycled 2 tanks with dumping ammonia to raise the levels to 3-4ppm in lightly planted tanks without using mulm and mature media and it took around 4 weeks both times and the tanks have developed as well as any other method used.

And the info about unionized ammonia and high nitrites being toxic to not only fish, but bacteria as well, is rather interesting. What are these levels because it is NH3 that the bacteria you are refering to prefers to use. High levels maybe toxic, especially in a fishless cycle when one dumps 3-4ppm daily which can lead to accumulation of hundreds of ppm in nitrites if the nitrite oxidizing bacteria isn't multiplying that fast, and an unsuspecting fish keeper won't even realize that. But as long as that is dealt with via a full water change, then the cycle will finish as fast as any other method and is more humane than dumping fish and hope those plants are growing, rather than melting on you.
I would love to know how long high tech planted enthusiasts manage to keep their fish alive because from vague reading some journals here and there it isn't only the flora that changes, but the fauna as well. Its all been blamed on CO2 mainly, but who has done a test to say it isn't something else related to the non-organic minerals we add. Plants may love them but there's certainly some info to suggest that they can be toxic to animals and humans. Isn't it why plants are so important to living organisms via the nitrogen cycle, to remove/convert these toxins to something less harmful. But a fish tank is far from nature and we instead add those toxins without having any idea how much should be the limit if you aren't keeping just an aqua garden but keep animals too. And the amount and concentration of these toxins depends mainly on the schedule,common sense,opinion,education,interest, etc...in most cases of just one individual.  And the living beings in it are barely protected by any laws or any satisfactory research is done to say the least its not harmful.
This reminds me about terrestial and the affect of chemical fertilizers on the enviroment, humans,animals,etc..
Why does one prefer organically grown food?


----------



## JMorgan (5 Nov 2017)

Tom said:


> Just extract Clive's entire post history and publish it  It would be a bit more like Jeremy Clarkson's books compiled of chronological newspaper columns, only it would make sense and have some use...


Well I wouldn't take the liberty of publishing it, but matter of factly in combination with valuable contributions from other members, I do now have quite a collection of copied and pasted documents which I often refer to and together they add up to an invaluable resource for which I am enormously grateful, as are my plants and fish.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (10 Nov 2017)

"Plants may love them but there's certainly some info to suggest that they can be toxic to animals and humans."

 From what I understand the World Health Organisation has recommenced 50ppm as a limit for drinking water although this is often breached. From what I can make out its only for the benefit of babies that don't have a mature bacterial stomach content and acids where nitrogen can steal oxygen in the blood causing "blue baby syndrome" AFAIK there is nothing to worry adults and I would suspect there's lots of other things in the tapwater that are worth worrying about.

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


----------

