# Are co2 enriched tanks really fair on the critters?



## Tomfish (14 Mar 2012)

Although the title may sound like I am trying to make a point. This really is intended as a question. Are users aware of a studies, articles or even experiences that shed light on potencial long term affects on fauna of living in co2 enriched enviroments. I ask because hearing of fish struggling when co2 is too high makes me wonder if at lower more 'acceptable' levels they are neverless under stress, but less visibly. Perhaps at these lower levels they can adapt/aclimatise and live healthy lives, I don't know.

Any thoughts welcome,

Tom


----------



## hotweldfire (14 Mar 2012)

I hear what you're saying. After some time trying to achieve the EI injected co2 planted tank dream I am wondering whether I should stop risking my livestock and adopt a healthier, less dangerous method of keeping plants and fish together.


----------



## Ady34 (15 Mar 2012)

Hi, 
its an interesting point, but id also like to know to what level water is c02 enriched in nature where the plants grow naturally. Obviously were trying to recreate a 'mini ecosystem' of sorts, but if c02 isnt present in the water column in such high concentrations in nature, where do aquatic plants get their carbon from? Maybe it just is that high naturally too, in which case fish that live with plants arnt really suffering at all?
Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## Tomfish (15 Mar 2012)

An ecosystem of the loosest of sorts. In fact creating ecosystems seems pretty far down the list of concerns of the average hightech planted aquarist. It appears far more important are aesthetic values and an arguably contrived emphasis on vigourous planted growth. By the way I'm not knocking it, got a large hightech set up slowly coming together myself.

On the point of plants access to carbon in nature like you I'm waiting for some one with a little more of the old knowledge, but reading about soil subtrates I come across the the fact that carbon is released to the roots by processes of decay within the soil. Couple this this with the semi-emersed nature of many aquatic plants in the wild, suggesting better access to carbon, and  I see the possibility of lower necessary concentrations of co2 in the water. 

Now I can't remeber the question I started with :?


----------



## Ady34 (15 Mar 2012)

I know what you mean, hence 'mini ecosystems' of sorts. More of a manageable dependant system. However still interesting to find out more about c02 in nature to see what the fish out there have to put up with.
Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## Tomfish (15 Mar 2012)

Sorry while I was pondering over my edit you added a reply and now it appears like you didn't read half of my answer


----------



## Ady34 (15 Mar 2012)

Thats ok, i dont mind looking stupid.


----------



## ceg4048 (15 Mar 2012)

Tomfish said:
			
		

> Although the title may sound like I am trying to make a point. This really is intended as a question. Are users aware of a studies, articles or even experiences that shed light on potencial long term affects on fauna of living in co2 enriched enviroments. I ask because hearing of fish struggling when co2 is too high makes me wonder if at lower more 'acceptable' levels they are neverless under stress, but less visibly. Perhaps at these lower levels they can adapt/aclimatise and live healthy lives, I don't know.


Hi Tom,
   Maintenance of bloodstream pH is a necessary feature of every fish and animal. This feature is necessary because all cells burn glucose for energy and the result of metabolized glucose is CO2 + water. As a result of heavy CO2 production by living cells, and as a result of the subsequent carbonic acid conversion, animals must buffer the blood in exactly the same way as we add buffer to our tanks, by producing and distributing bicarbonate (HCO3-) thereby raising the alkalinity (KH) of the blood. This is a crucial acid-base regulation function, and not surprisingly, is carried out by an enzyme called "Carbonic anhydrase", which catalizes the reaction:

CO2 + H20 => (H+) + HCO3-

This is necessarily a very fast reaction, and it happens at the gills where the products on the right hand side of that equation are then exported to the water in exchange for other ions such as Na+ and Cl-. This is one of the ways in which fish control the ionic balance and osmotic pressures across tissues. But even so, increasing the CO2 content of the water requires about 6 hours or so for the fish to neutralize the new level. After about 24 hours the adjustment is complete, however, the Oxygen carrying ability of the hemoglobin is slightly reduced. If the gas concentration level is too high then then it becomes more difficult to neutralize, and the Oxygen handling of the hemoglobin falls off rapidly.

There are loads of studies out there because there are concerns that the high CO2 content of the atmosphere not only accelerates global warming, but also causes more CO2 to dissolve in the worlds oceans which will change the acidity of the water and will cause problems for the fauna. Do a google search for "Hypercapnia fish". A lot of experiments have been performed mostly on trout.

So, there are some risks but they have to be managed. You could also easily ask the question: "Is overfeeding and poor water change habits really fair on the critters?" because this causes as much or more damage.

Cheers,


----------



## darren636 (15 Mar 2012)

i think it is fair to say that a high tech set up is not a natural environment at all. The plants behave quite differently compared to their uncultivated cousins. As for the stress on fish aspect.... The more i think about it in recent months , the more i want to run a biotope...


----------



## dw1305 (15 Mar 2012)

Hi all,
I think you have to split this question in to a number of sections. 

*Nature of the livestock*
If you keep rheophilic fish,, that come from cool, low BOD water with a high oxygen requirement,(like the Brown Trout: _Salmo trutta_, _Sewellia lineolata, Chaetosoma_ spp. etc), maintaining high oxygen levels is all ready pretty difficult, and adding any amount of CO2 is likely to make things (worse due to the Bohr effect <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Structural_Biochemistry/Hemoglobin#Bohr_effect>). 

Conversely if you keep fish from warm, still water with a large organic matter content (fish like many of the Anabantoids) both oxygen content and CO2 levels are far less important.  Have a look at this thread from 2010 <http://www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10004> for some more discussion, and this more recent one <http://www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=18695>

*Usual and unusual CO2 levels*
This is my real argument for not adding CO2, although fish may be non-stressed at normal CO2 levels, and the extra oxygen production from rapid photosynthesis may help maintain high water quality, there is always the risk of a large CO2 dump, when your fish all die. 





> _If the gas concentration level is too high then then it becomes more difficult to neutralize, and the oxygen handling of the haemoglobin falls off rapidly"_


cheers Darrel


----------



## ghostsword (15 Mar 2012)

Also note that most plants are actually a large part of the year above water, and submerged areas on the wild very rarely look like our tanks.  

A nutural aquarium is very rarely a representation of what nature looks like.  

But yes, I like high tech tanks, but I am very aware of a CO2 dump, killed my fish once, even the snails died.


----------



## ceg4048 (16 Mar 2012)

darren636 said:
			
		

> i think it is fair to say that a high tech set up is not a natural environment at all. The plants behave quite differently compared to their uncultivated cousins. As for the stress on fish aspect.... The more i think about it in recent months , the more i want to run a biotope...


Really, I don't think this is fair at all. I mean, it's not even close to being fair for the following reasons;
1. There is nothing natural about keeping fish in a glass box, whether CO2 or non-CO2, whether biotope or cheesey pirate's sunken treasure chest. As far as I can tell, there are no glass boxes in nature.
There is nothing natural about lighting that glass box with artificial lights ot using a filter or pump or plastic tubes. 
None of these contraptions appear in natural habitats, so people are under a self induced hypnosis if they convince themselves that somehow, if they do certain things to the tank to approximate a natural environment, then they would have fulfillment in having a natural environment. This can never happen. Furthermore, the tank is a closed system which builds pollution unnaturally and which has to be artificially addressed. No natural system has synthetic flake food being dumped into it on a regular basis. Every aspect of every tank is at best a facsimile. Of course, natural process occur in a glass box, but that doesn't make the glass box system itself natural.

2. In nature, fish do not die of heart disease or high cholesterol. They do not have high incidences of Ich, or velvet, or Hole in the Head, or a myriad of other diseases that occur strictly because they are confined like prisoners in a glass box. Instead, in natural systems all fish die from predation when they weaken or become slow. This is a harsh reality that we try to avoid in the management of a synthetic glass box. This also is not natural.

3. LFS stay in business primarily because of ineptitude and incompetence of hobbyists who kill their fish for the factors listed above. On a statistical basis, the number of fish that die due to CO2 toxicity compared to the number of fish that die due to other forms of incompetence is truly miniscule.

Fairness? If you want to be fair, stop buying fish and stop the depletion of our worlds aquatic habitats of their native fauna.

Furthermore, on the issue of CO2, is there a law that say you must have fish in a CO2 injected tank? I personally don't care whether or not I have fish in my tank, because I am mostly focused on growing plants. The glass box is only called a fish tank because the first galss boxes ever built were used to house fish. That does not compel you to put fish in it.

If one is going to have a synthetic glass box and keep both fish and plants in it, then one should learn and understand the pitfalls and risks so that they can be avoided or minimized. If you know that CO2 cylinders have a risk of dumping CO2 when the quantity gets low then simply change the cylinder prior to it's getting low or invest in a more robust regulator. All of these risks can be avoided/minimized. Use less light so that the system demands less CO2. Is driving a car dangerous? Yes. Will you avoid driving cars because they are dangerous? No, you wear a seatbelt, become a more skilled driver and be aware of the dangers in order to avoid them. The same goes for CO2.

Cheers,


----------



## darren636 (16 Mar 2012)

i agree with you on every point ceg. Keeping fish at all is something i am starting to struggle with... Not because i do not want and love my little boraras.


----------



## roadmaster (16 Mar 2012)

I believe  truly, that ALL risks, can and should be minimized when it comes to keeping critter's in glass box of water.
Takes a fair bit of trial and error,research,but is worth it for many.
It is as Ceg,say's and alway's will be in my view, Way more critter's killed by no research,poor to no maint,overfeeding,overstocking,  than danger of being gassed  from CO2.
Judging from post's on numerous forums I have/do visit (mostly fishy), large number's of fishes,invert's are doomed the moment they are bagged up for the customer.
Been that way for year's and year's.


----------



## dw1305 (16 Mar 2012)

Hi all,


> I believe truly, that ALL risks, can and should be minimized when it comes to keeping critter's in glass box of water.
> Takes a fair bit of trial and error,research,but is worth it for many. It is as Ceg,say's and alway's will be in my view, Way more critter's killed by no research,poor to no maint,overfeeding,overstocking, than danger of being gassed from CO2.


I agree with this, if people under-stand the risks involved with CO2, and still want to use CO2, there isn't any reason why they shouldn't use it. Personally I can find quite enough ways of inadvertently killing my live-stock without adding any others.


> Judging from post's on numerous forums I have/do visit (mostly fishy), large number's of fishes,invert's are doomed the moment they are bagged up for the customer.


 Unfortunately I'm sure this is true as well, and in some ways it is something the industry conspires with by producing a huge range of products that either aren't fit for purpose, or have no practical application what so ever. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (16 Mar 2012)

I think the fish are all part of the big picture, a planted without creatures in would be like salt without vinegar on fish and chips for me. They compliment each other perfectly.

I agree if you don't want to keep fish and plants are your primary goal then there's nothing making you keep them but don't throw the baby out with the bath water because of co2. The co2 needs to be in the system as much as the o2 does to keep balance but I suppose the question is more on the strive to grow plants should we use unnaturally high levels of co2 while fish are in the system then the answer is probably no. As reg says if it's a worry to you turn down the lighting and the co2. There are far greater issues affecting fish health than co2 levels.

It's probably worth pointing out as well that a planted tank is probably a healthier environment generally for live stock than a normal fish only system I would say. The water is cleansed by the plants, the fish feel more comfortable with all the natural cover, the waters well oxygenated, there is an abundance of vitamins and minerals in the column essential for both fish and plants and the maintenance schedule large water changes etc are far higher than in a non-planted set up. I have kept non-planted and my maintenance was no way near the effort I put into my planted but that's  to grow healthy plants and by default the fish also love it. Win win, adding safe levels of co2 doesn't off set the other benefits of keeping my fish in a planted.


----------



## Ady34 (16 Mar 2012)

Yeah, ultimately its the aquarists responsibility to care for the aquarium and its inhabitants. Due care and attention needs to be applied to all aspects of fishkeeping, and the addition of c02 enrichment in the planted tank is just an extension of this. 
As i was writing my post, AverageWhiteBloke posted, and to save me the bother it seems, because i couldnt agree with this more:


			
				AverageWhiteBloke said:
			
		

> I think the fish are all part of the big picture, a planted without creatures in would be like salt without vinegar on fish and chips for me. They compliment each other perfectly.
> 
> I agree if you don't want to keep fish and plants are your primary goal then there's nothing making you keep them but don't throw the baby out with the bath water because of co2. The co2 needs to be in the system as much as the o2 does to keep balance but I suppose the question is more on the strive to grow plants should we use unnaturally high levels of co2 while fish are in the system then the answer is probably no. As reg says if it's a worry to you turn down the lighting and the co2. There are far greater issues affecting fish health than co2 levels.
> 
> It's probably worth pointing out as well that a planted tank is probably a healthier environment generally for live stock than a normal fish only system I would say. The water is cleansed by the plants, the fish feel more comfortable with all the natural cover, the waters well oxygenated, there is an abundance of vitamins and minerals in the column essential for both fish and plants and the maintenance schedule large water changes etc are far higher than in a non-planted set up. I have kept non-planted and my maintenance was no way near the effort I put into my planted but that's to grow healthy plants and by default the fish also love it. Win win, adding safe levels of co2 doesn't off set the other benefits of keeping my fish in a planted.



The points raised earlier by Clive;  "On a statistical basis, the number of fish that die due to CO2 toxicity compared to the number of fish that die due to other forms of incompetence is truly miniscule.", and by Roadmaster, are much more of a concern for me regarding whats 'fair on the critters'. Planted aquarists, especially those with access to forums such as UKAPS, tend to be more knowledgeable and more maticulous when it comes to their underwater worlds, well i like AverageWhiteBloke am anyway. 
Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## darren636 (16 Mar 2012)

i am not sure that minimizing co2 related risks is what the OP  was really getting at....


----------



## roadmaster (16 Mar 2012)

darren636 said:
			
		

> i am not sure that minimizing co2 related risks is what the OP  was really getting at....



Title of OP's thread sounded this way to me (but then I : am old,senile  )
I have been lurking about here for some time, and enjoy soaking up info and sharing what I may have to offer that might prove useful/helpful, but the conversation(s) I am waiting for, are from those who perhaps expieriment with CO2 enhancement at lower level's,lower lighting ,and at what levels, to still achieve better than low energy, or low tech result's (ie) Non CO2 tanks.
 I'm not talking about easy carbo,excel,DIY CO2, just interested if anyone has found that they could inject CO2 at lower level,with lower lighting,and still achieve better than average growth while keeping algae away and fishes,invert's comfortable. 
I realize the lower rates,higher rates are dependent on many factors but wonder how little could one get away with as opposed to normal responses of .( "add more").
Seems lighting drives everything, and few are willing to reduce this primary factor for fear of not producing enough. 
Surely not everyone is looking for  growth that comes with 4 to 6 T5,MH bulbs,and 30 pppm CO2 or more ?
Don't get me wrong,,I have seen some very beautiful high energy tanks but can't help but wonder..


----------



## Ady34 (16 Mar 2012)

Hi,


			
				darren636 said:
			
		

> i am not sure that minimizing co2 related risks is what the OP was really getting at....



i think ceg4048 answerd the q on p1, then we went off a little but still quite relevant.



			
				roadmaster said:
			
		

> just interested if anyone has found that they could inject CO2 at lower level,with lower lighting,and still achieve better that average growth while keeping algae away and fishes,invert's comfortable



surely youve seen Mark Evans last journal, he used lower c02, 2x T5 suspended quite high, and check out his growth!
With this way of doing things he's the Amano of UKAPS!
Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## dw1305 (16 Mar 2012)

Hi all,


> i am not sure that minimizing co2 related risks is what the OP was really getting at....


Point taken and no-one has directly answered the question. There is plenty of scientific evidence that elevated, but sub-lethal, CO2 levels are damaging to fish long term. This is from the last post in the linked in thread (from 2010). <http://www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10004&start=20>. 



> _The technical terms are "hypercapnia" & "nephrocalcinosis", and this is the Google Scholar search for "hypercapnia & aquaculture" <http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=hypercapnia aquaculture&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws>. A lot of these references concentrate on Sturgeon, Trout and Salmon (fish from clean, cool, highly oxygenated waters), rather than the much more pollution tolerant Channel Catfish, Carp or Tilapia.
> 
> The below section is abstracted from:
> "Water quality and welfare assessment on United Kingdom trout farms"
> ...


cheers Darrel


----------



## roadmaster (16 Mar 2012)

Ady34 said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, (say's sheepishly   ) But I will devour it with a fervor ! Thank's for the direction


----------



## darren636 (16 Mar 2012)

if  mark  evens  really  is  the  amano  of  uksps,  then  there  will  be  something  he  is  not  telling  us- in  true  Japanese  style.


----------



## Ady34 (16 Mar 2012)

darren636 said:
			
		

> if mark evens really is the amano of uksps, then there will be something he is not telling us- in true Japanese style.



Ha Ha, yeah Amano has a very unique sense of humour apparently, reading something recently in substrates i think on an ADA powersand thread, Plantbrain (Tom Barr) had asked him (Amano) what was in his powersand.... to which he  replied "power"!!  , dont think Tom found it too funny. With reference to this Mark Evans maybe holding a trick or two back!!??.... maybe 'magic' water.  
Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## darren636 (16 Mar 2012)

Ady34 said:
			
		

> darren636 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it  takes  serious  leg  work  to  break  into  the  inner  circle.  to  earn  that  level  of  openness.


----------



## OllieNZ (17 Mar 2012)

roadmaster said:
			
		

> Seems lighting drives everything, and few are willing to reduce this primary factor for fear of not producing enough.
> Surely not everyone is looking for  growth that comes with 4 to 6 T5,MH bulbs,and 30 pppm CO2 or more ?
> Don't get me wrong,,I have seen some very beautiful high energy tanks but can't help but wonder..





			
				plantbrain said:
			
		

> Adding CO2 will lower the threshold of the LCP(light compensation Point where PS = R), so contrary to belief, CO2 allows you to add even LESS light, than non CO2. This is because all the resources the plant takes in and uses can be geared towards capturing light instead of capturing light AND limited CO2.



From Tom's Dutch Something or the Other journal


----------



## darren636 (17 Mar 2012)

this is the same for all plants. Where light is limited, providing for all the other needs of the plant can still result in very healthy growth.


----------

