# Liquid Carbon - flow & light intensity



## AshRolls (3 Jun 2013)

Hi there,

Firstly, thanks for this great resource these forums are full of helpful information and feedback. I have already managed to find answers to most of my questions and feel like I am developing a good knowledge of the subject, albeit without much testing on the crucible of 'actually doing it'

Anyhow, I have a couple of outstanding questions I couldn't find the answers to, so I hope you can help. My current set-up is as follows :-

2 weeks into establishing Rio 180L tank
2x 45W T5HO lights, 4 hour photo-period
2x External canister (Fluval 306 and Eheim ecco pro 300) for 12x tank turnover
'Double' dosing liquid carbon (Neutro CO2, 8ml)
EI dosing dry ferts + Seachem Equilibrium (very soft tapwater)
Seachem Eco-complete substrate
Question 1) Flow and liquid C02... I have read a lot about the importance of good flow with pressurised CO2 systems. Does this also apply to the use of liquid CO2? Ideally I would like to 'get away' with just one external canister as my intended fauna (Honey Gourami) prefer slower water and I would prefer less background hum noise from the filters.

Question 2) Liquid carbon and light intensity... I 'feel' that 2x45W on 180L may be a bit intense for a liquid carbon only tank. I plan on using Amazon Frogbit to provide some shade and reduce the intensity in the tank (plus the Gourami will love it). Can anyone comment on the long term viability of using liquid carbon on a tank. I have seen comments on peoples liquid carbon tanks starting out ok but going downhill after 4 months. Is the process as to why this happens understood? Are there any long term liquid carbon only 'success stories'?

Thanks in advance, I apologise if these questions have already been addressed elsewhere!

*edit* I can take a best guess answer to Question 1, I assume flow is still important and flow dead spots are just as damaging using liquid as pressurised CO2. Flow is also important for nutrient distribution which has nothing to do with CO2. If I want to get away with less flow then I will need to reduce the overall lighting amounts correspondingly to maintain balance.... Is that correct?

Still looking for more feedback on Question 2, the long term viability of using liquid carbon.


----------



## ceg4048 (4 Jun 2013)

Hello,
	   Yes, this is correct. The nutrient demand is still high with liquid CO2.

Liquid carbon only delivers a fraction of the CO2 that gas injection does so there is a much greater risk of incurring Carbon deficiency. The long term vialbility of using liquid carbon is exactly the same as the long term viability of using gas injection. The reason people fail with the liquid carbon after months of success is the same reason as with gas: when there is more plant mass in the tank after months of growth, the tank needs more of everything, which means they need more maintenance, more flow/distribution (due to blockage from the extra mass) and they need more nutrition to feed that extra mass. If adjustments are not made to the nutrient and CO2 demand then the tank fails. This is no different whether using gas or liquid. The biomass increase is both above the sediment and below as well (which people seem to forget until they uproot a plant). This can all be held in check, to some extent, if regular pruning is accomplished.

If all this becomes burdensome then there is always the option of using low tech methods which will require much less maintenance and can get away low flow.

Cheers,


----------



## Samjpikey (4 Jun 2013)

Ceg I bet you have the most pristine and the most well established tank on this forum


----------



## ceg4048 (4 Jun 2013)

No, that honor belongs to the real artists on here like G. Farmer, Viktorlantos, Mark Evans, Aquadream and others.

My tank often resembles a war zone as it weathers the effects of my various brainstorms...

Cheers,


----------

