# flourish excel...yes or no?



## Martin in Holland (3 Sep 2013)

I use pressurized CO2 but also excel which is recommended by the flourish (sample) schedule ....do I still need to do this or is it just a waste? Unless I would have algae, I feel like it wouldn't be necessary to do this....


----------



## Aseph (3 Sep 2013)

Co2 injection is  more effective, and cheaper for bigger tank.
Unless you are running a very high lighting level , I would skip the liquid carbon, if i do run into problem(algae) i usually double / triple dose my tank, beware of its toxicity especially for inverts.


----------



## Martin in Holland (3 Sep 2013)

thx...I thought already that it would be an overkill...
safe me some money


----------



## Samjpikey (3 Sep 2013)

Hey . 

I always thought that if you dose the excell at normal level it gives you a bit of flexibility , your giving your plants a better chance of using that carbon , without turning the pressurized co2 up and potentially gassing any fauna . 
Cheers 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Andy Thurston (3 Sep 2013)

I don't think that liquid carbon at standard dose has much of an effect on algae. when I started dosing lc on my tank to help with algae it had no effect until I got to 3x daily dose but it does come in handy as a spot dose


----------



## Aseph (3 Sep 2013)

liquid carbon are quite toxic dosing them at over recommended dose would do more harm than good to inverts like shrimp. so when face with minor algae problem , its either dose liquid carbon at 2-3 times recommended dose, or bring the army of shrimp

cost wise i'd go with just co2, but its been mention and it does make sense having alternative form of carbon helps , its your call martin


----------



## Yo-han (3 Sep 2013)

Excel is nothing else than a carbon source as is CO2. When people reach the upper limit of the amount of Co2 fish can tolerate, they can add excel to provide even more carbon but in a different source. People not willing to spent big money on a CO2 kit use excel as primary source for their plants carbon. In your case, I don't see why you would use it. If the amount of light is not too high I would always go for CO2 instead of liquid carbon. I'm a pharmacologist and from that point of view everything is toxic, it just depends on the amount. But I just don't like the fact that the toxicity level is so close to the effective dose. A little more and you start killing plants/shrimp. A little less and it is useless. I do still use it though, perfect to clean rock, glassware etc.


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Sep 2013)

Samjpikey said:


> if you dose the excell....it gives you a bit of flexibility , your giving your plants a better chance of using that carbon , without turning the pressurized co2 up and potentially gassing any fauna.


Yes, this is correct. There is no conflict between gas injection and concurrent use of gluteraldehyde products such as Excel.

Both gluteraldehyde and gaseous CO2 are toxic. Gluteraldehyde is converted to CO2 within those plants that are able to metabolize it. For those plants that are unable to metabolize this compound (or in the case of toxic overdose) the toxic effect might actually be a disruption of their CO2 uptake mechanism. That might explain why the effects of overdose are very similar to CO2 failure, such as melting.

Plants can only use CO2 as a carbon source. Therefore, adding the liquid carbon improves CO2 availability. It is not another form of carbon, but rather, it is another vehicle for CO2.

When supplementing gas injection with gluteraldehyde, the idea of an "effective dose" is not relevant. Any dosage increases the saturation level of CO2 within the leaf tissue, therefore, what is effective depends entirely on what the gas uptake efficiency is. If CO2 injection is poor, or if flow/distribution is poor, then a larger dose of gluteraldehyde is required to be effective. If CO2 injection technique is effective then a smaller dose is required to be effective.


When people have CO2 uptake problems the way to solve the problem is to look at all avenues of increasing the effectiveness of CO2 uptake. Gluteraldehyde is one of those avenues, along with attention to lighting, flow, injection rate, distribution and injection timing. It can happen that the hobbyist is not able to improve on some of these areas due to circumstances. It's not reasonable to reject the liquid carbon products outright unless one has a specific palpable motive. Cost savings is certainly a good motive to avoid using it, however, liquid carbon is a viable option when troubleshooting, or when the inhabitants are at or near the threshold of gas toxicity. It is also a very good method of ensuring excellent CO2 when starting up a tank because the CO2 uptake efficiency of newly submerged plants is very poor. So those people who think that they only need to use it when they have algae problems might consider that use of the product as a supplement to gas injection can actually prevent the algae from occurring in the first place.

Cheers,


----------



## oldbloke (3 Sep 2013)

ceg4048 said:


> Plants can only use CO2 as a carbon source. Therefore, adding the liquid carbon improves CO2 availability. It is not another form of carbon, but rather, it is another vehicle for CO2.


Sorry to sound daft, but I don't quite get this bit.
Could you elaborate a bit, please?

Cheers.


----------



## Yo-han (3 Sep 2013)

oldbloke said:


> Sorry to sound daft, but I don't quite get this bit.
> Could you elaborate a bit, please?
> 
> Cheers.


I think Clive means that the excel is not used as carbon source as I thought (and most companies market), but that it helps plant to use the available CO2. If this is true (which I've no doubt it is, as far as I know you ) than why does glutaraldehyde make such a difference in aquariums without CO2. And do you know the mechanism of action?


----------



## oldbloke (3 Sep 2013)

Yo-han said:


> I think Clive means that the excel is not used as carbon source as I thought (and most companies market), but that it helps plant to use the available CO2. If this is true (which I've no doubt it is, as far as I know you ) than why does glutaraldehyde make such a difference in aquariums without CO2. And do you know the mechanism of action?


 
Thank you for that.
That part of it is now clear


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Sep 2013)

No mate, that's not what I meant.

What I'm saying is that the mechanism by which plants break down the compound gluteraldehyde results in the release of CO2 from the residue of the original compound. The chemical reactions that occur within the leaf result in more CO2. This CO2 is then captured and transported by the enzyme Rubisco in exactly the same way as it is captured and transported when CO2 is absorbed by gas injection methods. The result is that the sum total of CO2 molecules in the leaf increases.

What people don't understand is that the Rubisco enzyme only recognizes and captures CO2 and O2. When CO2 is captured it is then transported to an area in the chloroplast where the sugar making process begins. This process is called The Calvin Cycle. This cycle combines a Phosphate substrate with CO2 in order to make a Phosphate sugar called 3GP (Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate).

Here is a super-simplified schematic of the process.
In the upper left hand corner you can see where CO2 enters the Cycle.
On the lower right corner you can see the 3GP sugar.






So, ONLY CO2 can be a carbon source, because the chemicals in this cycle only respond and react with compounds specifically designed to work with CO2 and the products of the chemical combination of CO2 + RubP (shown just below the "3 CO2" on the far left). This is a carefully constructed and balanced series of reactions and the inbound molecule must be CO2.

What we cannot see outside of this cycle is how the gluteraldehyde breaks down into CO2. Only Seachem and Tom Barr know the details of this mechanism, and Tom is not permitted to disseminate the details.

So the best way to think of the gluteraldehyde is that increases the CO2 concentration level in the chloroplast above that which is provided by injection.

This is the same story (but different mechanism) with plants that use bicarbonate. The bicarbonate is not an "alternate source of carbon". It is simply converted to CO2 by chemical means and then the CO2 is absorbed.

Cheers,


----------



## oldbloke (3 Sep 2013)




----------



## tim (3 Sep 2013)

oldbloke said:


>


Sometimes don't you wish you hadn't asked


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Sep 2013)




----------



## oldbloke (3 Sep 2013)

tim said:


> Sometimes don't you wish you hadn't asked


----------



## Aseph (4 Sep 2013)

ceg4048 said:


> Plants can only use CO2 as a carbon source. Therefore, adding the liquid carbon improves CO2 availability. It is not another form of carbon, but rather, it is another vehicle for CO2.
> 
> When supplementing gas injection with gluteraldehyde, the idea of an "effective dose" is not relevant. _Any dosage increases the saturation level of CO2_ within the leaf tissue, therefore, what is effective depends entirely on what the gas uptake efficiency is. If CO2 injection is poor, or if flow/distribution is poor, then a larger dose of gluteraldehyde is required to be effective. If CO2 injection technique is effective then a smaller dose is required to be effective.
> 
> ...


 


ceg4048 said:


> No mate, that's not what I meant.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the mechanism by which plants break down the compound gluteraldehyde results in the _release of CO2_ from the residue of the original compound. The chemical reactions that occur within the leaf result in more CO2. This CO2 is then captured and transported by the enzyme Rubisco in exactly the same way as it is captured and transported when CO2 is absorbed by gas injection methods. The result is that the sum total of CO2 molecules in the leaf increases.
> 
> ...


 
Please confirm a few things for me Clive

say at a certain tank the injected co2 value is 30 ppm and worth 10(this is arbitrary number) for the plants , and a recommended dosage worth 3(its much less effective right??)

so dosing co2 with liquid carbon would give you 13 amount of co2? Or since it's a vehicle for co2 the original 10 becomes 15 + the 3 that gives 18???

cheers


----------



## oldbloke (4 Sep 2013)

After a lie down in a darkened room and a few re reads.........

So, added liquid carbon enables the plants to use existing CO2 in the water. That's fine if we are injecting CO2. What happens if we are not? Is there any other available CO2 in there? And if there isn't, is liquid CO2 a waste of time?

Cheers.


----------



## ceg4048 (4 Sep 2013)

Aseph said:


> say at a certain tank the injected co2 value is 30 ppm and worth 10(this is arbitrary number) for the plants , and a recommended dosage worth 3(its much less effective right??)


Yeah, as long as we know we are using arbitrary numbers, your analogy of 13 is fine. As you mention, the standard dosing of gluteraldehyde does not produce as much CO2 as gas injection, but then again, it is miscible in water so it get's to the plants more easily than gas does. It does not enhance uptake of the the CO2 is already there. It simply adds to the total amount. I used the word "vehicle" simply to illustrate that it effectively carries CO2 with it based on it's chemical structure, in the same way that KNO3 is a vehicle for N. Apologies for the confusion.

The folks who most like to use Excel as a supplement to injection are Klingons who just can't get enough light, but who don't want to gas their fish.

Cheers,


----------



## Samjpikey (4 Sep 2013)

Surely is more beneficial to include it into your regime , 
A 1 liter bottle cost £17 including postage . (Tnc liquid carbon) 

If you dose 4 ml a day that lasts..... well 250 days , its Pennies and that gives you a more flexible threshold against your co2 injection . 
Cheers 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tim (4 Sep 2013)

oldbloke said:


> After a lie down in a darkened room and a few re reads.........
> 
> So, added liquid carbon enables the plants to use existing CO2 in the water. That's fine if we are injecting CO2. What happens if we are not? Is there any other available CO2 in there? And if there isn't, is liquid CO2 a waste of time?
> 
> Cheers.





ceg4048 said:


> No mate, that's not what I meant.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the mechanism by which plants break down the compound gluteraldehyde results in the release of CO2 from the residue of the original compound. The chemical reactions that occur within the leaf result in more CO2.
> 
> Cheers,


----------



## oldbloke (4 Sep 2013)

Ahhhhhh..................................

Thanks Tim.


----------



## ceg4048 (4 Sep 2013)

Samjpikey said:


> Surely is more beneficial to include it into your regime , A 1 liter bottle cost £17 including postage . (Tnc liquid carbon)


Well, yeah, If you tank is small then that's fine, but what if your tank is 400 gallons?



oldbloke said:


> So, added liquid carbon enables the plants to use existing CO2 in the water.


No mate please have another re-read of post #12. Excel=CO2. When you add Excel you increase the amount of CO2 regardless of what CO2 is already available. In an unenriched tank the CO2 concentration level is about 8ppm, so adding Excel to this tank improves the amount in the leaf because inside the leaf Excel turns into CO2. So you have the amount of CO2 capture from the water + the amount of CO2 the Excel turns into. That's the best way to think of it.

Cheers,


----------



## oldbloke (4 Sep 2013)

ceg4048 said:


> Well, yeah, If you tank is small then that's fine, but what if your tank is 400 gallons?
> 
> 
> No mate please have another re-read of post #12. Excel=CO2. When you add Excel you increase the amount of CO2 regardless of what CO2 is already available. In an unenriched tank the CO2 concentration level is about 8ppm, so adding Excel to this tank improves the amount in the leaf because inside the leaf Excel turns into CO2. So you have the amount of CO2 capture from the water + the amount of CO2 the Excel turns into. That's the best way to think of it.
> ...


----------



## Samjpikey (4 Sep 2013)

Yea good point ceg ....... Didn't think about high volume tanks .. School boy error :/ 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Martin in Holland (4 Sep 2013)

ok...I get it...better keep using it...those guys at Seachem aren't just after my money after all....hehe


----------



## Henry (4 Sep 2013)

Forget seachem, theres plenty of much cheaper alternatives.


----------



## oldbloke (4 Sep 2013)

So, now I have a better understanding of how it works, the next question is, what is the best time to put it in?

When the CO2 goes on?
Lights on?
Any time I like?
Just before the Magic Roundabout starts?

Cheers.


----------



## foxfish (4 Sep 2013)

One hour & 19.5 seconds before lights on - or there abouts...


----------



## oldbloke (4 Sep 2013)

I need to put my timer back by 19 seconds.......


----------



## Martin in Holland (5 Sep 2013)

Seachem here is the cheapest ones I can get....(10 RMB per 100ml Excel...that's cheap enough for me) I just didn't want to waste money and stress my tank more than needed


----------

