# 150 ppm co2?



## mrtank50 (14 Apr 2022)

Hello to everyone.
Friends, my tank is kh 4- gh-6
My pH is 5.8 although kh is high
Is this normal?

I think the CO2 is around 150 ppm.

There are no fish or other creatures in the aquarium.
There are only plants.

I've tested my testers many times and there's no margin for error.
Calibrations were done.

Is this situation harmful to plants?

Test kits:

Sera GH-KH
JBL GH-KH
Weipro Ph Controls and Adwa ph controls


----------



## Nick potts (14 Apr 2022)

Where are you getting the 150ppm figure from?

What is your PH before CO2 injection? It's very unlikely you have 150ppm CO2 but even if you did it would not harm your plants.


----------



## Andy Pierce (14 Apr 2022)

Get a drop checker to test your CO2 levels.  That's inexpensive, easy and accurate.  I would be very surprised if your CO2 really was at 150 ppm, and your plants don't need it to be that high.  pH/kH charts are notoriously unreliable in real world settings.  30 ppm is usually presented as the level that gives good plant growth without harming livestock, although I prefer to push a little higher to 35-40 ppm.


----------



## erwin123 (15 Apr 2022)

Problem I've had for a long time
					

Hello to everyone Guys please solve my problem.  I do not know what to do.  Sinobacteria abound.  Plants do not grow.  It has algae problems.  Plants are shapeless.    Tank: 120 liter -   31 galon Tank setup        :  01.10.2021 Light                 :39*6  T5 Flo   osram 865*3, Osram 830*3...



					www.ukaps.org
				



Hey MrTank, you haven't updated your tank photos for a long time. Pls post photos of your Pantanal and L. Senegelansis! At 150ppm CO2 and a 6 x T5 lighting fixture, they are probably growing like weeds in your tank


----------



## mrtank50 (15 Apr 2022)

Nick potts said:


> Where are you getting the 150ppm figure from?
> 
> What is your PH before CO2 injection? It's very unlikely you have 150ppm CO2 but even if you did it would not harm your plants.


Kh-ph table

My ph dropped to 5.8 with the co2 on.

I turned off the CO2 for 12 hours.

After 12 hours my pH had risen to 7.3.


----------



## aquanoobie (16 Apr 2022)

mrtank50 said:


> Is this situation harmful to plants?


Hi
It could be but it doesn't do any good. Plants don't need more than 30 ppm. And as for the measument, your 1.5 pH drop indicates 30 x more CO2 than equilibrium with atmosphere. Easy right? But what is the CO2 level in your room air we don't know. It can be anything between 400 ppm to 2500 ppm. This is 6 fold, and multiplied by 30 as per your water pH drop, and we get more confused. 

So what doesn't lie? Drop checker. When you know it's solution dKH and you know what colour is the pH then you know the CO2 level. But keep in mind it is slow, it takes several hours to stabilize.


----------



## mrtank50 (16 Apr 2022)

Hello everyone again. I waited exactly 24 hours.
pH 7.8 after 24 hours with CO2 off

With Co2 it dropped to 5.7. A full pH of 2.1 degrees.


----------



## foxfish (16 Apr 2022)

Hi mrtank, you have made a very striking post!
I dont think I have ever read about anyone having such high concentrations of C02 in their home tank, most post are about folk struggling to achieve 30ppm.
I am guessing you have a close fitting tank lid ?


----------



## erwin123 (17 Apr 2022)

Problem I've had for a long time
					

Hello to everyone Guys please solve my problem.  I do not know what to do.  Sinobacteria abound.  Plants do not grow.  It has algae problems.  Plants are shapeless.    Tank: 120 liter -   31 galon Tank setup        :  01.10.2021 Light                 :39*6  T5 Flo   osram 865*3, Osram 830*3...



					www.ukaps.org
				



MrTank, you posted an earlier tank shot where you said the CO2  was 40-50ppm . Could you post an updated full tank shot - is there any difference in plant growth between 40-50ppm and 150ppm?


----------



## Hanuman (21 Apr 2022)

aquanoobie said:


> Plants don't need more than 30 ppm.


Plant will use as much CO2 there is available and as light requires/induces. Emersed plants are exposed to ambient 400ppm ++ of CO2 and they use it all-right. In greenhouse CO2 is injected to around 1000ppm sometimes more. Now obviously in an aquatic environment things are different and you wouldn't be able to inject so much CO2 before running into other issues.



aquanoobie said:


> So what doesn't lie? Drop checker. When you know it's solution dKH and you know what colour is the pH then you know the CO2 level. But keep in mind it is slow, it takes several hours to stabilize.


I disagree with this. As a starter because of the caveat your mentioned, but most importantly because depending where your place the DC you will have very different readings. So which DC is lying now? DCs don't technically tell you what the actual overall CO2 concentration in the water column is, but more the concentration of CO2 at that specific spot. If your CO2 distribution is not optimal (which is very often the case) and if you use a CO2 traditional diffusers (micro bubbles etc), I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that your CO2 will be very different from one spot to the other. To that, add the fact that we are reading a range of colors which is by far the least accurate thing. I personally only use a DC to know if there is or not CO2 in the tank and if there is no issue with my CO2 delivery, that's it. But not to know how much CO2 is present . It's best to use the PH drop method. So -1PH =~ 30ppm.


----------



## Yugang (21 Apr 2022)

mrtank50 said:


> I think the CO2 is around 150 ppm.





mrtank50 said:


> With Co2 it dropped to 5.7. A full pH of 2.1 degrees.





mrtank50 said:


> Is this situation harmful to plants?



@mrtank50 unless you are an advanced CO2 user, trying to test the limits of our hobby, it seems pragmatic to start dealing down your CO2 to 20-30 ppm. Many successfull hobyist operate in that area, and you save yourself a lot of unnecessary headache and hard to answer questions while pushing to uncharted territory of 150 ppm. 

At 20 ppm you can also safely keep lifestock, which many in the hobby like doing as well.


----------



## Hanuman (21 Apr 2022)

Yugang said:


> At 20 ppm you can also safely keep lifestock, which many in the hobby like doing as well.


Small note. CO2 and O2 are not mutually exclusive. Technically, you can have 60ppm of CO2 and fish will not gasp. You would need to make sure there is plenty O2 as well in the water. That's the tricky part. I am not saying this might be healthy for fish long term, just saying they can still live without gasping. You could also have 0 ppm of CO2 and kill fish as well if your tank is O2 depleted but the chances of killing fish that way are lower than you injecting crazy amounts of CO2 and not making sure you have O2 available.


----------



## Yugang (21 Apr 2022)

Hanuman said:


> Small note. CO2 and O2 are not mutually exclusive. Technically, you can have 60ppm of CO2 and fish will not gasp. You would need to make sure there is plenty O2 as well in the water. That's the tricky part. I am not saying this might be healthy for fish long term, just saying they can still live without gasping. You could also have 0 ppm of CO2 and kill fish as well if your tank is O2 depleted but the chances of killing fish that way are lower than you injecting crazy amounts of CO2 and not making sure you have O2 available.


100% agree. As I am not sure where the OP is coming from, I try to stay away from deep technical discussion. For a beginner, I would consider 20 ppm a good starting point. I am aware that successfull advanced hobbyists, with lots of O2 can push CO2 up to 60-70 ppm while doing no harm to life stock.



Hanuman said:


> if you use a CO2 traditional diffusers (micro bubbles etc), I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that your CO2 will be very different from one spot to the other.


I think it goes beyond the scope of this thread, so will not go in detail here -- for a tank that has microbubbles ('mist') pushed around, a physicist can easily argue that the reading of a drop checker is much less accurate, or indeed close to meaningless. What several friends have already said, only your plants and lifestock will never lie.


----------



## erwin123 (21 Apr 2022)

there is no rule that says you can only put 1 drop checker in a tank. I've seen photos of tanks with multiple drop checkers


----------



## Hanuman (21 Apr 2022)

erwin123 said:


> there is no rule that says you can only put 1 drop checker in a tank. I've seen photos of tanks with multiple drop checkers


LOL yeah you can put 50 if you want. Then it all comes down to aesthetics and if you are actually doing a pleasing looking aquascape or carrying out a mad scientist experiment. I suspect the first option is what the majority of people are most interested in though 😉 so the least hardware you have in your tank the better.


----------



## Yugang (21 Apr 2022)

I used to have two different drop checkers, each with different design. Used same test fluid, but checkers did not give me same reading on similar spot...
I do believe drop checkers are the most reliable test, as they function independently of tank water chemistry, but they are definitely not fail safe or accurate. It seems more productive to adress root causes of CO2 variations (flow, surface agitation, and process of CO2 dissolution), rather than to collect more and more measurements from multiple devices that have their own imperfections.


----------



## mrtank50 (21 Apr 2022)

Thanks guys for your valuable reply.

When I opened this issue, I was aware that this situation was not normal.
But I was wondering what effects co2 might cause at very high values.

Damage to plants, damage to bacteria, etc.

This is a test tank.

I have 9 tanks, I chose one as a victim.

Estimated number of CO2 bubbles per second in test tank 10+

There are 2 separate CO2 solvents as diffuser + reactor.

But as far as I can see, the plants are suffocating and I can't get much yield. They started to lose their forms.

Even bacteria are slowly collapsing.
The tank is no longer as clean as it used to be.

Organic waste is increasing. I can't grow fertilizer.
There is a constant lack of micro and iron.
Beard algae and cyanobacteria began to appear.

I will add video and pictures as soon as possible.


----------



## Hanuman (21 Apr 2022)

For how long has this experiment been running for? What is the size of that tank? Are you using a PH pen or PH probe?

If you really have that much CO2 in that tank, the issue is not the CO2 per se but the O2 lacking thereof. Unless you are bringing O2 by more sophisticated means other than by simple surface agitation, it is not surprising that nothing is going good and dandy in that tank, hence bacteria dying, plants deforming etc. At those levels I would inject O2 the same way you inject CO2, meaning via pressurized means OR you have a large sump with some wet/dry trickle filters that will oxygenate water much more effectively.


----------



## mrtank50 (21 Apr 2022)

Thank you for your valuable reply.

The tank has been running like this for 15 days.

Ph Probe available.

yes surface ripple


----------



## Yugang (21 Apr 2022)

Interesting research article, that shows big seasonal variations of dissolved CO2 in the Amazon river basin.

Richey, J.E. and others. 2002. Outgassing from Amazonian rivers and wetlands as a large tropical source of atmospheric CO2, Nature 416, 617-620

Perhaps someone can help and translate the partial pressure of CO2 in the graph into the for us more common CO2 ppm?


----------



## aquanoobie (21 Apr 2022)

Hanuman said:


> Plant will use as much CO2 there is available and as light requires/induces.


Research demonstrated that submerged plants do not need more than 30 ppm CO2 even under direct sunlight. Also, do you know anyone claiming the necessity of having 100 ppm of CO2 or facing issues related to too low CO2 at 30 ppm?


Hanuman said:


> Emersed plants are exposed to ambient 400ppm ++ of CO2 and they use it all-right. In greenhouse CO2 is injected to around 1000ppm sometimes more.


Yes, that's how emersed plants work. In fact, terrestrial plants worldwide are starving for more carbon because of critically low atmospheric CO2 levels. We have ~ 400 ppm now thanks to burning fossil fuels for the last 120 years. It was as low as 300 ppm 120 years ago and it was like this for thousands of years, dropping down to critical level for plants to trive. The best time plants had it was when CO2 level in atmosphere was up to 8 000 ppm, 20 x more than today, it was millions of years ago. That's when ferns grew as large as trees. CO2 molecule is one of the most important molecules keeping this planet alive, CO2 is a molecule of life. 


Hanuman said:


> I disagree with this. As a starter because of the caveat your mentioned, but most importantly because depending where your place the DC you will have very different readings. So which DC is lying now?


Is pH probe positioning irrelevant? 


Hanuman said:


> DCs don't technically tell you what the actual overall CO2 concentration in the water column is, but more the concentration of CO2 at that specific spot.


Is pH probe any different? Does your pH probe technically read actual CO2 ppm? No, it doesn't neither.


Hanuman said:


> It's best to use the PH drop method. So -1PH =~ 30ppm.


This is the least accurate method. The pH drop indicates how many times more CO2 is in the water sample in relationship to equilibrium with atmosphere. That's it, this is where it ends. 

For the simple reason not knowing the atmospheric CO2 level at the testing site this process is not telling us what we want. Do you know what CO2 level is in your room air? I bet you don't. It can be anything between 400 and 2 500 ppm. The 400 is the average outside and the 2 500 has been tested in homes and malls. The 400 ppm CO2 infusion in water gives 0.5 ppm CO2 and the 2 500 gives significantly more. Now multiply this by your pH drop rate. In reality it can be anything. How accurate is it?


----------



## Hanuman (21 Apr 2022)

aquanoobie said:


> Research demonstrated that submerged plants do not need more than 30 ppm CO2 even under direct sunlight. Also, do you know anyone claiming the necessity of having 100 ppm of CO2 or facing issues related to too low CO2 at 30 ppm?


Please share such research. Always willing to learn more. Regardless, it's not about someone having the "necessity of" but rather if a plant can. You can grow plants at 30ppm, 20ppm, 10ppm heck even lower... that's exactly what happens in low tech tanks.


aquanoobie said:


> Is pH probe positioning irrelevant?


Technically no, but the PH of the water column of a tank tends to be more homogenous, so the reading of a PH probe will give you a better overall view of your tank compared to a DC which on top of this lags 2 to 3 hours.


aquanoobie said:


> Is pH probe any different? Does your pH probe technically read actual CO2 ppm? No, it doesn't neither.


See comment above.


aquanoobie said:


> This is the least accurate method. The pH drop indicates how many times more CO2 is in the water sample in relationship to equilibrium with atmosphere. That's it, this is where it ends.
> 
> For the simple reason not knowing the atmospheric CO2 level at the testing site this process is not telling us what we want. Do you know what CO2 level is in your room air? I bet you don't. It can be anything between 400 and 2 500 ppm. The 400 is the average outside and the 2 500 has been tested in homes and malls. The 400 ppm CO2 infusion in water gives 0.5 ppm CO2 and the 2 500 gives significantly more. Now multiply this by your pH drop rate. In reality it can be anything. How accurate is it?


Well unless you live in a factory, a mall or a cave, your CO2 level will be closer to 400ppm than the higher range. And to answer that question, yes I do have a CO2 detector which currently reads 458ppm  - In the morning it read ~500 ppm give or take 5%. You're never too prudent when having a CO2 cylinder at home!


aquanoobie said:


> The pH drop indicates how many times more CO2 is in the water sample in relationship to equilibrium with atmosphere. That's it, this is where it ends.


Please elaborate on this. As much I know that a PH probe does not measure per say CO2 levels, it provides in my option a better approximation of what is in your tank. The -1PH ~ 30ppm is obviously an approximation, not a hard number. We all know that and live with that. I don't even understand what the equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 has to do here. We are forcefully dissolving CO2 at a much higher rate in a tank which is hardly the same thing as having 400-2500pm lingering in the air slowly dissolving in water. My PH would barely budge if I didn't inject any CO2.

In my opinion reading a DC's color is by far less accurate. But that's just me.


----------



## MichaelJ (21 Apr 2022)

Yugang said:


> Interesting research article, that shows big seasonal variations of dissolved CO2 in the Amazon river basin.
> 
> Richey, J.E. and others. 2002. Outgassing from Amazonian rivers and wetlands as a large tropical source of atmospheric CO2, Nature 416, 617-620
> 
> Perhaps someone can help and translate the partial pressure of CO2 in the graph into the for us more common CO2 ppm?


I think it's something like vapor pressure / partial pressure x 10^6  = ppm.  Probably wrong...   but looping in  @dw1305 as Darrel probably knows this.

Good post @Yugang . Will have to read this article.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## aquanoobie (21 Apr 2022)

Hanuman said:


> Well unless you live in a factory, a mall or a cave, your CO2 level will be closer to 400ppm than the higher range. And to answer that question, yes I do have a CO2 detector which currently reads 458ppm  - In the morning it read ~500 ppm give or take 5%.


That's beatiful, I need one too! 
Room CO2 levels vary a lot depending on the house structure and season. How the house is sealed and air conditioning or heating running. There are houses where CO2 was tested in the 2 500 ppm range.


Hanuman said:


> Please elaborate on this. As much I know that a PH probe does not measure per say CO2 levels, it provides in my option a better approximation of what is in your tank. The -1PH ~ 30ppm is obviously an approximation, not a hard number. We all know that and live with that. I don't even understand what the equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 has to do here.


The whole idea of using pH probe as a proxy to get CO2 levels is based on differential pH between gassed and degassed water. And the only thing we know is that 1 pH => 10 x more CO2. But the problem is the degassed water doesn't have to be the same at different locations and timings. So let me ask you, where is the 1 pH drop getting the 30 ppm of CO2? 

The princip doesn't have a solid starting point, no solid base. Most of us don't know the room air CO2 level so we cannot know what degassed CO2 ppm is. And even if we can test air CO2, we still don't know what it's equilibrium be. Then we go for 1 pH drop and we know we have 10 x more CO2 ppm than is in the degassed sample. But what is it? Is it 0.5, 5 or 10, we don't know. So how can we say 1 pH drop => 30 ppm, based on what?


----------



## Hanuman (22 Apr 2022)

aquanoobie said:


> The whole idea of using pH probe as a proxy to get CO2 levels is based on differential pH between gassed and degassed water. And the only thing we know is that 1 pH => 10 x more CO2. But the problem is the degassed water doesn't have to be the same at different locations and timings. So let me ask you, where is the 1 pH drop getting the 30 ppm of CO2?
> 
> The princip doesn't have a solid starting point, no solid base. Most of us don't know the room air CO2 level so we cannot know what degassed CO2 ppm is. And even if we can test air CO2, we still don't know what it's equilibrium be. Then we go for 1 pH drop and we know we have 10 x more CO2 ppm than is in the degassed sample. But what is it? Is it 0.5, 5 or 10, we don't know. So how can we say 1 pH drop => 30 ppm, based on what?


Agreed. Past observations and testing state that degassed water is somewhere arounf 3 to 4ppm so that's where the base line starts and the 1 PH drop equating to ~ 30ppm of CO2 is picked up. Your 400-2500ppm range is  irrelevant in my opinion. We are not doing lab experimentation that require lots of accuracy. We are only interested in a way to dose CO2 to the point where it is not harmful to fish. The 30ppm could be 20ppm or 45ppm for all I care. What's more important is that everyone in the tank is healthy and plants grow and no algae proliferation is observed.

To me this is still better than using a simple DC for reasons I have already stated above.

Here are some link for those interested, which I assume you are already aware of:








						The wrong way to read the pH/KH chart.
					

The pH/KH chart is often used to get a reading of CO2 levels in the tank. However, many folks go about this the wrong way. If you are estimating CO2 levels using only 1 pH reading - then chances are you are getting an incorrect estimation of CO2 levels. Read on to find out how to read pH/KH...




					www.2hraquarist.com
				











						Surface agitation & gaseous exchange in CO2 injected tanks
					

Surface agitation in a planted aquarium - yes or not ? This page explores why having some surface agitation and turnover is actually useful in planted tanks and actually makes tuning CO2 to optimal levels more easy.




					www.2hraquarist.com


----------



## GreggZ (22 Apr 2022)

aquanoobie said:


> Research demonstrated that submerged plants do not need more than 30 ppm CO2 even under direct sunlight. Also, do you know anyone claiming the necessity of having 100 ppm of CO2 or facing issues related to too low CO2 at 30 ppm?


Curious what research is this? 

And yes I know plenty of people who's tank would be better if they optimized CO2 and had a higher concentration. 

One issue is that many think their CO2 concentration is 30 ppm, but in reality they have no idea. It could more like 10 ppm. The charts are useless. There are more elements at play than just CO2 in our tanks.

And all of the theoretical nonsense aside for someone who is interested in having a great tank the pH drop method is easily the best method we have. If you know how to do it correctly it's our best available tool to dial in CO2 and keep it steady. That is unless you have access to very expensive test equipment. 

IMO too many times folks get lost in the minutia and lose focus on what's important. Learn how to properly fully degas a sample, use a good calibrated probe, understand the dKH/pH/CO2 relationship, then take that knowledge to keep a steady pH drop and your odds of success will greatly increase.



aquanoobie said:


> So how can we say 1 pH drop => 30 ppm, based on what?


Now this I agree with. My pH drop is 1.4. What is my actual CO2 level? Who knows. The charts would say well over a hundred. Is it really? Not likely. 

But matters little in the scheme of things. You want to dial in whatever level makes the plants the most happy and keeps livestock comfortable. Whatever that ppm is it pays to keep it steady at that level, and pH drop is the best tool to do so. Massive swings in CO2 are just as rough on some plants as massive swings in nutrients so it pays to get it right.


----------



## Gorillastomp (22 Apr 2022)

GreggZ said:


> Now this I agree with. My pH drop is 1.4. What is my actual CO2 level? Who knows. The charts would say well over a hundred. Is it really? Not likely.


I usually keep my ph drop around that 1.3 1.4 marks, but lately i decided to test out what it could do if i push it further more so i have increased it slowly over weeks, months to about 1.8 drop. I haven't seen improvement what so ever in growth. Could be that i didn't not have enough light to drive it or something.


----------



## Wookii (22 Apr 2022)

I'll stick my hand up and be the lonely voice in favour of drop checkers.

With experience a quick glance at my drop checker tells me straight away if I'm hitting the right CO2 levels for my tank. It tells me visually every day if increasing plant mass, or reduced/increase surface agitation has altered the CO2 levels. It even alerts me when my CO2 bottle runs out if I haven't checked the gauges in a while. It also allows me to test measure any point in the tank for distribution issues.

Whilst measuring the pH drop is for sure a good method, for setting initial CO2, and gives an instant reading rather than the drop checkers time delay, it's still fraught with issues. Most aquarists don't stump up for a pH meter with wired probes, and are therefore limited to measuring pH with a integrated hand held meter that can only measure in the top 75mm of water. In my experience with a good quality and accurate pH probe, pH can vary around the tank significantly, in line with CO2 distribution, so is caught with similar location issues to the drop checker in that respect. It's also very labour intensive to take a manual pH profile if you don't have a more expensive data logging probe.

For me setting up a new tank is also easy with the drop checker - I start with slightly over-egging the input rate to get a colour verging on yellow, and then back it off gradually until I hit the right level. I can usually get to the right point within a couple of days, which is far easier and less labour intensive than running consecutive manual pH profiles (even though my probe is a data logging type).

Don't get me wrong, I think the committed aquarist should both tools in their arsenal, but I find with experience I rely on the drop checker much more.


----------



## GreggZ (22 Apr 2022)

Gorillastomp said:


> I usually keep my ph drop around that 1.3 1.4 marks, but lately i decided to test out what it could do if i push it further more so i have increased it slowly over weeks, months to about 1.8 drop. I haven't seen improvement what so ever in growth. Could be that i didn't not have enough light to drive it or something.


Many I know have tested this theory over the years and have found it subject to the law of diminishing returns. Once you get to to a certain level plants have all they can possibly uptake and the extra is wasted. 



Wookii said:


> I'll stick my hand up and be the lonely voice in favour of drop checkers.


It all depends on how precise you want to be and your level of ambition. Keep in mind a drop checker is nothing more than a liquid pH test. 

I have tested liquid pH tests against good quality calibrated probes and they can be off quite a bit. I adjust my pH drop up/down in 0.05 increments which would be impossible with a drop checker.

But in the scheme of things if you just want "good" CO2 a drop checker will work just fine. If you really want to optimize CO2 a calibrated good quality probe is best. Of the great tanks that I follow I can't think of one that uses a drop checker, but then again their ambition is greater than the average tank.


----------



## Andy Pierce (22 Apr 2022)

I'm also on board with the drop checker.  Totally idiot-proof and you just look at it to see where you are.  People that think they can meaningfully optimise CO2 by measuring pH in 0.05 unit increments are fooling themselves, but if they enjoy doing it that also has value.


----------



## GreggZ (22 Apr 2022)

Andy Pierce said:


> I'm also on board with the drop checker.  Totally idiot-proof and you just look at it to see where you are.  People that think they can meaningfully optimise CO2 by measuring pH in 0.05 unit increments are fooling themselves, but if they enjoy doing it that also has value.


LOL I do enjoy the process.

And I did mention tuning in 0.05 increments. Let me explain that. 

Let's say my current drop is to 5.00 pH. To fine tune I start by dropping to 4.95. Then observe plants and fish for a few days. Then down to 4.90 and do the same. And then again until I hit the point where plants are pearling and happy and fish show no signs of discomfort. 

You may think there is no difference if CO2 is optimized, but in my experience it's easily the best thing most folks could do to increase their success in the hobby. Playing whack-a-mole ferts rarely works, but fine tuning CO2 brings immediate results. But again all depends on one's ambitions in the hobby.


----------



## aquanoobie (22 Apr 2022)

aquanoobie said:


> In fact, terrestrial plants worldwide are starving for more carbon because of critically low atmospheric CO2 levels. We have ~ 400 ppm now thanks to burning fossil fuels for the last 120 years. It was as low as 300 ppm 120 years ago and it was like this for thousands of years, dropping down to critical level for plants to trive. The best time plants had it was when CO2 level in atmosphere was up to 8 000 ppm, 20 x more than today, it was millions of years ago. That's when ferns grew as large as trees. CO2 molecule is one of the most important molecules keeping this planet alive, CO2 is a molecule of life.


Here is a research paper to show how low CO2 atmospheric levels are at the present time, in fact it is so low that plants cannot grow to full potential. And, we won’t see this on TV for some bizarre reason.

CO2 sequestration in plants: lesson from divergent strategies, pages 481–496 (2011), S. K. Vats, S. Kumar, P. S. Ahuja in Photosynthetica (2011)

“Most organisms inhabiting earth feed directly or indirectly on the products synthesized by the reaction of photosynthesis, which at the current atmospheric CO2 levels operates only at two thirds of its peak efficiency. Restricting the photorespiratory loss of carbon and thereby improving the efficiency of photosynthesis is seen by many as a good option to enhance productivity of food crops. Research during last half a century has shown that several plant species developed CO2-concentrating mechanism (CCM) to restrict photorespiration under lower concentration of available CO2. CCMs are now known to be operative in several terrestrial and aquatic plants, ranging from most advanced higher plants to algae, cyanobacteria and diatoms. Plants with C4 pathway of photosynthesis (where four-carbon compound is the first product of photosynthesis) or crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) may consistently operate CCM. Some plants however can undergo a shift in photosynthetic metabolism only with change in environmental variables. More recently, a shift in plant photosynthetic metabolism is reported at high altitude where improved efficiency of CO2 uptake is related to the recapture of photorespiratory loss of carbon. Of the divergent CO2 assimilation strategies operative in different oraganisms, the capacity to recapture photorespiratory CO2 could be an important approach to develop plants with efficient photosynthetic capacity.”









						CO2 sequestration in plants: lesson from divergent strategies - Photosynthetica
					

Most organisms inhabiting earth feed directly or indirectly on the products synthesized by the reaction of photosynthesis, which at the current atmospheric CO2 levels operates only at two thirds of its peak efficiency. Restricting the photorespiratory loss of carbon and thereby improving the...




					link.springer.com


----------



## aquanoobie (22 Apr 2022)

Hanuman said:


> Please share such research. Always willing to learn more.





GreggZ said:


> Curious what research is this?


This research paper talks about higher CO2 levels inhibiting aquatic plant growth. Who would have thought?

“The critical values of CO2 lay approximately between 0.6 to 1.0 mM (26 to 44 ppm CO2). At this critical CO2 concentration photosynthetic rate reached its maximum and then decreased with increasing CO2.”

1 mM = 44 ppm CO2









						(PDF) Photosynthetic response to inroganic carbon in Elodea densa (Planchon) Caspary
					

PDF | Photosynthetic response of Elodea densa segments to varying total inorganic carbon (Ct) at selected pH values was determined by measuring the... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




					www.researchgate.net
				






			https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hana-Cizkova-Koncalova/publication/300003698_Photosynthetic_response_to_inroganic_carbon_in_Elodea_densa_Planchon_Caspary/links/571e1a6b08aeaced7889d8fd/Photosynthetic-response-to-inroganic-carbon-in-Elodea-densa-Planchon-Caspary.pdf


----------



## GreggZ (23 Apr 2022)

aquanoobie said:


> This research paper talks about higher CO2 levels inhibiting aquatic plant growth. Who would have thought?
> 
> “The critical values of CO2 lay approximately between 0.6 to 1.0 mM (26 to 44 ppm CO2). At this critical CO2 concentration photosynthetic rate reached its maximum and then decreased with increasing CO2.”
> 
> ...


The problem with scientific studies is that they may or may not haven anything to do with the species we grow and the way we grow them in glass boxes.

But either way the bigger issue is that folks have little idea what their actual CO2 levels are. It's an educated guess at best without the proper test equipment. So someone thinks they are perfect at 30 ppm, but the reality may be quite different. 

In the long run the preciseness has little to do with keeping a great planted tank. Like most things in this hobby it's more about relative values.


----------



## Yugang (23 Apr 2022)

GreggZ said:


> If you really want to optimize CO2 a calibrated good quality probe is best


Could you elaborate what is meant with 'optimize'? Is it to target a certain CO2 ppm level, and what level would that then have to be? Or is it about stability during the lights-on? Or a combination of both? If you had the hypothetical perfect pH probe, what is it that you like to achieve when 'optmizing'?

My point is that perhaps you don't even want to know your exact CO2 ppm, many different levels can work as long as they are balanced with other parameters in tank?  I am therefore less focussed trying to know the absolute value, and more so on the variations in time and place. These variations I find a bit hard to read on the dropchecker, easier on the probe. Am I at 20 or 30 ppm - frankly I don't care as long as it is stable.


----------



## erwin123 (23 Apr 2022)

Yugang said:


> Could you elaborate what is meant with 'optimize'? Is it to target a certain CO2 ppm level, and what level would that then have to be? Or is it about stability during the lights-on? Or a combination of both? If you had the hypothetical perfect pH probe, what is it that you like to achieve when 'optmizing'?
> 
> My point is that perhaps you don't even want to know your exact CO2 ppm, many different levels can work as long as they are balanced with other parameters in tank?  I am therefore less focussed trying to know the absolute value, and more so on the variations in time and place. These variations I find a bit hard to read on the dropchecker, easier on the probe. Am I at 20 or 30 ppm - frankly I don't care as long as it is stable.







This pH profile can be improved' because pH is still dropping after the lights turn on.




By turning CO2 on earlier, I ensure that max CO2 is available when the lights turn on


----------



## aquanoobie (23 Apr 2022)

GreggZ said:


> The problem with scientific studies is that they may or may not haven anything to do with the species we grow and the way we grow them in glass boxes.
> 
> But either way the bigger issue is that folks have little idea what their actual CO2 levels are. It's an educated guess at best without the proper test equipment. So someone thinks they are perfect at 30 ppm, but the reality may be quite different.
> 
> In the long run the preciseness has little to do with keeping a great planted tank. Like most things in this hobby it's more about relative values.


Choosing to ignore the researched topic and stirring the discussion to insufficient number of studied plant species and glass box excuses? 

The study is about high CO2 inhibiting aquatic plant growth. It has been observed and studied. And the study has demonstrated how higher CO2 levels can be detrimental to aquatic plants. Levels of 30 ppm and higher, recommended by some, can actually be causing more harm than good this study suggests.

I kind of expect, though it takes time, to see posts like, Full CO2, 1/2 CO2 and 1/4 CO2, to gain popularity.


----------



## aquanoobie (23 Apr 2022)

Yugang said:


> My point is that perhaps you don't even want to know your exact CO2 ppm, many different levels can work as long as they are balanced with other parameters in tank?


This must be it. When I look at ADA success with CO2 injection timed with lights on and off, and no pH probe. No CO2 tunnel vision approach.


----------



## erwin123 (23 Apr 2022)

The threadstarter MrTank says he has 9 different tanks, some tanks appear to have 30pm-40ppm, and he also has this special tank with 150ppm CO2. 
Assuming that the other tank parameters are roughly the same and the major difference is the CO2 levels, then we can see for ourselves the difference between 150ppm CO2 and 30-40ppm CO2 once he posts photos of his tanks.. He can also share with us his own observations on how 150ppm CO2 has affected plant growth.

Even if it is not actually 150ppm, I presume he is pumping into that tank a whole lot more CO2 compared to the other tanks where he has 30-40ppm CO2, so we can still look at the difference between 30-40ppm and a whole lot more (even if not 150ppm)....


----------



## GreggZ (23 Apr 2022)

aquanoobie said:


> Choosing to ignore the researched topic and stirring the discussion to insufficient number of studied plant species and glass box excuses?
> 
> The study is about high CO2 inhibiting aquatic plant growth. It has been observed and studied. And the study has demonstrated how higher CO2 levels can be detrimental to aquatic plants. Levels of 30 ppm and higher, recommended by some, can actually be causing more harm than good this study suggests.
> 
> I kind of expect, though it takes time, to see posts like, Full CO2, 1/2 CO2 and 1/4 CO2, to gain popularity.


Observed and studied? In an aquarium?  Not even close. What does any of your arguments have to do with presenting a planted tank that someone would aspire to?  IMO  you may not be able to see the forest through the trees. 

Arguing about levels of CO2 that can only be measured in a lab have little to do with growing plants in an aquarium.

And I am sorry I am not familiar with you. Can you show me something you have created that I would be interested in learning more about? I am eager to learn from those that are successful in growing plants. Show me something and it would be a more interesting discussion.


----------



## aquanoobie (23 Apr 2022)

GreggZ said:


> And I am sorry I am not familiar with you. Can you show me something you have created that I would be interested in learning more about? I am eager to learn from those that are successful in growing plants. Show me something and it would be a more interesting discussion.


With all due respect, how do we as a community know for sure, you are not taking pictures of your neighbour's tank? You know, as far as internet credibility goes.


----------



## bazz (23 Apr 2022)

GreggZ said:


> If you really want to optimize CO2 a calibrated good quality probe is best.


I assume with a probe we will not experience the problems faced with a hand held PH meter whilst having <1 dKH?


----------



## Hanuman (23 Apr 2022)

aquanoobie said:


> This research paper talks about higher CO2 levels inhibiting aquatic plant growth. Who would have thought?
> 
> “The critical values of CO2 lay approximately between 0.6 to 1.0 mM (26 to 44 ppm CO2). At this critical CO2 concentration photosynthetic rate reached its maximum and then decreased with increasing CO2.”
> 
> ...





aquanoobie said:


> Choosing to ignore the researched topic and stirring the discussion to insufficient number of studied plant species and glass box excuses?
> 
> The study is about high CO2 inhibiting aquatic plant growth. It has been observed and studied. And the study has demonstrated how higher CO2 levels can be detrimental to aquatic plants. Levels of 30 ppm and higher, recommended by some, can actually be causing more harm than good this study suggests.
> 
> I kind of expect, though it takes time, to see posts like, Full CO2, 1/2 CO2 and 1/4 CO2, to gain popularity.


I read the abstract and the results of that study and tried to understand as much as I could considering I am no biologist. Let's get things straight here for a moment. The study does not talk about 'higher CO2 levels inhibiting aquatic plant growth'. It talks very specifically about *Elodena densa*, not "plants". Full stop. So you claiming that 30 ppm or so of CO2 inhibits plants growth in general terms is a huge extrapolation of facts discussed in that paper. In fact that plant has been known for a long time to be a low CO2 demanding plant which actually does much better with low CO2 levels than with higher levels. This is definitely not the case for most plants we grow in aquariums. This plant has been discussed in the forum. Even for slow growing plants which would do fine with lower CO2 disponilility benefit from additional CO2. I am not making any claims here, just pointing out that making generalities like the one you did is a no no.


aquanoobie said:


> With all due respect, how do we as a community know for sure, you are not taking pictures of your neighbour's tank? You know, as far as internet credibility goes.


All is possible. Clearly you have no clue though. Because I don't want to be labeled a Gregg fanboy I simply did a quick google search to show it's at anyone's fingertips. Maybe with today's technology deep fakes are possible though 😚





						Meet Gregg Zydeck – Dutch Inspired good guy – ScapeCrunch
					






					scapecrunch.com
				











						Is low pH in tanks due to aquasoils/softwater a concern?
					

Is low pH a concern in planted aquariums? Does the low pH caused by CO2 injection or aquasoil affect livestock or bacteria in the planted aquarium? Should I use buffers to raise the pH? This article examines why pH drops in aquasoil tanks and what should be done (or not done).




					www.2hraquarist.com
				











						Gregg Zydeck
					

Gregg Zydeck is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Gregg Zydeck and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more open and connected.




					www.facebook.com
				











						Home |  		Aquarium Hobbyist Magazine
					





					www.aquariumhobbyistmagazine.com
				




I guess all those respected people and companies have a conspiracy going on. @GreggZ Where's the pic with you and a guy in front of your tank BTW? Couldn't find it. Did people found out it was photoshoped and you deleted it from the internet?


----------



## GreggZ (23 Apr 2022)

aquanoobie said:


> With all due respect, how do we as a community know for sure, you are not taking pictures of your neighbour's tank? You know, as far as internet credibility goes.


I guess I should have expected this argument based on who's methodology you favor. It's the same excuse I have heard from that camp for a decade. It's like they have a school that teaches it.

In the end, this is a visual hobby. All the people I know and communicate with share pictures all the time. It's the best tool we have to share results.




Hanuman said:


> Where's the pic with you and a guy in front of your tank BTW? Couldn't find it. Did people found out it was photoshoped and you deleted it from the internet?


Don't be fooled. He's not real. I created a deep fake. Same for all the 1,000's of other pictures I have posted over a very long time. I have a cottage industry going on here creating fake pictures.😄😄


----------



## John q (23 Apr 2022)

GreggZ said:


> I have a cottage industry going on here creating fake pictures.😄


Nice photo @GreggZ  can't believe anybody would suggest you'd fake these to boost your Internet credibility 🙄.

On a side note; are the plants in that tank real, or are you still using plastic ones? 🤣


----------



## GreggZ (23 Apr 2022)

John q said:


> On a side note; are the plants in that tank real, or are you still using plastic ones? 🤣


Shhh don't tell anyone but the fish aren't real either. Here's the picture before I doctored it where you can see the steel rods holding up the fake fish

.


----------



## dw1305 (23 Apr 2022)

Hi all,


MichaelJ said:


> I think it's something like vapor pressure / partial pressure x 10^6 = ppm. Probably wrong... but looping in @dw1305 as Darrel probably knows this.


Unfortunately not, I don't have access to _Nature_ as a journal. I think the reason for the fluctuating CO2 levels is to do with the dry and wet seasons in the Amazon basin.


aquanoobie said:


> The study is about high CO2 inhibiting aquatic plant growth.


I think the issue for us is that most of the plants we grow aren't really obligate aquatic plants (without a cuticle or stomata etc), but they are semi-aquatic emergent plants and they really want to get at the 420 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

cheers Darrel


----------



## aquanoobie (23 Apr 2022)

dw1305 said:


> I think the issue for us is that most of the plants we grow aren't really obligate aquatic plants (without a cuticle or stomata etc), but they are semi-aquatic emergent plants and they really want to get at the 420 ppm of atmospheric CO2.


Thank you @dw1305 for clarifying.
You call this plant category semi-aquatic. We have aquatic plants and non-aquatic plants, but what is a semi-aquatic plant? And also how can we tell what is real aquatic and what is not? 
Thanks


----------



## erwin123 (23 Apr 2022)

Pond Plants: A Beginner's Guide • Envii
					

Looking to add plants to your pond? Whether you’re decorating or hoping to improve the pond’s natural balance, check out these beginner tips.




					www.envii.co.uk


----------



## dw1305 (23 Apr 2022)

Hi all, 


aquanoobie said:


> We have aquatic plants and non-aquatic plants, but what is a semi-aquatic plant?


No, we definitely don't have two pigeon holes "Aquatic" & "Non-Aquatic",  what we have a continuum from  <"xerophytes to hydrophytes"> and there are plenty of plants in the semi-aquatic category.  

Because plant producers (Tropica etc) want to grow their <"plants emersed">, they are looking for plants like <"_Rotala rotundifolia_">_, <"__Hygrophila corymbosa_">, <"_Echinodorus_">  & <"_Cryptocoryne">_ spp._ etc _which will grow submersed, in some cases for very long time periods, before flowering when the water level falls. 

Some plants <"are less successful"> long term and will either flower, or die in the attempt.

Here are photos of two Water Crowsfoot _Ranunculus_ spp. (from last week) that are on the aquatic end of "semi-aquatic". <"_Ranuculus hederaceus_"> and <"_R. baudotii_">.








cheers Darrel


----------



## MichaelJ (23 Apr 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Unfortunately not, I don't have access to _Nature_ as a journal.


Hi Darrel and @Yugang:
In water it turns out there is a fairly linear correlation between partial CO2 (uatm) and ppm.    The conversion depends on temperature and salinity. At 20C at extremely low salinity it's approximately a factor of 0.0017.   So for converting the scale from pCO2(uatm) to CO2 ppm in _Outgassing from Amazonian Rivers and Wetlands as a Large Tropical Source of Atmospheric CO2. E. Richey et. al.  figure 3a and 3b:_

pCO2(uatm) -> CO2 ppm.
2 x 10^3  = 3.4 ppm.
4 x 10^3  = 6.8 ppm.
8 x 10^3 = 13.6 ppm.
12 x 10^3 = 20 ppm.


Cheers,
Michael


----------



## aquanoobie (23 Apr 2022)

dw1305 said:


> I think the issue for us is that most of the plants we grow aren't really obligate aquatic plants (without a cuticle or stomata etc), but they are semi-aquatic emergent plants and they really want to get at the 420 ppm of atmospheric CO2.


Hi @dw1305 
I guess I used wrong word. Instead of, 

"The study is about high CO2 inhibiting aquatic plant growth." 

I should have said, 

"The study is about high CO2 inhibiting growth of a plant we keep in aquariums." 

Egeria densa - Tropica Aquarium Plants 

Then it would't create such havoc. My apology.


----------



## dw1305 (23 Apr 2022)

Hi all,


aquanoobie said:


> The study is about high CO2 inhibiting growth of a plant we keep in aquariums


I've been thinking about this and I'm guessing that obligate aquatic plants from hard water (so plants which always <"get their DIC / TIC in the form of HCO3-">) are likely to be inhibited (or not be able to utilise) higher levels of CO2, because they are never going to experience them in the wild, they are adapted to using bicarbonate (HCO3-).




<"This doesn't apply to floating plants">, because they always have access to atmospheric gases, via the stomata in their upper leaf surfaces. This access to atmospheric gases (<"Diana Walstad's "aerial advantage">) is why <"floating plants can utilise more of the nutrients in the water">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## KirstyF (23 Apr 2022)

It seems entirely logical that there would be some ‘aquatic’ plants that prefer lower Co2.

In our aquariums, folks are often looking for ‘optimal’ growth and form, whatever that looks like in our eyes. (The plants are probably less bothered about being perfect) Optimal growth conditions are always going to be different for different plants and therefore practical application of our husbandry methods can only be based on finding an appropriate ‘centre line’ for whatever selection we choose to keep.

My question would be, why wouldn’t there be plants that are inhibited by high Co2? Simply on the basis of ‘all things under the sun’ there are bound to be some that fit that bill and the family of obligate aquatic plants, that are never (in nature) exposed to atmosphere and have evolved therefore to live permanently in a lower Co2 environment, may logically contain those candidates.

I’d guess however that there are also obligate aquatics that would do perfectly fine with higher Co2. Figuring out which are which may be entirely dependant on popularity of, or level of desire to keep, a specific plant.

After all, much of the knowledge of how to best keep aquarium plants will come from aquarists so some of these plants may be ‘known’, others not so much. 

So, again, with no scientific evidence, you can probably take out any and every aquatic plant that can be successfully grown emersed (makes sense right) so then you just gotta figure out if any of your obligate aquatics perform better with lower Co2 and then, to achieve optimal form, not grow them with plants that prefer ‘high’ Co2. (Oh and then match them to their other optimal parameters, such as nutrient/light levels etc….Easy 👍………ok maybe not!! 😏)

If of course the ‘high’ Co2’ level that inhibits such plants is, in fact, notably higher than 30ppm ish, alot of us can just go back to watching eastenders now. 😊

And anyone that wants to run Co2 at higher than 44ppm and also grow Elodea Densa at optimum, might be out of luck I guess. 

As for full, 1/2 and 1/4 Co2. If full is 30ppm (and most folks would consider that to be the case) then there would need to be strong evidence that a number of plants are detrimentally effected at levels lower than 30ppm for that to ever be relevant and I’m not seeing that in this study! 

Anything above 30ppm might need a new category. Full plus? super full maybe? 😊 but, as this study allows up to 44ppm (I believe!) I’m still thinking the list of plants that would actively suffer within any range that is normally implemented by aquarists would be pretty small.

Just my 2pennies worth! 😊

As for 150ppm. I’d be interested to see physically how that could be achieved 😳but in a practical sense, seems like ‘Co2 is free’ taken to a whole ‘nother level! 😂


----------



## aquanoobie (23 Apr 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I've been thinking about this and I'm guessing that obligate aquatic plants from hard water (so plants which always <"get their DIC / TIC in the form of HCO3-">) are likely to be inhibited (or not be able to utilise) higher levels of CO2, because they are never going to experience them in the wild, they are adapted to using bicarbonate (HCO3-).


Interesting. 
If we take this idea further then submerged plants utilizing bicarbonate have as much carbon available in aquariums with medium to high KH as in the nature under direct sunlight. We can't give them more KH unless we go for unusually hard cave water levels. So this is the maximum carbon they get under full sun. 

But with CO2 as a carbon source we don't have this option of maxing out CO2 due to fauna limits and the many unknown in CO2 infusion process. Or I am completely wrong?


----------



## erwin123 (24 Apr 2022)

I hope MrTank has not been scared away from his own thread! I'm looking forward to photos of the plants in his 150ppm CO2 tank and what the differences are compared to a 'regular' 30ppm CO2 injection.


----------



## dw1305 (24 Apr 2022)

Hi all, 


aquanoobie said:


> If we take this idea further then submerged plants utilizing bicarbonate have as much carbon available in aquariums with medium to high KH as in the nature under direct sunlight. We can't give them more KH unless we go for unusually hard cave water levels. So this is the maximum carbon they get under full sun.


We used to <"run an experiment"> to look at oxygen evolution <"using _Cabomba caroliniana_">_, _with dilute sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) as the <"inorganic carbon source">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## aquanoobie (30 Apr 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> We used to <"run an experiment"> to look at oxygen evolution <"using _Cabomba caroliniana_">_, _with dilute sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) as the <"inorganic carbon source">.
> 
> cheers Darrel


Hi @dw1305 
Nice experiment. What do you think about them positioning the plants upside down during the test? 

Thanks for sharing


----------



## dw1305 (30 Apr 2022)

Hi all,


aquanoobie said:


> What do you think about them positioning the plants upside down during the test?


I'm not sure it really matters.  You only get visible pearling once the plants internal spaces (<"lacunae and aerenchyma">) are saturated with oxygen and aquatic plants are very efficient at <"moving oxygen internally">.   She talks about this from about 10:30 in the SAPS video. If you search for <"Radial Oxygen Loss"> it will give you some references.



Originally the experiment was done using the inverted funnel method, so I guess that was the original reason for using the plant inverted.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sparkyweasel (30 Apr 2022)

aquanoobie said:


> This research paper talks about higher CO2 levels inhibiting aquatic plant growth. Who would have thought?


The plant fragments were observed at different pH and CO2 levels, for only 30 minutes at each combination.
I do not think we can assume that we would see similar results in an aquarium situation.
We know that;
Plants can adapt to various conditions, within limits.
Plants take time (often more than 30mins) to adapt to new conditions. 
Plant fragments do not always behave identically to whole plants.


----------



## mrtank50 (13 May 2022)

erwin123 said:


> Problem I've had for a long time
> 
> 
> Hello to everyone Guys please solve my problem.  I do not know what to do.  Sinobacteria abound.  Plants do not grow.  It has algae problems.  Plants are shapeless.    Tank: 120 liter -   31 galon Tank setup        :  01.10.2021 Light                 :39*6  T5 Flo   osram 865*3, Osram 830*3...
> ...


sorry for my late reply to. Please forgive me. I am very new to the forum and my english is not very good.

To answer your question, I think too much co2 is not a good thing. I always had trouble. Growth stopped, coloration gone, I had a bacterial explosion.

Especially in difficult plants, deaths occurred. I still continue to experiment.

I wonder what will happen if I keep the fertilizer rate under 16000 lumens of light with very high co2. So I continue this experiment.


----------



## mrtank50 (13 May 2022)

very high CO2 maybe a good thing, I have no idea.

Problems I'm having:
1-bacteria growth stopped

2-Photosynthesis has stopped

3-Coloration is gone

4-Organic waste is very, very much.

5-Cionabacteria too much

Algae such as 6-SDA-GSA-BBA-GBA increased too much.

In fact, I think that the reason for all this is not CO2, and I could not adjust the fertilizer rate despite this high CO2.


I will keep trying.

I'm thinking of giving 10 ppm nitrate daily.

I apologize to everyone for my late reply. Unfortunately, I am having a very busy time.


----------

