# Adding gas to low tech tank?



## Kezzab (7 Oct 2017)

I've got a bit bored. Thinking about adding gas to my low tech tank - I have a spare set up.

Not going to change the lighting, and not chasing 30ppm - just adding a 'a bit'.

Aim, as always is to improve growth.

What's going to go wrong?


----------



## Planted Bows (7 Oct 2017)

Algae most likely 

Sent from my G8141 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kezzab (7 Oct 2017)

lol, that's always the case.


----------



## Henry (7 Oct 2017)

Planted Bows said:


> Algae most likely
> 
> Sent from my G8141 using Tapatalk



Interested to know why.


----------



## Planted Bows (7 Oct 2017)

Henry said:


> Interested to know why.


Main reason is low light with co2 is a really poor balance! I've been there and done that and got very bad BBA and other forms of algae. You have to have the right balance.

So with low light you would be injecting co2 which in turn would leave excess co2 as the plants wouldn't gain the best photosynthesis in the light period! Having high light helps with that! I would never recommend having low light with co2

Sent from my G8141 using Tapatalk


----------



## colinquilliam1 (7 Oct 2017)

Hi kezzab

Put a pic up of your tank so i can get an idea of what you have pls.
Adding co2 wont cause too many issues tbh if you have subtrate and plenty of plants. If you are only adding a bit then keep to the basics. Light period 6-8hrs max, dose a few ferts every week. What co2 system are you planning on setting up?



Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk


----------



## Kezzab (7 Oct 2017)

This is it. It's going quite well, so there's a bit of if it ain't broke don't fix it


----------



## colinquilliam1 (7 Oct 2017)

I cant see much wrong in there but your water looks a bit off colour unless its the pic. What subtrate do you have in there? Looks like tropica capped with sand maybe. If it is, were the sagitaria is on the left it looks a little thin so could be subtrate leeching. Tropica plant sub does that when its not capped enough. So if you had a cory digging...as they do, he could have released a load of sub. Signs are- a cloud from were its disturbed, milky off coloured water, all the above followed by algae blooms. Tropica is packed with nutrients etc, clay based but has to be capped with at least an inch of sand or fine gravel or it leeches out. 

Looks good though kezzab

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk


----------



## colinquilliam1 (7 Oct 2017)

Similar to mine lol



Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk


----------



## ceg4048 (8 Oct 2017)

Planted Bows said:


> Main reason is low light with co2 is a really poor balance! I've been there and done that and got very bad BBA and other forms of algae. You have to have the right balance.
> 
> So with low light you would be injecting co2 which in turn would leave excess co2 as the plants wouldn't gain the best photosynthesis in the light period! Having high light helps with that! I would never recommend having low light with co2


Sorry, but this isn't even remotely true. In fact it is so far from the truth it might even be considered absurd.
it's exactly because of this kind of thinking that we are in so much trouble.

High light with low CO2 is problematic, but high CO2 with low light is never a problem.

Most tanks would be in much better shape if indeed they were using low light with high CO2.

Cheers,


----------



## Zeus. (8 Oct 2017)

Thanks for clearing that up Clive, wasn't confident enough to post myself. But was sure it was true.

Sent from Mountolympus via neural interface


----------



## ceg4048 (8 Oct 2017)

I guess, about now, you must feel like Alice, tumbling down a rabbit hole?
Take the red pill and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes...

Researchers at Tropica discovered that the more CO2 a plant receives, the less light it needs because it's light usage _efficiency _increases.
Adding CO2 actually enables us to use less light than in a non-CO2 low tech tank.
Typically, a submerged plant needs to dedicate a lot of energy and much of it's resources gathering and processing CO2. RuBiSCO, the CO2 gathering protein, is horrendously expensive, so when there is low CO2 the plant has to manufacture more of this Protein in order to raise it's CO2 gathering ability.
When CO2 is in abundance those resources can be released and diverted instead to light gathering mechanisms.


Cheers,


----------



## Kezzab (8 Oct 2017)

Thanks for the responses. The water colour is a combination of camera phone and the light which casts a slightly odd hue, its crystal clear to the eye.

The substrate is straight soil, capped with locally collected lake gravel.

I may give it a try. some of my plants are doing well - tenellus, moss, anubias, ferns. Bolbitis is doing ok too. But my crypts are poor, weak and limited growth, and a.crispus also very small tatty growth. I have an echinodorus green leopard that hasnt grown past 20cm in 6 months.


----------



## Planted Bows (8 Oct 2017)

LOL and this is why this forum is the way it is! Anyway I'm out lol! 

Sent from my G8141 using Tapatalk


----------



## Planted Bows (8 Oct 2017)

Sent from my G8141 using Tapatalk


----------



## Planted Bows (8 Oct 2017)

Point is, it's my experience that it has happened! No expert needed there 

Sent from my G8141 using Tapatalk


----------



## Nick Norman (8 Oct 2017)

Kezzab said:


> I've got a bit bored. Thinking about adding gas to my low tech tank - I have a spare set up.
> 
> Not going to change the lighting, and not chasing 30ppm - just adding a 'a bit'.
> 
> ...




I started injecting co2 to my low tech a few weeks ago about 20ppm I think.. plants have defiantly improved but i also increased the light a tad and flow. I have a bit more algae but hoping this will go as i gain more plant mass. Plants are now pearling for the first time, my dwarf sag is finally now sending out runners. some of my stems were on their last legs with only a few stunted leave but now have new growth. Hopefully now I will have more success growing stems.


----------



## Zeus. (8 Oct 2017)

Yes it happen, but the science doesn't fit your claims, there must of been something else causing the algea. 
Experience is good backed up with science is excellent. 
But experience backed up with it happen therefore I believe the reasons is ... Well it's just 'Bad Science' which leads to urban myths.


Sent from Mountolympus via neural interface


----------



## foxfish (8 Oct 2017)

View attachment 110565


Planted Bows said:


> Main reason is low light with co2 is a really poor balance! I've been there and done that and got very bad BBA and other forms of algae. You have to have the right balance.
> 
> So with low light you would be injecting co2 which in turn would leave excess co2 as the plants wouldn't gain the best photosynthesis in the light period! Having high light helps with that! I would never recommend having low light with co2
> 
> Sent from my G8141 using Tapatalk


Well it is always interesting to read other peoples advice, experiences & conclusions.
I don't doubt you gave what you consider an honest & helpful reply, but, I have run low light, high C02 tanks for nearly 40 years!
I have tried high light as well but for the first 20 years I used 2 x T8 now I use 2 x T5 but always high C02.
Of course my tanks are nothing amazing & I am not really a fish keeper, in fact I have not kept fish in my main tank for the last year.
 I recently spent almost 3 months in New Zealand, I left my tank running 'home alone' with one T5 & two low watt LED household bulbs on for 7 hours a day.
I left the C02 running as usual & hoped my 5k cylinder would last. No water changes & no ferts for 11 weeks (the tank has a sump & auto top up) The tank looked a little pale & hungry but it was a jungle of untrimmed growth!
So yes low light, high C02 will work & it is even seems possible not to add ferts or do water changes for months at a time!
Not everything is in black & white & it is obvious that there are different approaches to planted tanks that deviate from scientifically proven methods.


----------



## foxfish (8 Oct 2017)

It seem my pic is not showing and I can't edit it now!
So this is the tank unetended for 11 weeks but with high gas low light.....


----------



## ceg4048 (8 Oct 2017)

Planted Bows said:


> Point is, it's my experience that it has happened! No expert needed there


People experience lots of problems all the time, but discovering the correct reason for those experiences is actually very difficult.
It wasn't very long ago that people blamed Nitrates and Phosphates for their experiencing algae problems in their tank. This debacle went on for years until someone demonstrated that the reasons were exactly the opposite and that adding Nitrates and Phosphates to the tank actually improved it's health.

It turns out that in CO2 injected tanks, by far, the most problems incurred is algae due to _poor implementation_ of CO2. So adding CO2 to a tank is certainly no guarantee of success or of improvement.

CO2 should not be viewed as a pill that you give to the tank. It's a serious undertaking and when you enter the CO2 arena, how you manage the tank has to change. Adding CO2 means being vigilant about nutrition and keeping the tank clean. CO2 increases the amount of nutritional uptake by the plants by up to tenfold and this consumption results in an exponentially higher level of organic waste in the tank.

The delivery of CO2 must be even AND must be stable. As I mentioned, the sudden increase in CO2 availability triggers to plant to reduce it's production of  RuBisCO, the CO2 gathering protein. Once the production rate of the protein is reduced, it takes weeks to then increase the production rate if the CO2 levels fall. So if your CO2 is implemented poorly this results in a rate decrease, then a command to increase, and so on. During the time that the RuBisCO level has fallen, if the CO2 levels also fall then the plant will actually suffer a CO2 shortfall because it is unable to collect enough CO2 due to low RuBisCO levels.

This is why we see CO2 related problems and CO2 related algae in CO2 injected tanks.

When you add CO2  therefore, you must implement it wisely and with purpose, not just because you are bored.

The CO2 levels must be at it's highest value when the light turns on.
It must remain at or near it's peak concentration level for 3-4 hours.
After the first 3-4 hours, it doesn't matter if the levels start to fall because the plant will have eaten it's fill.
The distribution of CO2 must be even across the tank in order to allow the RuBisCO production rate to remain stable and to be in concert with the actual  CO2 concentration.
Attention must be paid to the nutritional uptake otherwise, nutritional deficiency related algae will attack.

So your explanation of WHY you got algae when adding CO2 has nothing to do with why you actually got algae.
Undoubtedly, there was a failure in one or more of these areas, which triggered a algae bloom(s).

Cheers,


----------



## Kezzab (8 Oct 2017)

ceg4048 said:


> When you add CO2 therefore, you must implement it wisely and with purpose, not just because you are bored.



Thank you sensei 

Seriously though, great info. Appreciated.


----------



## Planted Bows (9 Oct 2017)

I appreciate your words, however I had 180litre planted tank with low light and co2 which resulted in a BBA outbreak.

Yes this may mean it's due to poor co2 etc etc etc but some people on here are not as in the know as others and I was simply posting as I had this issue!

I don't get bogged down in the full ins and outs as I have a life and simply my tank is for show in the living room! I aim for a one ph drop which I measure with a ph pen and dose the ei dry salts method. I have high light and still have BBA in the tank but it's manageable. So this inbalance you say is science, I seem to struggle to understand as I do everything in the books and still get the issues! 

Sent from my G8141 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zeus. (9 Oct 2017)

But a better understanding by 'taking the red pill' will lead to the truth, the matrix isnt real after all. So a better understanding of what is real and can be backed up by science or our peers like Clive who have experience and read research papers and a deep understanding of the topic, can enable us to understand better then apply what is real to our hobby and not follow Urban Myths.

In my job we use Cochrane first then Pub med, further down the line we listen to our peers. So with no such data bases which are easy to use or access in the hobby,I Listen/read to what my peers are saying/posting. I have no books on plants or aquascaping, I just use a 'Surgical sieve technic' to work though the mass of info on the internet into groups-Hearsay, Myth, Bad science, Good science etc then follow what makes Good Science.

Do I have algae - Yes OFC I'm a newbie , but I think I'm getting to control it by a better understanding


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (1 Nov 2017)

ceg4048 said:


> The delivery of CO2 must be even AND must be stable. As I mentioned, the sudden increase in CO2 availability triggers to plant to reduce it's production of RuBisCO, the CO2 gathering protein. Once the production rate of the protein is reduced, it takes weeks to then increase the production rate if the CO2 levels fall. So if your CO2 is implemented poorly this results in a rate decrease, then a command to increase, and so on. During the time that the RuBisCO level has fallen, if the CO2 levels also fall then the plant will actually suffer a CO2 shortfall because it is unable to collect enough CO2 due to low RuBisCO levels.



Makes you wonder if increasing co2 to the point of fish gasping then turning it back is beneficial, perhaps if the fish are just starting to gasp towards end of gas injection it would be better to leave it there and wait for the plants to take up the slack. My only worry there would be if you gave the plants a good clip out. CO2 is so complicated it makes you wonder why we ever went down that road. Mere mortals who just want a planted display tank with fish would probably be better off staying away from the stuff or at best LC where you have some level of control.

Obviously if you are a scaper then time is of the essence. To the rest, good things come to those who wait. I'm embarking on my first non co2 injected tank and I think resisting the temptation for gas will be the hardest part. When I look into non co2 tanks it would appear even back ground levels of co2 are an issue there.   It's like a drug in a planted tank and when you start there's no turning back. Soon as you switch it on everything changes.


----------



## JMorgan (3 Nov 2017)

ceg4048 said:


> The CO2 levels must be at it's highest value when the light turns on.
> It must remain at or near it's peak concentration level for 3-4 hours.


Is it not possible to use CO2 in a way that provides a moderate amount ? I mean assuming all other critical factors such as consistency, circulation/dispersion etc. so as to promote some increased growth, but not the fantastic growth rates associated with high tech tanks where people seem to have to spend hours trimming every week? 

I'm just imagining a scenario where one might use moderate lighting, a percentage of EI dosing and be aiming for a lower than peak concentration of CO2 so the plants were still carbon availability limited, but just less so?

If I've understood correctly, while never having run a high tech tank, you're looking to make light the limiting factor by providing everything else in abundance: ferts, CO2, oxygen, clean water etc. So if in my low tech tanks I can use 50% solutions of a DIY all-in-one fert with supplements based on the duckweed index, I wonder (in my clumsy ignorance) about what would happen with 50% of optimal CO2? Again so long as it was timed, consistent and well-circulated?
Not planning to do this - just curious.


----------



## Parablennius (3 Nov 2017)

Afternoon All
I found a chart on TPT ( I think) which demonstrated the growth rate curve of a particular plant with low level CO2.
As far as I can remember the curve was steep up to around 10/15 ppm, any higher than that the growth rate levelled out.
Despite telling myself to KISS I went down this route with my latest tank. Cut the drop checker fluid 50/50 with RO so 2 dKH.so checker is green at 15 ppm. I too am making mine light limited, DIY LED system @ 30% for 6-1/2 hrs + ramp up/down. Gas on 2 hrs before photoperiod and off 3 hrs before end. I'm no expert, so this is an experiment. So, all other things being equal???


----------



## ian_m (3 Nov 2017)

Just turn the lights down, then plants don't require 30ppm CO2 and EI fertiliser levels.

Some people use 10ppm CO2 (mix the indicator in other than 4KDH water and it will change at 10ppm CO2) with lower fertiliser levels, less frequent water changing, less frequent plant trimming but mainly MUCH LESS LIGHT.


----------



## roadmaster (3 Nov 2017)

I believe any additional CO2 into the tank will benefit the plants, but the key would be moderate light and consistency of the gas.
Many are those it seems, that believe because they are injecting CO2,that they have free license to use all the light they can muster.
I think most would have an easier to manage affair with a bit less light and the gas at consistent values.


----------



## ceg4048 (3 Nov 2017)

JMorgan said:


> Is it not possible to use CO2 in a way that provides a moderate amount ? I mean assuming all other critical factors such as consistency, circulation/dispersion etc. so as to promote some increased growth, but not the fantastic growth rates associated with high tech tanks where people seem to have to spend hours trimming every week?


Yes, of course it is. I'm afraid you've misinterpreted the statement.
The idea of "moderate" has nothing to do with the sequence of events and suggestions I made.

Whatever level of CO2 is being used, low, moderate, or high, then that target concentration level should be at it's highest when the lights go on.

There is no point in having the concentration at a "low" level at lights on if your target level is "moderate".
Likewise, there is no point having the concentration at "zero" at lights on if your target level is "low"

CO2 related faults occur when the demand for CO2 concentration by the plants is not met by the CO2 supply.

The amount of light intensity striking the leaves (PAR) directly determines the CO2 concentration demand by the plants.

If the PAR is low, then the demand is low and you can get away with a low CO2 concentration level. 
HOWEVER, this does not mean that you can get away with poor distribution of CO2, or poor stability of CO2, or a concentration level that is lower than the demand - even if that demand is low.

No one actually knows what the CO2 concentration in their tank is, unless they have a multi-thousand dollar CO2 probe.
So it is ludicrous to imagine that your dropchecker or pH probe can actually tell you the right number.

Additionally, approximately 90% of the CO2 injected in the tank goes straight out the window. The actual amount of CO2 available at the interface of the leaf is only about 10% of what we think it is. So we have to inject, what we think is 30ppm just to get 3ppm at the leaf.

That is the main reason why we can see the fish suffer hypercapnia due to excessive injection rates, while at the same time the plants suffer CO2 deficiency.

The key to avoiding this situation is to moderate the lighting to reduce the demand and to improve the dissolution and distribution techniques in order to improve the CO2 supply efficiency.

Again, very few people have a PAR meter and even fewer still have a CO2 meter, so it is delusional to assume that one can meet the demand simply by reading numbers on charts while using the crude measurement tools at our disposal. The plants and the fish will always tell you the truth, so it's best to observe their response carefully.

The DC and pH probes can only ever corroborate your observations, they can never determine the true numbers.

Hope this clarifies.

Cheers,


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (3 Nov 2017)

ian_m said:


> Just turn the lights down, then plants don't require 30ppm CO2 and EI fertiliser levels.



I think this is something that should be pointed out more often Ian, makes it very complicated with LED lighting because of their nature with the numerous types of led diodes etc. Some people can have a led fixture with x number of leds which in reality isn't that bright or they could have less but is actually quite bright. I think lighting is 2nd to co2 in complications. Most people don't have PAR meters and W.H.Y and even if they did a lot will depend on how much shade is created and what's actually getting down to the substrate.

People think that the second they start injecting co2 they must get that one point drop or 30ppm and loading up with ferts to max values. Combined with new tank syndrome and plants that aren't established they run into problems early doors and it's always either this nutrient or co2 not being optimum, before long people are obsessing with hypothetical numbers and actually creating more problems for themselves. 

Stands to reason that adding co2 will accelerate growth at whatever ppm and to buffer that extra growth a bit more fert is going to be needed but I don't think it an either or situation, there's so many options in between. More emphasis should be put on the lighting IMO, wouldn't do any harm to start at the bottom and work up although I know most people will get advised to start at the top from day 1 as a bit of belt and braces approach. 

Even if people have the kit I would suggest it would be least problematic to start all tanks as a low tech setup until the new tank syndrome is in the main out the way with their lights on the lowest setting possible and give themselves a month of seeing how the ferts are doing possibly using duck weed as an indicator. Once comfortable with how things are running then introduce the co2 with a touch more fert and so on using the light as always limiting. It can always be turned up as you go along until you hit a point where EI and 30ppm is a reality for your particular tank if that's where you want to be. Some may find though they are quite happy with their light at 50%, some co2. Would be more of an enjoyable experience I reckon. How many times do you see people give up on a tank because they are constantly trying to hit these parameters as if it is a sh@t or bust situation.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (3 Nov 2017)

Posted that before I saw Clives but I think its roughly in the same vein.


----------



## JMorgan (4 Nov 2017)

Thanks to Ian_M, Clive and AWB for the clarification.


----------



## Richardod (14 Nov 2017)

Very interesting about getting even distribution of Co2 in a tank, I have just set up a Trigon 190 ( only suitable tank for my room)  I have got a cristalprofi e1501 external filter coming in directly at the back of the tank  in the middle  using the wide jet hose rather than the spray bar  and the C02 diffuser front right near the bottom of the tank .
I'm certain I am not getting an even distribution around  the tank I'm going to buy a 1000l/h circulation pump the weekend as I want to try and improve the distribution, has anyone got any ideas where best to place it in the tank.
I have carpet plant at the front ( monte carlo) and want to make sure the Co2 gets an even spread across the whole of the front of the tank. 
Any advice appreciated


----------



## Vandal Gardener (14 Nov 2017)

Not trying to be cheeky Richardod but that's like asking one of the holy grail questions about perfect trigon placement - a whole section of threads on their own, as a trigon owner I know as think I've read them all  so without too much slamming all over this fine thread why not (and I mean this in a friendly manner) start a new thread yourself, as I'd be interested and know of a couple other threads where  trigon folks who have posted recently not that it's limited to trigon blah blah yeh get the drift no.

My tuppance think about a reactor (old style cerges) or a (it's not a diffuser) attaches to filter return or pump return (external) sorry got a headache so struggling a bit!

All the best hope i don't come accrosss as a pedant!


----------



## Richardod (15 Nov 2017)

Ok thanks.
I'll start a new thread on this subject.


----------



## Henry (16 Nov 2017)

Been running a Home 60 with moss and stems for about a month now; no proper ferts, and fairly low light. It's basically an average low tech with CO2 added at an unknown level. I'm having absolutely no problems with algae. In fact, I'm not even running 10x turnover.


----------



## ceg4048 (16 Nov 2017)

Hi Henry,
              The 10X rule is strictly for CO2 gas injected tanks. Low tech tanks are a completely different ballgame and they do not require proper ferts. Think subsistence farming vs industrial farming.

Cheers,


----------



## Henry (17 Nov 2017)

I am running CO2 though. It isn't the CO2 that causes the problem, its light light light!


----------



## ceg4048 (18 Nov 2017)

Yes, I agree. Excessive light is the root of all evil.

Cheers,


----------



## Danny (4 Jan 2018)

Interesting thread this one, some great and very useful knowledge.


----------

