# Providing 'just enough' CO2



## Courtneybst (22 Feb 2021)

Hey guys,

I've been thinking a lot recently about getting a pressurised CO2 system and was wondering if it's possible to provide just enough CO2 so the plants are healthy and not melting back?

My thought process is that I want the plants to be healthy but I don't want to constantly trimming plants either. I know low CO2 can be an issue but if I currently have no CO2 (or just what's available from the atmosphere), isn't a little bit of CO2 better than nothing?

I would be looking at an in-line diffuser because of the size of my tank.


----------



## dcurzon (22 Feb 2021)

there's no harm in aiming low, and your bottle will lost longer too.


----------



## ScareCrow (22 Feb 2021)

This is something I'm also planning on doing as I don't really like dosing liquid CO2. I have a couple of plants that are right on the edge of needing/not needing CO2 but as I have hard water they won't survive without a little help. I've tried using rainwater to soften the water and also having a siesta period to make the most of the available CO2. I think that the siesta period has shown the most benefit and is nice because I can view the tank morning and evening. There are a couple of posts on here about using lower than the normal 30ppm CO2 concentration:

15 ppm co2 goal

CO2 in low tech?


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Feb 2021)

Courtneybst said:


> isn't a little bit of CO2 better than nothing?


Hi, yeah just a little bit of co2 is definitely better than nothing, what the plants need is carbon and they can get it from dissolved organic carbon in the water or from co2 that is absorbed in to the water from the atmosphere/fish respiration/bacteria. Both are very limited though and in short supply. A lot depends on which types of plant you're trying to grow so plant selection is important. Tropica uses the easy/medium/hard categorisation, generally speaking keeping the easy plants means they will do ok without injecting co2 although they will do a bit better by adding co2. 
Adding medium and upwards plants requires higher lighting which then pushes up the need for more co2 if you turn up the lights which isn't going to get fulfilled by background carbon. The upside/downside to this is plants will inevitably grow quicker and you will do more trimming. Ultimately you need to match the growth rates the light is producing with ferts and co2 so nothing is missing as the plants grow. The co2 will always be the one that runs out first in a non co2 tank because we can easily add more fert as required.

Adding a touch more co2 will always be beneficial, the issues people experience generally come from not getting the co2 stable and everywhere in the tank it needs to be but they are usually pushing hard on the lights. Not going over the top with lighting is a bit more forgiving if you don't get it right.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Feb 2021)

Best analogy for plant growth is building a wall, you need a brick/macros and mortar sand/micros and cement/co2 as the plant grows it needs all three at the pace you build driven by light. As light increases you build the wall faster, the secret is to never run out of any of the three, adding a touch more co2 just makes sure you don't run out of that which is the easiest to run out of.


----------



## Courtneybst (22 Feb 2021)

Thanks guys!


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Feb 2021)

Your only worry is that plants get addicted to co2 in so far as plants will adapt to the amount they have around them, if you take it away from them after they've adapted to the new higher levels they suffer. That's why it important to keep stable levels at all times. It can be something as simple as a plant that was getting plenty of co2 now getting flow to it blocked by some other plants that have grew quite bushy in the way of the flow and that plant fails which leaves you wondering how come it's worse now that I'm adding co2? Bit of a PITA really but if that's the route you want to go down these are the things that you need to take into account. It can be a bit of a minefield which is why I don't bother with it any more and just stick to plants that shouldn't need it.

You could try just adding some of the easy carbo products that are out there (Controversial) which adds a little more carbon. I've been using Microbe-Lift Bio co2 which you can get from Maidenhead Aquatics which adds beneficial organic carbon but doesn't contain the supposedly dangerous chemicals like in other Liquid Carbon products. My plants do fine but I manage the lighting and stick to the easy range of plants.


----------



## Courtneybst (22 Feb 2021)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Your only worry is that plants get addicted to co2 in so far as plants will adapt to the amount they have around them, if you take it away from them after they've adapted to the new higher levels they suffer. That's why it important to keep stable levels at all times. It can be something as simple as a plant that was getting plenty of co2 now getting flow to it blocked by some other plants that have grew quite bushy in the way of the flow and that plant fails which leaves you wondering how come it's worse now that I'm adding co2? Bit of a PITA really but if that's the route you want to go down these are the things that you need to take into account. It can be a bit of a minefield which is why I don't bother with it any more and just stick to plants that shouldn't need it.
> 
> You could try just adding some of the easy carbo products that are out there (Controversial) which adds a little more carbon. I've been using Microbe-Lift Bio co2 which you can get from Maidenhead Aquatics which adds beneficial organic carbon but doesn't contain the supposedly dangerous chemicals like in other Liquid Carbon products. My plants do fine but I manage the lighting and stick to the easy range of plants.



This is an interesting point and something I definitely didn't consider!

Another point on the liquid carbon side of things; In my old scape I used liquid carbon at double strength and I actually had pretty good growth and a full lush carpet. It's hard to tell if it worked because I was adding that or because of another factor? I was also dosing full EI at the time. I still have a full bottle of Easy Carbo and keep getting tempted to use it but I'm unsure. I also noticed that when I slacked on Easy Carbo I would get BBA so that's why I stopped using it altogether. 

What are your thoughts?


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Feb 2021)

Courtneybst said:


> I also noticed that when I slacked on Easy Carbo I would get BBA so that's why I stopped using it altogether.


Stability is key, I would use it if you saw good results, LC products add a touch extra carbon as well as a powerful algaecide and you have a lot of control with the dosing whereas co2 is like rubbing your belly while patting your head. The stuff I use doesn't contain the powerful algaecide which is the bit people worry about. It does add humic acids and tannins though so regardless it's a beneficial product. Not saying that if I didn't use it things would be any worse but I'm getting decent results. You shouldn't need to be dosing EI levels of ferts either I would guess. If you were in a position to need EI ferts (The theoretical maximum plants could ever need) You %100 percent would have ran out of co2 at some point. 
You only have to provide slightly more of everything than the plants need to prevent any limiting factors. What's your current set up like?


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Feb 2021)

and before I get jumped on by the LC police, for clarity LC is one chemical with the two properties, adds a little carbon as well as an algaecide so it's the one chemical people worry about because it is toxic to humans which not may be how I explained that clearly


----------



## Courtneybst (22 Feb 2021)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Stability is key, I would use it if you saw good results, LC products add a touch extra carbon as well as a powerful algaecide and you have a lot of control with the dosing whereas co2 is like rubbing your belly while patting your head. The stuff I use doesn't contain the powerful algaecide which is the bit people worry about. It does add humic acids and tannins though so regardless it's a beneficial product. Not saying that if I didn't use it things would be any worse but I'm getting decent results. You shouldn't need to be dosing EI levels of ferts either I would guess. If you were in a position to need EI ferts (The theoretical maximum plants could ever need) You %100 percent would have ran out of co2 at some point.
> You only have to provide slightly more of everything than the plants need to prevent any limiting factors. What's your current set up like?



Oh yeah for sure I was dosing way more than I needed back then. I now only dose 1/3 of the EI and I've turned one of my T5 units off so the lighting is essentially 50%. I'm definitely noticing A LOT less algae growth. This scape is literally waiting to be torn down as soon as plant deliveries arrive though so the plant mass is much lower than I'd like and the substrate has turned to mud which is further exacerbating any algae issues.

The setup though;

4 x 54w T5 bulbs (now only using 2 - the unit only allows 2 or 4)

Cal Aqua Labs Black Earth

120cm x 50cm x 66cm

1/3 EI dosing

I'm hoping once I bump the plant mass back up and refresh the substrate it should be ok, and I can increase or decrease accordingly as the plants grow.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Feb 2021)

Courtneybst said:


> I actually had pretty good growth and a full lush carpet.


Which would be very difficult to achieve without something "extra" IMO


----------



## Courtneybst (22 Feb 2021)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Which would be very difficult to achieve without something "extra" IMO








This was the previous setup I was referring to.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Feb 2021)

And your complaint is what exactly again  That's a nice setup. Only thing I would say is that's quite a large tank so LC may not be cost effective depending on the depth of your pockets. However...... If you were going down the route of co2 you really need to get your flow and distribution down pat, even more difficult in big tanks!
If it were me and I was going down the co2 route again, what I would do is firstly start at the ground up with a decent nutritious substrate. Plant as much as you can from the off with easy plants which you already have in a low lighting setting. Then slowly build co2 until I felt I could move on to more demanding plants and up my lighting.

There's many failures in here with people trying co2 for the first time in an immature tank where plants haven't got a foot hold yet.


----------



## Courtneybst (22 Feb 2021)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> And your complaint is what exactly again  That's a nice setup. Only thing I would say is that's quite a large tank so LC may not be cost effective depending on the depth of your pockets. However...... If you were going down the route of co2 you really need to get your flow and distribution down pat, even more difficult in big tanks!
> If it were me and I was going down the co2 route again, what I would do is firstly start at the ground up with a decent nutritious substrate. Plant as much as you can from the off with easy plants which you already have in a low lighting setting. Then slowly build co2 until I felt I could move on to more demanding plants and up my lighting.
> 
> There's many failures in here with people trying co2 for the first time in an immature tank where plants haven't got a foot hold yet.



Haha thank you, I'll definitely be planting heavy again. 

I think ultimately I will go with CO2 in the long run and I'll echo your words in my brain as I'm setting it up.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Feb 2021)

Get it whacked in a journal once all your stuff has turned up mate. Be good to watch it develop, I'll keep an eye out for it.


----------



## dw1305 (22 Feb 2021)

Hi all, 


Courtneybst said:


> isn't a little bit of CO2 better than nothing?





AverageWhiteBloke said:


> The upside/downside to this is plants will inevitably grow quicker and you will do more trimming. Ultimately you need to match the growth rates the light is producing with ferts and co2 so nothing is missing as the plants grow. The co2 will always be the one that runs out first in a non co2 tank because we can easily add more fert as required.


That one. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## tiger15 (22 Feb 2021)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Hi, yeah just a little bit of co2 is definitely better than nothing, what the plants need is carbon and they can get it from dissolved organic carbon in the water or from co2 that is absorbed in to the water from the atmosphere/fish respiration/bacteria.


I would like to see citation that plants can uptake dissolved organic carbon.  I always read that DOC is a cause of algae, not a source of carbon.

To answer the OP original question, you can grow healthy plants with CO2 injection without attaining 30ppm.  I grow easy plants in a 75 gal and used up a 10lb CO2 tank in a year.  I provide 4 hour split photo periods and the peak CO2 is only around 15 to 20 ppm.  My plants are healthy and free of algae, so I wonder who and why it is necessary to set  30 ppm as the goal.  Most natural water don’t get that high CO2, and water in equilibrium with the atmosphere gets only 2 to 3 ppm CO2, so some elevated CO2 is already a significant improvement.

LC is a different subject of discussion with many threads on it.  I dose LC at high initial rate after weekly WC to control algae.  I believe LC is an effective Algaecide but doubt that it is an effective source of carbon given the daily dosage rate is only 0.4 ppm glutaldehyde per Seachem instruction.  So even if we assume all 0.4 ppm is convertable to carbon, the quantity is insignificant.


----------



## Courtneybst (22 Feb 2021)

tiger15 said:


> I would like to see citation that plants can uptake dissolved organic carbon. I always read that DOC is a cause of algae, not a source of carbon.
> 
> To answer the OP original question, you can grow healthy plants with CO2 injection without attaining 30ppm. I grow easy plants in a 75 gal and used up a 10lb CO2 tank in a year. I provide 4 hour split photo periods and the peak CO2 is only around 15 to 20 ppm. My plants are healthy and free of algae, so I wonder who and why it is necessary to set 30 ppm as the goal. Most natural water don’t get that high CO2, and water in equilibrium with the atmosphere gets only 2 to 3 ppm CO2, so some elevated CO2 is already a significant improvement.
> 
> LC is a different subject of discussion with many threads on it. I dose LC at high initial rate after weekly WC to control algae. I believe LC is an effective Algaecide but doubt that it is an effective source of carbon given the daily dosage rate is only 0.4 ppm glutaldehyde per Seachem instruction. So even if we assume all 0.4 ppm is convertable to carbon, the quantity is insignificant.



Sweet! This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to achieve.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Feb 2021)

tiger15 said:


> I would like to see citation that plants can uptake dissolved organic carbon. I always read that DOC is a cause of algae, not a source of carbon.


My understanding of this from somewhere I read was that doc from tannin and humid acids binds heavy metals and makes nutrients available to plants and creates co2 as it is broken down. 
In the case of waste and by products other waste would enter the column which causes algae. My guess would be that the bottle of stuff I have contains the beneficial parts but without all the other crap that would come from decomposition. 
But that's just a guess, the rest is above my pay grade when it comes to the technical side. 
In my case with extremely soft water and soft water species it allows me to get some tannins and humics said to be beneficial to the fish without having rotting leaves in the bottom of my tank although to be fair I do both for the shrimp to graze on. 
I, like the op are probably running right on the edge of what's possible without co2, my plants do fine and it's hard to say whether the product contributes without stopping and seeing what happens but that would seem to be an experiment in futility. If it's not broke don't try and fix it right. 

We all have different agendas just co2 isn't mine for now, I can just do without the extra layer of complication in my already busy life. 
I'm not against lc either I just see it as something else I need to buy and remember to dose. Although putting powerful algaecides in a tank doesn't sit that well for some reason when I'm trying to get results with what nature gave me other than obviously a light,heater and a filter.


----------



## foxfish (22 Feb 2021)

From my own experiences of trying to use just a little bit of extra C02 it did not work very well long term.
The problem is, it starts off ok but, then the plants grow and require more C02 so you need to either remove the plants or increase the gas or watch the algae grow!
Based only my own short tries and experience you understand.....


----------



## tiger15 (22 Feb 2021)

foxfish said:


> From my own experiences of trying to use just a little bit of extra C02 it did not work very well long term.
> The problem is, it starts off ok but, then the plants grow and require more C02 so you need to either remove the plants or increase the gas or watch the algae grow!
> Based only my own short tries and experience you understand.....


It also depends on the plants you grow.  I grow only low light easy plants in medium light that thrive even without CO2, so some CO2 is a quantum boost.  I used up one 10 lb CO2 in a year.  But I read other aquarists who grow Ductch stems in high light used up 10 lb CO2 in 3 months for the similar size tanks.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Feb 2021)

foxfish said:


> The problem is, it starts off ok but, then the plants grow and require more C02


The reason I ended up in this post was because I'm in a similar position as @Courtneybst I've been running lowtech very easy plants for a while without issue but I've got adventurous and tried a few stems coupled with higher plant mass and a couple of medium plants which are starting to show co2 is in short supply so it's taking a bit of balancing.
Many times over the last few weeks I've reached for the numerous co2 equipment at my disposal but I know it's just not going to end well. Before I know where I'm at I'll be looking to improve flow, adding more equipment and just generally fussing about ferts in an ever changing environment. Before I know where I'm at I'll be too busy watching the bubble counter to even see the tank 
Plus, considering 90% of the co2 getting pumped just ends up in the atmosphere it's not like the planet could do with another co2 user.
I wonder though if a simple bell arrangement just letting the co2 absorb into the column passively might yield better results than atomizer and diffusers etc in a low light easy plant situation?


----------



## sparkyweasel (22 Feb 2021)

tiger15 said:


> I wonder who and why it is necessary to set 30 ppm as the goal.


I think it was originally intended to be a maximum, as most fish can tolerate that level. Then it got misinterpreted as a goal.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (22 Feb 2021)

sparkyweasel said:


> think it was originally intended to be a maximum


Yeah that's how I always understood it, 30 was the point fish became uncomfortable.


----------



## tiger15 (23 Feb 2021)

sparkyweasel said:


> I think it was originally intended to be a maximum, as most fish can tolerate that level. Then it got misinterpreted as a goal.


It is not common misinterpretation.  It is codified in the 1 pH drop goal, drop checker color chart, and CO2 calculator.  






						Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium CO2 Calculator
					

Planted Aquarium CO2 Calculator



					www.rotalabutterfly.com


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (23 Feb 2021)

tiger15 said:


> It is not common misinterpretation. It is codified in the 1 pH drop goal,


I think that's why we need forums like these to clarify the many conflicting theories out there, there should certainly be some caveats to many of the articles we come across. I think a lot of it comes down to each persons individual goals. There's a broad range of options but the problem is when most first get into the hobby it seems very black and white until you dig a bit deeper and actually learn about the plants themselves. Most will gravitate towards the high tech stuff straight from the off because these tend to contain the most eye candy. 🤯 This inevitably steers them down a path of unlimited nutrient dosing and high co2 values which unless they read a bit further into it and find out why these values are necessary they will just accept as the norm.

You come across this many times in the hobby on all topics, commercial fertiliser companies are still claiming N and P cause algae, you also tend to find n and p are very weak in their mixes but they are trying to sell ferts so the more you use the better it is for them and they always advise you to use more "depending on the amount of plants" EI dosing is likely far too much fertiliser for most mere mortals in here but it is applied as a belt and braces non limiting approach. Generally speaking when you buy a commercial DC the colour indicator chart will say "too much" co2 when it gets a bit yellow but high tech people will aim for this. All needs caveats.

This thread finds itself smack bang in the middle of the two methods of growing plants, I would suggest that adding some co2 will certainly help to keep healthy plants as not having enough is as complicated as having high values but this is dependant on many other factors like flow, types of plants were are trying to grow and the lighting being used. The co2 element of planted tanks is certainly the most complicated. It's all down to what the person who is creating the tanks goals and expectations are I guess. 

IME, once someone sets off down the path of injecting co2 it inevitably starts off a chain of events that will lead you to 30ppm levels, increased fert dosing, looking for better lighting, more trimming and bigger filters. Once plants have had a taste of co2 it's very difficult if at all possible to go back without destroying the tank. Very much so an in for a penny in for pound scenario. Pretty standard stuff in that world, meanwhile I'll head back over to the low tech section and try and work out why my plants aren't growing fast enough or are losing leaves. It's a great hobby 😍 Luckily we have some very clever people here who can explain why....in their own words 👍


----------



## Courtneybst (23 Feb 2021)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> most mere mortals



 love it.

But honestly the rest of your comment, very well put. That's definitely made me think.


----------



## Zeus. (23 Feb 2021)

Any level ([CO2]) above 'normal' the plants will benefit from as long as you don't exceed the max for your livestock. 

However, many folk injecting CO2 have issues which are CO2 related, whilst folk not using CO2 dont have CO2 issues. Implementation of CO2 injection is tricky and what ever level of CO2 you aim for it needs to be stable for main part of photo period.


----------



## Courtneybst (23 Feb 2021)

I hope in 20 years time we'll laugh at these posts trying to use pressurised canisters for CO2 injection and instead there'll be a little contraption that just pulls in CO2 from the air into your tank!


----------



## Zeus. (23 Feb 2021)

Courtneybst said:


> I hope in 20 years time we'll laugh at these posts trying to use pressurised canisters for CO2 injection and instead there'll be a little contraption that just pulls in CO2 from the air into your tank!



Well, 'they' are trying to find one to save the planet from increasing CO2 levels


----------



## Kezzab (23 Feb 2021)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> IME, once someone sets off down the path of injecting co2 it inevitably starts off a chain of events that will lead you to 30ppm levels, increased fert dosing, looking for better lighting, more trimming and bigger filters. Once plants have had a taste of co2 it's very difficult if at all possible to go back without destroying the tank. Very much so an in for a penny in for pound scenario.


Yep. This is my own experience. "A bit" of Co2 just isnt worth the hassle. Either find the sweet spot with your lowtech (mostly i think related to lighting), or go the whole hog with a high tech approach.


----------



## foxfish (23 Feb 2021)

There are lots of possible out comes and analogy’s .... so if  we have a well set up tank with full on C02, bright light and full EI ferts. The tank is performing very well, the plants and fish are thriving, it has taken months of trying and adjusting but, we then decide ...let’s turn down the C02, we better turn down the lights as well and maybe even adjust the ferts.... will this work?
From my experience.. no it will not! It might after you have battled with algae for a few months and the tank might eventually settle down but I have always given in way before that and turned  the gas backup.
The same has happen to me in reverse when I have had a low tech ticking over for years and decided to just add a little bit of gas and it just became an algae farm!
Perhaps starting off with a fresh set up and fresh plants and just a little gas  might be an answer?


----------



## john dory (23 Feb 2021)

You grow a healthy sword(low tech)and then give it a bit of gas.
The difference is obvious.
If you're aiming for"just enough"i would set the tank up as a low tech...the extra co2 being a booster.


----------



## Zeus. (23 Feb 2021)

foxfish said:


> let’s turn down the C02, we better turn down the lights as well and maybe even adjust the ferts.... will this work?
> From my experience.. no it will not!



Yet I ran out of CO2 during first lockdown, reduced lights ferts etc and all was fine for a few months, once able to get CO2 put it back on at a lower level and was fine also, just done same again (CO2 off) as moving very soon


----------



## foxfish (23 Feb 2021)

Well that is another outcome...there are just two many variables to set a standard.
Perhaps in years to come there will be more affordable ways to accurately measure all the parameters and we can then set standard settings and offer charts to match C02 and light etc
What we do know now is largely based on full on or nothing, anything in between is a good luck mission but obviously it must be possible.


----------



## Courtneybst (23 Feb 2021)

I think it's definitely possible if other parameters are in check.

The reason I even thought about it was because I watched a video from MD fishtanks where he set up a large 4ft aquarium with the intention of it being low energy. He put a tiny Fluval 88g CO2 system in it until the plants got established and then he removed the CO2.

But again, I guess it all depends on how it balances with everything else.


----------



## tiger15 (23 Feb 2021)

foxfish said:


> What we do know now is largely based on full on or nothing, anything in between is a good luck mission but obviously it must be possible.


True.  You have the Tom Barr EI approach that advocates excessive nutrients dosing, excessive CO2, and large WC to reset.  Then you have Walstad approach that advocates no dosing, just rely on fish food and rich soil, no CO2, and no WC to preserve nutrients return from decaying matter.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (23 Feb 2021)

foxfish said:


> Perhaps starting off with a fresh set up and fresh plants and just a little gas might be an answer?


Could be the answer mate. I look at it from the pov that if they've never had it then they'll never miss it. Like I said earlier once the co2 is in a plant might find itself in quite a nice little co2 rich spot, as plant mass increases unless you up the flow that same plant can find itself not getting the co2 it craves after it has adapted to have plenty. 
Just enough co2 is a gateway drug, my plants had it once but they never inhaled


----------



## tiger15 (23 Feb 2021)

Zeus. said:


> Yet I ran out of CO2 during first lockdown, reduced lights ferts etc and all was fine for a few months, once able to get CO2 put it back on at a lower level and was fine also, just done same again (CO2 off) as moving very soon


Do you have only low light easy plants?  For demanding Dutch stems that need CO2 for life support, many reported immediate bba outbreak running out of  CO2 for just a few days.


----------



## Zeus. (23 Feb 2021)

tiger15 said:


> For demanding Dutch stems that need CO2 for life support, many reported immediate bba outbreak running out of CO2 for just a few days.



How the plants cope will be very plant dependant, one glove will not fit all, plus one user might not reduce the light intensity as much as another.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (23 Feb 2021)

Courtneybst said:


> instead there'll be a little contraption that just pulls in CO2 from the air into your tank!


It's already been invented by mother nature, it's called atmospheric equilibrium. You don't get anywhere near the co2 as an injection kit but it's free. Don't tell Ada though or they'll sell a stainless version of it for a grand. It'll just be a glass or stainless bucket that hangs over your aquarium on a bracket that cost another hundred.


----------



## dw1305 (23 Feb 2021)

Hi all, 


AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Don't tell Ada though or they'll sell a stainless version of it for a grand. It'll just be a glass or stainless bucket that hangs over your aquarium on a bracket that cost another hundred.


Cynical, but if Seachem did the advertising they might be able to sell the ADA bucket for two grand.

cheers Darrel


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (23 Feb 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Cynical, but if Seachem did the advertising they might be able to sell the ADA bucket for two grand.


The worry is though I'd probably still buy it then put it in my fishkeeping cupboard at work with all the rest of the fad stuff I've bought. A high tecker would be like a kid in a sweet shop in my lockup although my current set up is using a £20 light with a £10 filter and a tank that someone gave me for free.


----------



## dw1305 (23 Feb 2021)

Hi all,


AverageWhiteBloke said:


> fishkeeping cupboard at work with all the rest of the fad stuff I've bought.


Second hand Eheim filters for me. I've recently found a couple that I have no recollection of buying.

cheers Darrel


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (24 Feb 2021)

dw1305 said:


> that I have no recollection of buying.


I know the feeling, the other day I was looking for my chihiros doctor device  realised there was a 300 optiwhite cube with light in there that hadn't been out the box I'd forgot I bought it. The mad thing about it is I've been intending to set up a soiled cube for about two years now and have a scruffy old aqua one I've had since God knows when sitting with some bog wood in to sink it. Fair to say it's sank, it's been there that long java moss is starting to grow on the wood 
The best find I'd forgot I had by far though was a set of 16mm glass spray bars!
And that's before I get into the ADA 60-h with cabinet, numerous regulators, ways of dissolving and the numerous light fittings and filters that went with that. One of them situations where the minute I sell anything I know I'll wish I kept it. Fair to say I'm a hoarder when it comes to equipment.
That's one positive side to co2 injection, people get that pissed off with the hobby they sell all their gear to me who never gets round to using it.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (24 Feb 2021)

The £30 tank has giving me the most satisfaction though so far and not as heavy on the head as my previous exploits. If I may say so myself for a non co2 setup....


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (24 Feb 2021)

Wow! Just realised that this tank has been running for nearly three and a half years. Where does the time go? I think I learned more from this tank than any previous set up. It's been from low tech, to high tech and back to low. I think the biggest thing I've took from it was not learning how to grow plants in a non co2 tank but finding out plants are as individual as we are and they all like being treat differently. I even know some of their names, well sort of I just couldn't spell it 
The biggest plus being it's on my office desk so it's made it worthwhile going in some mornings, I hate being in the office, much prefer being out on site but it makes it tolerable if a tad distracting at times.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (24 Feb 2021)

Another thing that's just dawned on me is those Cory Sterbai are probably six years old. They came from my high tech set up from home before I stripped it down and were in that from day one. Not sure how long that is in fish years but they are probably eligible for a Covid Vaccine.


----------



## tiger15 (12 Mar 2021)

Another reason why you don’t need 30 ppm CO2 if you keep shrimp.  









						CO2 in a Shrimp Tank - Shrimp and Snail Breeder
					

CO2 and shrimp can do just fine if you are running it properly at a safe level! If you do everything right, it will not cuase problems.




					aquariumbreeder.com
				




_According to the study on the toxicity effects of CO2 in juvenile (1.76 ± 0.36 g) white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). Biologists exposed shrimp for 96 hours to one of six concentrations of dissolved CO2 (14.5, 23.8, 59.0, 88.0, 115.0, and 175.0 mg/L).

The LC50 values with 95% confidence limits at:_

_24 h – 130.05 (104.2–162.1) mg/L of CO2._
_48 h – 77.2 (73.8–80.02) mg/L of CO2._
_72 h – 69.65 (65.47–74.32) mg/L of CO2._
_96 h – 59.12 (53.08–66.07) mg/L of CO2._
_The highest concentration that did not induce significantly higher mortality was 23.8 mg/L of CO2. Although that experiment was not on dwarf shrimp species, it still gives us some real data._


----------



## chrisjohnson (12 Mar 2021)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Best analogy for plant growth is building a wall, you need a brick/macros and mortar sand/micros and cement/co2 as the plant grows it needs all three at the pace you build driven by light. As light increases you build the wall faster, the secret is to never run out of any of the three, adding a touch more co2 just makes sure you don't run out of that which is the easiest to run out of.


That’s an interesting way of explaining it but it definitely helped paint a picture. 👍


----------

