# Not a good write up for liquid carbon



## AverageWhiteBloke

I came across this on the <JBL Blog on liquid carbon>, the guy who wrote it appears to be qualified to comment and works for JBL. You'll have to excuse my Google scholarship degree but from what I can make out essentially if you read all four parts it suggests (from my understanding) that the carbon obtained from the degradation of LC gives you minimal available carbon compared to gas. 15 minutes of gas injection would produce more carbon than with the recommended dose of LC.

Also goes on to say that dosing at higher than recommended dose is actually detrimental to plant growth with a placebo effect of plants looking healthier due to a reduction of algae but with the downside of bordering on being toxic to fish, flora and shrimp at higher levels plus reducing oxygen levels in the column. JBL go on to say that they won't supply the product on "Ethical Grounds"

Appreciate any input from more knowledgeable people on the subject, do you over dose LC? What observations have you made? Perhaps that's why we class certain plants as not LC friendly because certain ones reach toxicity before other? 

Just thought it was interesting.


----------



## MadMike

That's a great link. I must admit I was just seeing algae and not much plant growth before nervously increasing glut dosing. I've been slowly increasing for a while until I'm up to 10ml daily into a 90 litre tank. None of my livestock seem to be effected, the plants were growing well but ultimately the algae was just getting worse. 

I decided when my last bottle ran out to move to a kinder source of CO2. I used some bioCO2 from Maidenhead Aquatics, it was terrible. I had a massive algae outbreak which I'd attribute to the sudden swing in available carbon.

Anyway, long story short, I'm using pressurised CO2 now. I can see the differences already. I'll continue to use glut but in decreasing doses purely as an algaecide.

My advice is more aligned to the advice I received and ignored (because I couldn't justify the investment) to go out and buy a pressurised system!!

Now I've got one, the investment is justified. 

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk


----------



## ceg4048

It is no secret that gluteraldehyde does not increase the CO2 content of the water. I mean, that's why dropcheckers are useless when dosing the liquid. The conversion to CO2 occurs internally.
It's also no secret that glut cannot compare in effectiveness to gas.
It's also no secret that glut has toxicity to fish/inverts and to some plants and to some algae.

These issues have been known for years. i hardly think that this information is novel or revolutionary.

However, please explain to me how glut compares in toxicity CO2.
Raise you hand if you've ever wiped out an entire tank of fish  in a single afternoon by stupidly turning the needle valve a few degrees too far to the left.

It amazes me how people argue about toxicity of Nitrate, or of micronutrients and other products when the most obviously toxic substance freshwater tanks have ever used is CO2.

How can it be a placebo when algal blooms are arrested and the plants grow faster?
The problem here is that many folks only use the glut to kill some types of algae and then they stop it's use, or they do not dose it daily.

If you don't use the product daily this will be problematic, especially in the absence of gas.

So here is a statement that is misleading:



> *Does glutaraldehyde affect the plants by the production of carbon dioxide or are there any other ways known to promote the plant growth?*
> The answer to this question is simple: we don’t know.



Yes, the reason HE doesn't know is because Seachem, the makers of Excel, commissioned Tom Barr to find out, but he signed a non-disclosure agreement to not reveal that information. So Tom Barr and Seachem know, but the author doesn't know.

Look, JBL are trying to sell you their gaseous system. There a re a lot of parts in their system that are cheap to make and that do not require any kind of expensive health certification, so of course they will not sell on "ethical grounds"

I just find this image laughable where they show "danger" icons on the right, yet an even more dangerous system is shown innocuously on the left:
This is business as usual in The Matrix.



 

Cheers,


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke

ceg4048 said:


> It is no secret that gluteraldehyde does not increase the CO2 content of the water. I mean, that's why dropcheckers are useless when dosing the liquid. The conversion to CO2 occurs internally.
> It's also no secret that glut cannot compare in effectiveness to gas.
> It's also no secret that glut has toxicity to fish/inverts and to some plants and to some algae.
> 
> These issues have been known for years. i hardly think that this information is novel or revolutionary.
> 
> However, please explain to me how glut compares in toxicity CO2.
> Raise you hand if you've ever wiped out an entire tank of fish  in a single afternoon by stupidly turning the needle valve a few degrees too far to the left.
> 
> It amazes me how people argue about toxicity of Nitrate, or of micronutrients and other products when the most obviously toxic substance freshwater tanks have ever used is CO2.
> 
> How can it be a placebo when algal blooms are arrested and the plants grow faster?
> The problem here is that many folks only use the glut to kill some types of algae and then they stop it's use, or they do not dose it daily.
> 
> If you don't use the product daily this will be problematic, especially in the absence of gas.
> 
> So here is a statement that is misleading:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the reason HE doesn't know is because Seachem, the makers of Excel, commissioned Tom Barr to find out, but he signed a non-disclosure agreement to not reveal that information. So Tom Barr and Seachem know, but the author doesn't know.
> 
> Look, JBL are trying to sell you their gaseous system. There a re a lot of parts in their system that are cheap to make and that do not require any kind of expensive health certification, so of course they will not sell on "ethical grounds"
> 
> I just find this image laughable where they show "danger" icons on the right, yet an even more dangerous system is shown innocuously on the left:
> This is business as usual in The Matrix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,


Hiya Clive, I was aware of all your earlier points regarding the carbon being produced chemically within the plants and the whole thing not being related to co2. I was just wondering about the statement on page 2 of the blog where he claims.

"Glutaraldehyde is a toxin which cross-links (fixes) the proteins on the outside of the cell membrane and thus reduces permeability. The permeability of the cell membrane is essential for the exchange of substances with the environment and also for communication between cells. It can be compared with the immune system or the nervous system of animals. When this exchange of substances becomes blocked the plant gets “paralysed” and its growth is reduced. This can lead from mild to severe manifestations and the plant can completely stop growing and die.

With small concentrations the plant can still grow, despite its weakness. With a 5 % glutaraldehyde solution concentration and a dosage of 1 ml per 50 l water daily the plant will show clear signs of damage."

 Which seems to suggest that adding LC at higher concentrations than recommended could inhibit plant growth. I don't understand enough to see if this had any weight to the claim considering some people will dose 2x 3x obviously this is more of an algae destroying technique rather than thinking they're getting more co2 that way.

Also I was quite shocked at the apparent low toxicity levels to fish and shrimp and how they came about this data even though we know we have all od'd LC with no observable discomfort to our fauna.

Regarding Excel, were the results obtained by Tom ever published and if not why not? Seems a weak marketing strategy if they pull a big name like Tom's in to the mix and pay commission for his work then not shout the results from the roof tops if successful, or were they not successful? or did Tom want too much money knowing he was going to be the face behind one of their most  successful products. Haha

I'm not fighting in the corner of excel here to be clear. I only use it for spot dosing as I found my balansae didn't get on with it when dosed daily on top of gas. 

Mainly wondering if the over dosing claim they are making has any substance scientifically, when people are 2x dosing as a remedial measure should there be a limited time to do this before it becomes counter productive and plant growth being limited compounding the problem further?
Is there actually any point in od'ing LC when not trying to combat an infestation?




Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## alan'67

I'm very interested in this thread.

After struggling with a 'high tech' Co2 injected tank for 18 months or so, three weeks ago I turned off my gas system, pulled yet more algae covered leaves/plants from my tank and wondered how I could convert to a 'low tech' system.

 I thought it would be wise to reduce the ferts as there is no Co2 demand, but add approx. 6ml of easy carbo. daily just to keep the plants alive.

In all honesty, 3 weeks later the tank today looks the best it has done in a very,very long time.

I was shocked by this so I thought it would be a good idea to test the water! (yes I know, test kits).

When I compared the results with my tap water, I found that the KH, the Phosphate and the Nitrate levels were all much lower in the tank than from the tap itself!.

Absorption by the plants maybe?. 

Perhaps the tap water has changed, (I'm sure the KH used to be higher) or could it be the increased amount of easycarbo that has made the difference, I can't say at this stage but, if things continue like this than I will be returning my Co2 bottle and picking up my deposit.


----------



## ceg4048

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Which seems to suggest that adding LC at higher concentrations than recommended could inhibit plant growth. I don't understand enough to see if this had any weight to the claim considering some people will dose 2x 3x obviously this is more of an algae destroying technique rather than thinking they're getting more co2 that way.
> 
> Also I was quite shocked at the apparent low toxicity levels to fish and shrimp and how they came about this data even though we know we have all od'd LC with no observable discomfort to our fauna.


Toxicity of any agent is a function of concentration level, so of course LC will be toxic to any plant or animal but each will have a different threshold level of toxicity. Some plants, such as liverworts have a very low threshold and will melt at low concentrations. Others such as stems will have a higher tolerance. We have enough empirical evidence to know that LC can be used effectively as a substitute for gas injection, but one has to walk the fine line between dosing enough to be effective and avoiding the toxic threshold. I have dose Excel at 3X bottle suggested levels as a supplement without issues. Some people have dose at the bottle suggested values and have had problems.

So the author is making a unilateral statement about the reaction of all plants when it really depends on the species, the particular specimen and the conditions of the tank.


AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Also I was quite shocked at the apparent low toxicity levels to fish and shrimp and how they came about this data even though we know we have all od'd LC with no observable discomfort to our fauna.


Yes, exactly my point.



AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Regarding Excel, were the results obtained by Tom ever published and if not why not?


I specifically stated that he signed a non-disclosure agreement with Seachem and therefore no data has been published. I have no idea about the circumstances or the motivation so I cannot really address any of the reasoning.



AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Mainly wondering if the over dosing claim they are making has any substance scientifically, when people are 2x dosing as a remedial measure should there be a limited time to do this before it becomes counter productive and plant growth being limited compounding the problem further?
> Is there actually any point in od'ing LC when not trying to combat an infestation?


Again, it depends on the circumstances, the condition of the tank, and the species involved. I know that Tom does NOT like the idea of overdosing, but folks do it because of lack of patience.
Before the availability of LC, if you had a BBA problem you were in deep yogurt and it took ages to resolve. Now, you can carpet bomb using LC to evict the BBA that is present. You still have to fix the fundamental cause but it is a lot easier with LC.

Folks that do not want to deal with gas can still use LC exclusively but they do have to be careful about their plant selection and of course, they cannot assume that they effectiveness is the same as gas. No one that I know of has compiled a list of which plants have what toxic threshold level. It would have been a much more useful article if the author had actually done that type of testing and provided that information instead of just scaremongering.

Cheers,


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke

ceg4048 said:


> Toxicity of any agent is a function of concentration level, so of course LC will be toxic to any plant or animal but each will have a different threshold level of toxicity. Some plants, such as liverworts have a very low threshold and will melt at low concentrations. Others such as stems will have a higher tolerance. We have enough empirical evidence to know that LC can be used effectively as a substitute for gas injection, but one has to walk the fine line between dosing enough to be effective and avoiding the toxic threshold. I have dose Excel at 3X bottle suggested levels as a supplement without issues. Some people have dose at the bottle suggested values and have had problems.
> 
> So the author is making a unilateral statement about the reaction of all plants when it really depends on the species, the particular specimen and the conditions of the tank.
> 
> Yes, exactly my point.
> 
> 
> I specifically stated that he signed a non-disclosure agreement with Seachem and therefore no data has been published. I have no idea about the circumstances or the motivation so I cannot really address any of the reasoning.
> 
> 
> Again, it depends on the circumstances, the condition of the tank, and the species involved. I know that Tom does NOT like the idea of overdosing, but folks do it because of lack of patience.
> Before the availability of LC, if you had a BBA problem you were in deep yogurt and it took ages to resolve. Now, you can carpet bomb using LC to evict the BBA that is present. You still have to fix the fundamental cause but it is a lot easier with LC.
> 
> Folks that do not want to deal with gas can still use LC exclusively but they do have to be careful about their plant selection and of course, they cannot assume that they effectiveness is the same as gas. No one that I know of has compiled a list of which plants have what toxic threshold level. It would have been a much more useful article if the author had actually done that type of testing and provided that information instead of just scaremongering.
> 
> Cheers,


Thanks Clive, I suppose it would be quite difficult to make that list of plants unless tested under optimum conditions for the other parameters. I know I see people who have said certain plants don't like LC but then I haven't had any problem using LC with them and vice versa. I've also experienced Balansae that did OK with my home made Glute but seemed to fall apart when using Excel.

I was thinking at one point when I was going through my head the common plants you hear don't like LC and the common factor seemed to be slowish growers so could growth rate be connected as to why some plants don't get on with LC. But then I thought Vallis and that blew that idea. 

Seems odd though that JBL have put any effort at all into putting down LC. Sure, they want to sell co2 sets but with the amount of high end scapers  including Tom, or not as the case may be  Recommending using LC why don't JBL just bring out their own version and jump on the band wagon. No disrespect to any of our sponsors, I'm sure they are all doing well, I hope they are anyway. But if one of our sponsors can have their own brand LC I'm sure a big company like JBL could get one to market. 

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke

Which then begs the question, if high dosing LC to treat algae issues which 9 times out of 10 is down to poor plant growth usually caused by poor co2/distribution there must be a point where certain species hit their toxicity threshold of LC and results in the same poor growth that people were trying to cure in the first place compounding the problem further creating a situation where a snake is eating its tail? 
Maybe that's why Tom doesn't advocate od'ing LC? A better solution would probably be firstly to sort the co2 issue while spot dosing and manual removal of algae but only spot dosing at a daily rate suggested by the manufacturer. Maybe even use hydrogen peroxide rather than LC which as far as I know doesn't result in plant toxicity but is toxic to fish at certain levels. However I have seen reports of HP "burning" leaves of plants.

Just thinking out loud  Humour me.


----------



## roadmaster

Hydrogen peroxide present's it's own issues if used in excess.
Anubia in particular will not tolerate much peroxide IME(melt's the leaves right off)
Peroxide to my knowledge,does not discriminate between good bacteria or bad bacteria ,and is why most people would recommend removing most of the media from the filter if doing much more than occasional spot treating.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke

roadmaster said:


> and is why most people would recommend removing most of the media from the filter if doing much more than occasional spot treating.



Yeah mate. I haven't tried using it myself but I have read others experiences. Just pointing out how LC could be counter productive at certain values higher than recommended but as Clive points out using LC is walking a fine line anyway when it comes to plant toxicity. Some can't even cope with it at normal dosing, a lot of people use it to carpet bomb algae buy there must be a point when plants are suffering and the treatment becomes part of the symptoms, I think anyway.


----------



## roadmaster

Yes, I have been using Glut (Metricide 14) as carbon supplement for the last year.
Not in an affort to combat algae, but to  help provide for the plant's in my otherwise low tech affair's where carbon is limiting factor..
As both Clive and Tom Barr have indicated in this thread,most would be able to do away completely with various algae problem's and treatment's by simply lowering light energy and providing consistent CO2 along with enough nutrient's for the weed's, but hard to move folk's off their uber lighting.
Even more difficult with the advent of dimming features on LED lighting available.
Hard for them to run lighting at 60 or 70 % once they see what 100% looks like to their eye's.
They appear content to follow along  with the thread's describing various treatment's for combating algae ,when they could with just a little tweaking of the light energy,,ignore the masses combating algae in all it's various form's, and get perhaps much more enjoyment growing and trimming plant's.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke

I still use LC also but not on a daily basis. I tend to use it to spot dose mainly hardscape like roots which tend to get a bit of BBA over time. I just give them a blast with a syringe at the recommended dose for the full tank. Every now and again if I have to change some water in the middle of co2 being switched on I will also dose to make up for the shortfall of gas I've just lost. It certainly does have its uses. 

I hear what you are saying about lighting, I fell into the trap early doors, I think this came from visiting sections of the board with finished scapes while looking for what I would like to achieve and these show stoppers tended to have high lighting. What I didn't realise was all the other elements that were involved in making these scapes happen so first thing first was get highest lighting I could afford. I guess when people first come into the hobby they don't really read up too much before buying their equipment and the only thing they know is that plants like lights. I suppose once they have bought the lights they feel like they have wasted their money running them at 50%. Once you hang around the board a bit you also get to know who's who, some of the people here are top scapers that set something up, grow it out, photograph it and then strip it down and start another. People reading their journals think they had to do the same. I realised after a while that this was too much like hard work and what I wanted was a long term community fish tank with healthy plants so some of the things I read didn't apply to my situation and goals. I guess people need to decide early on what they are trying to achieve.

The turning point for me was setting up a small shrimp only tank using bits and bobs I had sitting around with some cat litter gravel and cuttings from my main tank. The tank was no hassle and I spent most of my time looking at it and watching the interaction of the shrimp, the penny dropped, I remembered why I did the hobby in the first place, the plants were nice and help keep the tank healthy providing a natural back drop for the fish but the fish to me are far more interesting. Since then I have rolled back my main tank starting at the lighting using light as the limiting factor but I find most species of plants will do alright and if they don't there is always another good looking species that does. Now I find when I approach my main tank it's generally just to see what the various species of Fauna are up to rather than have a bucket in my hand  Having dimmable lighting is a good thing I suppose as an investment, it means you are in an either or situation as long as people realise they don't need it cranked right up. If people want to go down the scaping route later the light is multi purpose that way. I just find unless you are getting a scape done in 3months you're just wasting electric and a large percentage of your valuable time as well as heartache. I don't do wasting electric, not because I don't want the hassle of maintenance mainly because I'm tighter than a submarine door  If you just want a community tank you also have to maintain it long term with that lighting as well and I don't have a lot of spare time on my hands. 

My philosophy is if you get up on a Saturday morning or in from work at night and you get that god sake I have to change water and clean that filter before I'm algae farming feeling then it's stopped being a hobby. It should be enjoyable at all times and I find running high tech does take a great deal of enjoyment out of the hobby.


----------



## roadmaster

Yes,, My tanks early on were algae farms, with gob's of light,phosphate/nitrate removing media,sparse to no nutrient's added,no CO2 or carbon enhancement,and either sick fishes,or decaying plant's.
Was not until the interweb,and stumbling along in forum threads here,and elsewhere bout various algae treatment's/cures,that I began to see that light can be your friend,, and not everything need's to run at eleven. 
I find I keep making excuses for not trying the gas when things are goin so smoothly albeit a bit slower than some might like.


----------



## Lewis vaughan

I just bought the FloraGrow Carbo but Columbo and I read in the danger section that it is harmful to aquatic life. Does that mean I can only used it in plant only tanks? Or does it mean if you overdose with the LC?
Please help


----------



## Edvet

It''s a desinfectant which also provides carbon for the plants. It''s relatively safe in lower dose, not all plants seem to like it (Valisneria is often mentioned) It can help in the combatting of algae


----------



## Chuck Turtleman

I keep a liter bottle around for an emergency algaecide but that's the only purpose it has for my tanks. I can attest that subwassertang will disappear from a single dose, so if you have certain mosses and such getting out of hand could be useful eradicating those from your tank. But it's just not liquid CO2 and it drives me crazy that it is marketed as such.


----------



## rebel

All nutrients have required, safe and toxic levels. Just a matter of modulating those.

For 'liquid carbon' depending on the species the safe and toxic levels can be close to each other. This is sometimes known as narrow 'therapeutic' range.

Some of the additives we add are not required but still have safe and toxic levels. Some like CO2, NO3 have all 3. Some like ammonia only have safe and toxic levels etc etc.

No need to single out one factor and carry on about it. Learn the above levels and use it wisely.

For example, if you drink excessive water (toxic dose), this can happen.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619.php
It doesn't mean we don't drink water from then on. Just learn the safe levels and carry on.


----------



## alto

Chuck Turtleman said:


> But it's just not liquid CO2 and it drives me crazy that it is marketed as such.


Why not 

It undergoes chemical reaction in aqueous environments releasing CO2, some plants (sorry but no way am I digging out that hard to find research paper ) can utilize the molecule more directly (in biosynthetic pathway - not a pathway that is activated in the presence of more accessible CO2, but this is a common cellular adaptation)


----------



## alto

Edvet said:


> Valisneria is often mentioned)


My Vallisneria went on a Dedicated Rampage of Utter Tank Domination so I’ve never understood this warning - though I see the Warning passed along (like all such great things )


----------



## rebel

From my experience, weaker Val is more suspectible. When val is strong, it doesn't matter what else happens....it will dominate.


----------



## Matt @ ScapeEasy

When mistakenly overdosed with liquid carbon I had  tank full of Val completely die off, the plants were not even rescuable in that they did not grow again from the base etc... all other plants were fine (bit of a reaxrion from the dwarf sag but plants survived).  I would also agree though that with liquid carbon dosed at the correct level Vals growth does not seem to be negatively affected.


----------



## tiger15

Everything is toxic in excess.  The difference between medicine and toxin is the dosage.  Before I used Glut, I did a research and compiled the following toxicity list.

Toxicity of glutaraldehyde

96h acute Bluegill sunfish LC50 = 11.2 mg/L
Bluegill sunfish NOEC = 10 mg/L
48h acute Oyster larvae LC50 = 2.1 mg/L
96h acute Green crabs LC50 = 465 mg/L
96h acute Grass shrimp LC50 = 41 mg/L
48h acute Daphnia magna LC50 = 0.35 mg/L
Daphnia magna NOEC = 0.32 mg/L
96h algal growth inhibition Selenastrum capricornutum ILm = 3.9 mg/L
Algal inhibition Selenastrum subcapitata IC50=1 to 1.8 mg/L
96h algal growth inhibition Scenedesmus subspicatus EC50 = 0.9 mg/L
Bacterial inhibition Sewage microbes IC50 = 25-34 mg/L
96h O. mykiss (Trout hatch rate) IC50 = 1.82 mg/L
96h C. dubia (Daphnia reproduction) IC50 = 4.7 mg/L

*EC=Effective concentration; IC=Inhibition concentration; LC=Lethal concentration;  NOEC=No observed effect concentration

Based on the toxicity test compilation, algae and daphnia are most sensitive (0.32 to 1.8 ppm), shrimp and fish are least (10 to 41 ppm).  This is why you can safely over dose Glut to control algae with no harm to fish and invert.  Another safety feature of Glut is that its half life is about 10 hours in aquas solution so it will not accumulate toxicity effect in daily dosage.   Regretfully, there are no toxicity tests on higher plants but many reported that Vals, Hornwort and mosses are sensitive.

Note that SeaChem recommends 0.4 ppm daily dosage for glut, and 2 ppm after WC.  The low daily dosage is only good for carbon, and the 5x after WC is critical to control algae.  Seachem is dancing around why you need higher dosage after WC, apparently, if you don't, it will be below the threshold necessary to combat algae.

I don't dose glut daily as I have CO2.  But I dose 5x Glut after each WC  in combination with spot treatment with peroxide on exposed plants, rock and hard surfaces during WC to control algae.  One time I had an ick outbreak in my tank and I dosed 5x Glut daily for a week to control ick.  Glut is an ingredient of Seachem Paraguard and can control ick at high dosage. The ick was knocked off and there was no collateral damage to my fish and plants, but a collateral benefit to eliminate fugitive mosses I had trouble getting rid of once for all.


----------



## Chuck Turtleman

alto said:


> Why not
> 
> It undergoes chemical reaction in aqueous environments releasing CO2, some plants (sorry but no way am I digging out that hard to find research paper ) can utilize the molecule more directly (in biosynthetic pathway - not a pathway that is activated in the presence of more accessible CO2, but this is a common cellular adaptation)



Because it contains no liquid CO2 yet is marketed as such. At room temp under no pressure, that's an impossible claim and it misleads consumers. And while it does produce *some* CO2 from the chemical reaction, it's a negligible amount. I have done a 5x dose and it didn't even register on a drop checker. From the article being discussed: "
_It is therefore a given that, as used in the aquarium, glutaraldehyde has no measurably proven enhancing effects on the CO2 content in the water. This can also easily be ascertained with permanent tests such as the X JBL CO2-pH Permanent Test or the JBL CO2 Direct Test Set . Of course, marginal quantities of CO2 are generated during the degeneration process. But these are too low to be measurable and therefore below the CO2 limit needed biologically to promote plant growth" 
_
I don't hate the product and it does have its uses, but I do not believe it increases plant health first and foremost; and if anything it has a negative impact on flora and fauna long term.


----------



## tiger15

I don’t think SeaChem ever claims that Excel is a  CO2 source, rather, it is an intermediate carbon compound source that is part of the photosynthetic carbon cycle.  Every organic compound generates some CO2 in the mineralization process, but the amount generated relative to O2 consumed is insignificant to harmful.  For instance, sugar is a CO2 source but dosing sugar  can lead to bacterial bloom and depletion of O2.


----------



## alto

tiger15 said:


> Note that SeaChem recommends 0.4 ppm daily dosage for glut, and 2 ppm after WC. The low daily dosage is only good for carbon, and the 5x after WC is critical to control algae. Seachem is dancing around why you need higher dosage after WC, apparently, if you don't, it will be below the threshold necessary to combat algae.


Can you link to that data on Seachem website?




tiger15 said:


> Glut is an ingredient of Seachem Paraguard and can control ick at high dosage



again link to Seachem site would be grand, this is all I find


> ParaGuard™ employs a proprietary, synergistic blend of aldehydes, malachite green, and fish protective polymers




In terms of treating ich outbreak in your tank, what was the source of the glutaraldehyde you used?



Chuck Turtleman said:


> It is therefore a given that, as used in the aquarium, glutaraldehyde has no measurably proven enhancing effects on the CO2 content in the water. This can also easily be ascertained with permanent tests such as the X JBL CO2-pH Permanent Test or the JBL CO2 Direct Test Set . Of course, marginal quantities of CO2 are generated during the degeneration process. But these are too low to be measurable and therefore below the CO2 limit needed biologically to promote plant growth"



Proprietary article or independent study?
(I’ve not seen the article but it reads like marketing from from JBL )

Plants can sequester CO2 during nighttime/dark periods so somewhat sceptical of this broad statement 


> below the CO2 limit needed biologically to promote plant growth






Chuck Turtleman said:


> Because it contains no liquid CO2 yet is marketed as such



Seachem Flourish Excel Information page 
Does Seachem make alternate claims elsewhere using the “liquid carbon” term?

I linked an article in another glutaraldehyde discussion, where plant mass measurements showed increased growth in response to glutaraldehyde (independent study), though it’s not clear whether the increase is in response to released CO2 or actual incorporation of the glutaraldehyde molecule
Unfortunately isotope labeled glutaraldehyde studies are a significant undertaking, further isotope effects occur  complicating the process


----------



## Chuck Turtleman

alto said:


> Does Seachem make alternate claims elsewhere using the “liquid carbon” term?


Seachem is probably the closest to honest in that they simply say "bioavailable carbon source for the planted aquarium," which it still isn't, but one could at least argue that chemical reactions occur that make that true in a round about way. API on the other hand actively calls their product "CO2 Booster." Anyone reading the description is likely to walk away thinking that these products are CO2 in a bottle. 
My own take for why it "works" is simply that plants are going to get more nutrients and light once algae is drastically reduced.


----------



## tiger15

I calculated the dosage based on Seachem directions:
Seachem Excel 1.5% Glutaraldehyde
Directions: On initial use or after a major (> 40%) water change, use 1 capful (5 mL) for every 40 L (10 US gallons). Thereafter use 1 capful for every 200 L (50 US gallons) daily or every other day.
1 gal = 3785.41 ml
1.5% Glut = 1.5*1000000/100 = 15,000 ppm
Initial after WC: 5ml of 1.5% Glut in 10 gal = 15000 * 5 / (10*3785.41) = 2 ppm
Normal daily: 5ml of 1.5% Glut in 50 gal = 15000 * 5 / (50*3785.41) = 0.4 ppm

The ingredients of Paraguard can be found in this link:
https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailym...pdf&name=984f46c0-6651-46c6-b5f2-e86b557953c7
Directions: Use 5 mL (1 capful) to every 40 L (10 gal) to attain therapeutic levels of GLUTARAL 0.013 mg in 1 mL (13 mg/l) and Malachite Green 0.00004 mg in 1 mL (0.04 mg/l)

I don't really use Seachem Excel, but cheaper commercial Metricide at different Glut concentration, so I have to calculate carefully to adjust for the right dosage.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





Chuck Turtleman said:


> Seachem is probably the closest to honest in that they simply say "bioavailable carbon source for the planted aquarium," which it still isn't, but one could at least argue that chemical reactions occur that make that true in a round about way.


The Seachem marketing blurb is absolutely world class in terms of <"implying something">, but without ever saying anything that could be disproved in a court of law. 

It used to really annoy me, but now I quite enjoy reading them.  

cheers Darrel


----------



## rebel

To be fair, none of the aquarium products (Seachem or otherwise) have peer reviewed papers to back their efficacy and long lists of toxicity data.


----------



## alto

dw1305 said:


> The Seachem marketing blurb is absolutely world class in terms of <"implying something">, but without ever saying anything that could be disproved in a court of law.



It’s a shame, Seachem website used to include loads of experimental data and articles (I suspect at that time they were a Greg Morin venture rather than the present business model) and Greg Morin posted regularly on the APD list 

Of course if anyone wants to supply the isotope labelled compounds (not a simple process) and suitable analytical equipment grants and operating grants ...


----------



## rebel

alto said:


> if anyone wants to supply the isotope labelled compounds (not a simple process) and suitable analytical equipment grants and operating grants


Exactly!

Marketing and public opinion always trumps science when it comes to various products. For niche hobbies, I don't really expect companies to spend money to do peer reviewed science and publications just to sell something. A fancy label will be cheaper and it's just cheaper to get an instagram influenzer to endorse it.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





alto said:


> I suspect at that time they were a Greg Morin venture rather than the present business model) and Greg Morin posted regularly on the APD list


He used to post on <"the Krib"> as well. 





alto said:


> Of course if anyone wants to supply the isotope labelled compounds (not a simple process) and suitable analytical equipment grants and operating grants


Back to <"Calvin-Benson">.





rebel said:


> A fancy label will be cheaper and it's just cheaper to get an instagram influenzer to endorse it.


It is a shame, but I'm sure you are right, and we are unlikely to ever find out how any of these products actually function. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Matt @ ScapeEasy

https://www.jbl.de/?lang=en&mod=blog&func=detail&id=123

This explains a lot!!


----------



## Tim Harrison

So long as it's used responsibly and in the correct manufacturers recommend dose it should be fine.


----------



## sanj

This post is like Groundhog Day.

Clive as usual makes the most sense (8 October 2017) and yet as you progress through the threads it's like nobody read the original comments.

I am going to auto dose on one of my tanks for the next year. It hasn't had co2 injection for somewhere like a year to 18 months perhaps more.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





sanj said:


> This post is like Groundhog Day.


We have a <"few threads"> like this. 

I start from a simpler premise, which is that is that if you follow a <"risk management approach"> to fish keeping you are likely to accidentally kill your livestock less frequently. Under that approach, both liquid carbon and CO2 are entirely avoidable risk factors and I don't, and won't, use them.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sanj

I understand. You have been steadfast in that all these years. 

The results from CO2 injection can be fantastic, but I lost my supplier a while ago and did not find a new source. I am afraid life dictates changes and I havent been able to focus on the hobby, so all tanks have had no co2 injection for a long time.

I did a few cursory searches for long established aquariums with liquid carbon dosing, but did not see much. I have never used it for that purpose.

I guess the only way I will know is by doing it myself. I intend to use automated dosing which at least will provide some consistency.


----------



## Matt @ ScapeEasy

I personally have found it more use up used as a weekly algecide around water changes rather than a carbon supplement.


----------



## Tim Harrison

sanj said:


> I understand. You have been steadfast in that all these years.
> 
> The results from CO2 injection can be fantastic, but I lost my supplier a while ago and did not find a new source. I am afraid life dictates changes and I havent been able to focus on the hobby, so all tanks have had no co2 injection for a long time.
> 
> I did a few cursory searches for long established aquariums with liquid carbon dosing, but did not see much. I have never used it for that purpose.
> 
> I guess the only way I will know is by doing it myself. I intend to use automated dosing which at least will provide some consistency.


Hi Sanj, good to see you're still about. I dose it daily but only as a supplement to my pressurised CO2, mainly as an algicide. But I think some sort of additional carbon source is better than none.


----------



## alto

sanj said:


> Clive as usual makes the most sense (8 October 2017) and yet as you progress through the threads it's like nobody read the original comments.


I read his post
It just omits some science 

The chemical reactions of glutaraldehyde compounds under various aquatic conditions is well documented - there is CO2 release (re laws/foundations of organic chemical reactions)
There are some studies with aquatic plants measuring significant increase in mass when Seachem Excel was added to the growth environment 
There are significant structural differences between the form of glutaraldehyde compound sold by Seachem vs Glutaraldehyde solution sold in the “sanitation” industry


----------



## Andrew Butler

Tim Harrison said:


> I dose it daily but only as a supplement to my pressurised CO2


How do you work this then Tim, I thought it was one or the other. 


sanj said:


> I lost my supplier a while ago and did not find a new source


I've began to wonder where all these people source cheap/free CO2 as places I know have them taken away, reserviced etc and to have a refill prices quoted have been silly due to them having to be certified etc and also nowhere close by to me for that. I found a source on a well known auction site, however it seems postage has jumped up since my last order.


----------



## Matt @ ScapeEasy

alto said:


> The chemical reactions of glutaraldehyde compounds under various aquatic conditions is well documented - there is CO2 release



Could you provide a few references?

How about impact on fish?


----------



## Tim Harrison

Andrew Butler said:


> How do you work this then Tim, I thought it was one or the other.


Not at all... well I think that a lot of scapers use both, principally for the algicide benefits, but also as an aid to growth. There's nothing wrong with belt and braces. It perhaps provides a little more wriggle room, especially when a scape is pushing the envelope with regards light intensity etc.


----------



## Andrew Butler

Tim Harrison said:


> Not at all... well I think that a lot of scapers use both, principally for the algicide benefits, but also as an aid to growth. There's nothing wrong with belt and braces. It perhaps provides a little more wriggle room, especially when a scape is pushing the envelope with regards light intensity etc.


Do you just dose the same amount as you would, whether using CO2 or not? It's not something I think I remember reading before.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Just the recommended dose. Often though, it's only dosed at start up and during the growing in phase. Once the scape has matured and become biologically stable there is usually no need for it anymore.


----------



## sanj

Tim Harrison said:


> Hi Sanj, good to see you're still about. I dose it daily but only as a supplement to my pressurised CO2, mainly as an algicide. But I think some sort of additional carbon source is better than none.



Thanks Tim, in the last year or two I have been in the pond section.

I shall post before and after shots of my neglected 300l and see how and if things progress.


----------

