• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Using CO2 and some plants still melting

I like many others, have a tendency to pass on info that has already been documented by someone else.
As I remember both Ceg and Tom Barr have talked about the importance of having maximum C02 levels at lights on.

A two hour ramp up on the lights might be ok if the Co2 is at max levels at the start of the ramp up time?

Perhaps once a tank is settled in and running well without issues, a long ramp up time may well be ok but, I feel it would be best to stick to tried, tested and recommended methods at least until the tank is running smoothly.

I would recommend a short ramp up and 6 hours of light with steady C02 levels from the ramp up start time until light off.
 
I had 2 drop checkers at opposite ends of the tank and I was amazed how different the co2 levels where.

I don't think people realise how much of a difference it can make. I tend to put mine where ever I suspect would be the worst place for flow and everything else is a bonus. The Chihiros doctors and twinstar are quite good for this as you can watch the mist move round the tank and see where it ends up but you can replicate this with simply food or make a tannin mix up of boiled oak leaves which colours the water brown and watch where that goes. It changes all the time though as plant mass diverts the water in different directions and causes drag. My current setup which is a bit of a cheat really because the lighting and plants used I could probably just and so get away without using co2 but I do it anyway for improved plant growth, that has a DC at either end of the tank, the one on the opposite end to the lily pipe outlet can be lime green while the one by the out let is just getting into the blue green stage. I don't fuss too much about it and try and use the one with the lowest reading as my guide but as lighting is not that high it's not a worry long as I'm green on both. The higher the lighting the more important it is and less room for error.
 
Incidentally, what is the life span of the chemical indicator in a DC, should it be renewed after a certain period?

They should be good for a few months. If I leave mine too long I tend to find I get a bit of scum in it and it starts reading low.
 
Update: I've moved the DC and confirmed there is a decent CO2 reading at what is the furthest place from inlet and suction of filter. Flow is good around the aquarium. I am doing 15% water changes weekly and have reduced the Aquaray light pad intensity right down to single fig. %. The only plants that appear to be healthy and really flourishing are the Java ferns on the bog wood. Everything else is just hanging in and no more.

Q: Is it better to reduce the light time on than reduce the intensity? I don't really want the aquarium to be unlit during what we could call daytime viewing hours, it rather defeats the object of having it! Thanks for any further advice offered.
 
Hi all,
Is it better to reduce the light time on than reduce the intensity?
I'd reduce the photo-period. Plants can only make use of light when its intensity exceeds the <"light compensation point">, the problem is that LCP isn't something we can easily measure.

Personally, as your adding CO2, I'd go for at least a six hour light period and start ramping the light intensity back up, while observing what happens.

I'm not a CO2 user, so I use a different approach, I have a floating plant (non-CO2 limited and with first dibs on the light) and if it looks unhealthy I know it is a nutrient issue.

If I have intense lighting I just have a more complete layer of floating plants.

cheers Darrel
 
Many thanks - the LCP articles are a bit beyond me, but interesting anyway. I have now turned uo the light intensity to 25% on each channel and reduced the duration. Within 30mins. some, not all, of the plants started pearling maybe I am getting somewhere. It remains to be seen if have got an equilibrium regarding time on duration. Thanks again.
 
Hi all,
Within 30mins. some, not all, of the plants started pearling
Good, that definitely shows that light intensity is high enough for photosynthesis to occur. When you have pearling you know that you have exceeded the LCP value for that particular plant.

As a general rule plants with dark green leaves (lots of chlorophyll) and slow growth rates (Anubias, Bolbitis, mosses etc) will reach the LCP at lower PAR values.

Some plants need a huge amount of light to grow, have a look at <"overwintering Ludwigia sedioides">. There isn't a direct conversion between LUX and PAR, but unimpeded tropical sunlight is going to supply well over 1000 microeinsteins second-1 meter-2. (umol/m2/s)

An argument I often have with people (on other forums) is over whether plants actually supply oxygen. I've frequently been told that "plants use more oxygen than they supply" and that "they can only supply the amount as they use". When I tell them about pearling, and how plants are entirely responsible for the oxygen that we breathe, it often <"hasn't gone down very well">.

The technical bit is that during photosynthesis one molecule of oxygen is evolved for every molecule of CO2 incorporated. When the PAR exceeds the LCP then more oxygen is being produced than is used by respiration.

large.png
.

The CO2 is incorporated into the plant and this "spare" oxygen diffuses into the water, but when the water is fully saturated with dissolved oxygen the gas can't go into solution and it bubbles off as "pearling".

cheers Darrel
 
Many thanks - the LCP articles are a bit beyond me, but interesting anyway.

Hello buddy, put simply...in broad terms. From what I understand reading the link on LCP, if I have this right that is :shy: Essentially plants sleep like we do so when they're sleeping in the dark they breath out co2 and consume oxygen. They get woke up by light and when there is enough of it or the LCP they then start consuming co2, producing sugar and releasing oxygen. The LCP going off Ceg's input there is round about 6 micromoles and that light saturation occurs at 50 so 6 wakes them up and 50 is as much as they need, any more than that not really being much use although that was only for certain plants (Ceg does say that he suspects most plants will be roughly the same)

That's mainly irrelevant to you and I as neither of us know what 6 micromoles looks like in real terms and it would be pretty difficult to measure unless you have equipment to measure it so we have to go with the people that know these things. Probably why @dw1305 said...

I'd reduce the photo-period. Plants can only make use of light when its intensity exceeds the <"light compensation point">, the problem is that LCP isn't something we can easily measure.

We have control over the micromoles by reducing intensity but have we reduced it enough not to waken the plants is the million dollar question. Duration is nice and simple, just knock some time off it on the timer and effectively you have took some pressure off the plants to be growing while something isn't right.

Walks in someone now to blow my theory out the water :D
 
Do you know, the odd thing is I used to keep fish when I was a teenager in the 70s and never had problems with plants. I would overcrowd the fish, keep the Grolux light on as long as I wanted (no timers then) I had a basic air pump fed internal filter that I occasionally cleaned out and very rarely did any partial water changes. There was a nice blanket of ever expanding crypts. in the foreground, Amazon swords sending out runners, Vallis spreading across the back and Cabomba growing rampantly elsewhere. Today it would be described as 'low tech' but looked so natural and lifelike. What went wrong? Perhaps the plant trade supply quality is not what it was?
 
Hi all,
We have control over the micromoles by reducing intensity but have we reduced it enough not to waken the plants is the million dollar question. Duration is nice and simple, just knock some time off it on the timer and effectively you have took some pressure off the plants to be growing while something isn't right.
That is the one.

It is easier if you use CO2 (or when you turn the filter off, briefly, if you don't add CO2), if the plants are pearling they have produced enough oxygen to locally saturate the water with oxygen, and that means the light intensity is well above the LCP.

One of the reasons why plants are particularly effective at raising oxygen levels is that their inner tissues, and <"air spaces, fill with oxygen during photosynthesis">, and it is this oxygen that is largely used for respiration, even at night. This is true for all aquatic plants, even those without specialised morphology shown by the Lotus (Nelumbo sp.) in the linked thread.

Rooted aquatic plants will <"also actively leak oxygen into the substrate surrounding the root">, creating an oxic zone of the rhizosphere, exactly why they've evolved to do this clear, but it may be to do with altering the microbial assemblage to their advantage. But that advantage could be in terms of nutrient acquisition, oxidising potentially harmful ions (like iron (Fe) or aluminium (Al)) or in terms of disease suppression.

A lot of people are interested in this in the "real" world, because wet paddy Rice feeds half the World.

cheers Darrel
 
The type of plants available today I would say mate rather than the quality. A lot of the plants we try and keep aren't really meant to live underwater all the time. Combine that with lights getting brighter for less energy. All the plants you listed are plants that do well in low tech it low light setups. You just happened to have low lighting with old t8 tubes, which didn't need much co2 and provided the nutrients through nitrate build up.

No reason you couldn't do that again, many do. You have an even better selection of plants to pick from these days that will also be happy in that situation.

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk
 
Forgot to say - Also never added fertilizers (where they even available?) I think the crap from fish and decaying plant leaves was referred to a 'mulum', or something like that and it was considered beneficial so was not cleaned out vey often. I had some antiquated air lift vacuum device for removal if it became unsightly. Happy days :)

Again, thanks for help, advice and support offered.
 
Forgot to say - Also never added fertilizers (where they even available?) I think the crap from fish and decaying plant leaves was referred to a 'mulum', or something like that and it was considered beneficial so was not cleaned out vey often. I had some antiquated air lift vacuum device for removal if it became unsightly. Happy days :)

Again, thanks for help, advice and support offered.
It's all light driven and plant choice. People just assume that if you throw lots of light, nutrients and co2 at plants you can't go wrong because plants love all three. A lot of plants don't grow very fast even with a lot of light. Take Anubias for example, just puts a new leaf out now and again even with quite a bit of light and good co2. But that doesn't actually do the plant much good because algae builds up on the leaf, the leafs spends quite a while in the plant so algae eventually builds up on it which is quite normal, doesn't necessarily mean there's an algae issue.
People tend to plant them in shades areas to get round this.

Stems in the other hand grow quite fast with good lighting and co2 but we trim them a lot so don't build up with algae or have the time to because we're always cutting them back and getting new growth.

Coming back to what we were saying before, more and more plants have become available to the hobbyist as the world gets smaller and cheap postage. A lot of the "fancy" plants we keep tend to spend some of their lives out of water and at times under. When they are out of water they have access to bright light and unlimited co2. We try and keep them underwater all the time but are limited to the amount of co2 we can provide them until it hits a point where it's unsafe for fish which we usually keep together. Around 30ppm is the rule of thumb compared to 400ppm the plant could have access to in the wild if growing on a river bank at the waters edge. No mean feat and takes some level of knowledge and skill.

The good thing about this massive selection of plants available to us these days is there's also lots of plants that will do well underwater all the time and don't need extra co2 added as long as the lighting is kept down. Most people don't though and buy the latest balls out super photon light and assume plants are going to grow like mad under it. Tropica is probably best for this as they list plants under easy, medium and hard. There's a myriad of crypts, ferns, Anubias, beuces and even a few red stems in the easy section so a lot is to do with plant choice.

If going about things back then were "happy days" without all the complications for you I would revisit them mate. It starts by turning the lighting down and there's plenty more plants to pick from. Hobby has got to be enjoyable or it ceases to be a hobby. If you're up for more challenging plants the science of it is going to come in to play. Like me though I find it's best to wade through the science and just try and pick the bones out of it

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk
 
It starts by turning the lighting down
Agreed, those old skool T8's used for a few months or so without reflectors, run for half a day. Very much less output, still they grew beatifull "dutch style" tanks.
 
Back in the day we probably look at it through rose tinted glasses same as school days and summer holidays. Every summer was sunny and everything was great back then but we only remember the good times. Not much information was available either with no internet so PFK magazine which I subscribed to at my local newsagent was probably my only source of information, I remember going down on a Saturday morning hoping it had came in. I had various plants in my tanks because I've always liked the natural look, it's always floated my boat for some reason aesthetically rather then the benefits to a tank and the fishes welfare as I knew nothing about what they were doing.

I was already unknowingly running a low tech tank back then like @Andrew Lindsay was. Relying on heavy loads, water changes once a month of about 25% and low lighting with T8 more to bring out fish colours than anything and some ferts were available which was probably just traces or iron looking back. The plants available were the usual stalwarts of ferns, crypts and swords which do well in low tech setups. I think the turning point for me was seeing some fancy looking plants in the LFS which dissolved in my tank within a couple of weeks, little did I know they weren't even aquatic plants but I just kept buying them anyway and trying various plant foods on offer, the guy at the LFS must have loved me but in all fairness he probably didn't know either. I managed to lay my hands on Dennerle Nature Aquaristic which I still have to this day and still proves invaluable for plant names and scape suggestions.

IMG_20181221_0817080.jpg


And this picture in particular, I even bought that chair and footstool :D and that was me hooked....

IMG_20181221_0817324.jpg


I couldn't afford all the gear in there so I tried to make up the equivalent using stuff I could like an Arcadia 125watt mercury pendant, a Dupla co2 reactor which destroyed flow on the end of a canister filter but that was fine because as Dennerle pointed out "plants don't grow in fast moving water, this is where algae thrive. Plants grow where water slows down where the river meanders" Some Tetra planting substrate with heating cable under to create flow around the roots and keep the plants feet warm and nitrate and phosphate were the enemy. The plants I had boomed (obviously other than the terrestrial plants which I no longer kept buying :oops:) The key thing was, I was still growing low tech plants as they were the only ones available to me at my LFS so they were the "happy days"

Then the internet arrived, my first experience was a friend of mine had a Sega Dreamcast which you could play online and a browser. I searched for fish tanks and plants and that was me hooked again, I needed that in my life so I bought a computer and got me some dial up internet. I had a few bob at the time being single and no kids and now online shops had opened up to me some even in other countries. Off I went and bought all the gear but with no idea. Fair to say the hobby went downhill from there and I sort of gave up on it a bit plus work commitments meant I didn't have the time with working away a lot. Couldn't work out why spending all that money on equipment resulted in such a mess.
So then I stumbled across UKAPS and thought I'd have another go plus I was home more often. Obviously I got the baptism of fire from @ceg4048 right from day one (I think everyone needs to go through this) and had all my current thinking debunked. I think that was more because I came in with hi-tech goals so he and many others advised me accordingly. After a while and the knowledgeable folk at UKAPS took the time to explain the science to a school dropout like me things soon became a lot clearer.

Ironically, after gaining all the information and asking at time what I thought were stupid questions I have sort of went back to where I was back at the beginning. My mantra now on planted tanks is to go back to keeping the lighting lower, keeps plants that aren't as fussy and many lovely species are more readily available but give them a dash of co2 and ferts anyway (Particularly nitrate and phosphate) Plants are happier, hobby is more enjoyable and the "Happy Days" are back again! I think the first thing people need to ask themselves when they turn up here is what they want and follow that path but also look at both sides of the hobby low-tech versus high. There's often elements of both sides that will put you in good stead regardless of which route you take. For sure, I'm totally jealous of some of the creations and works of art in here and I can only dream one day, probably when I'm retired to be fair :D But for now with the time I have to put into the hobby I tend to go for minimum effort and maximum enjoyment.

They're just my thoughts on why I think growing plants back in the day seemed to be a lot less complicated, lighting and plant species seems to have made it more complicated (Hence the Avatar) With bright lights, the Gremlins will come, oh, and don't feed plants after midnight and water is very important, if you are going to get water near them keep it clean ;)
 
Last edited:
Hi all,
What went wrong? Perhaps the plant trade supply quality is not what it was?
I think some of it is to do with the <"production methods of the major aquatic plant nurseries">, where the economic realities of plant production mean that many are are grown emersed.
Forgot to say - Also never added fertilizers (where they even available?) I think the crap from fish and decaying plant leaves was referred to a 'mulum', or something like that and it was considered beneficial so was not cleaned out vey often.
There was a nice blanket of ever expanding crypts. in the foreground, Amazon swords sending out runners, Vallis spreading across the back and Cabomba growing rampantly elsewhere. Today it would be described as 'low tech' but looked so natural and lifelike.
I still keep my tanks like that, rain-water, a large volume of easy plants, minimal intervention and basically let them get on with it <"until plant growth is compromised">, when I feed the plants.

The only real difference from the 1970's is that now I have much better filters and lights, and <"I change a small volume of water"> on a regular basis (about 10% a day).

cheers Darrel
 
I think some of it is to do with the <"production methods of the major aquatic plant nurseries">, where the economic realities of plant production mean that many are are grown emersed.

Definitely mate. A lot of problems you see are the plant transitioning. Back in the day when most people weren’t that into plants and it was more niche the plants were kept underwater in the LFS for some time. Now with the popularity of tissue cultures and emersed farmed growing the first time the plant sees some water is when it's dropped in your tank....which usually isn't biologically stable itself yet.
 
I don't know about the science behind it but I would hazard a guess that a plant converting from one form to another to be energy consuming for the plant. Then it finds itself with nowhere near the co2 it grew accustomed to with bright lights over the top of it while disintegrating in an immature tank. Hello algae! If we plants could talk at that point they'd be saying please leave me alone.
 
Back
Top