Do I really need CO2 for my 200l tank? & if so how much?

[Jafooli]

Cheers Clive,

I reckon that calculator is what made me fall of the wagon,

Cheers for your explanation,

So 999,950ppm of water molecules I have in my litre of water, 50 of them NO3, I do the sum x200 I get 199990000 water molecules in my tank and the remaining 10000 molecules is NO3.

10000 molecules of NO3 divided over 200 litres is 50, which is the 50ppm we had all along. Half my sums I make up as I go along so bare with me, but I do understand your explanation and makes sense to me now.

I have no idea what happens when we go over a million, I presume as we are now out of parts per million because we ain't working out ratio's, we would then start to use weight if we wanted to weigh the milligrams of something but then different liquids would weigh different so lets keep to water. So 199990000 water molecules would be 199990000mg/l of water, which is nearly 200KG, chuck in the NO3 molecules as well and we get the 200000000 milligrams which is (200KG)

Sorry if that's hysterical again but trust me I do understand your equation now, I just presume one don't need to go over 1million ppm as we know exactly what's in the litre of water, depending on what we are looking for in our case NO3 which is 50ppm.

I guess the next complicated thing is taking the results, then putting them into plant food, if the water report is accurate I can now say my tap water contains 50ppm of NO3, so my tank consists of 50ppm nitrate, I would have no idea how much my plants use in a week, when I do my water change, I'm then putting 50ppm in again or is it because there is less no3 molecules in the tank due to the plants, so if I had 25ppm in my tank left, it gets confusing as 50ppm would then be spread out. See I have no idea on the next stage of this process. It don't really matter I guess as that's the point of EI, but would interesting to know, surely people who decide to leave something out, for example NO3, Magnesium, Iron etc that person would need to know the answer, unless they have one of those £3000 tests kit's I see you linked to someone before lol.

 

[ceg4048]

See I have no idea on the next stage of this process.

The next stage is to forget about it and just follow the dosing program.

It don't really matter I guess as that's the point of EI

Good. Now you're back on the wagon.

surely people who decide to leave something out, for example NO3, Magnesium, Iron etc that person would need to know the answer

No. They never need to know the answer. If you do a 50% water change every week the nutrient level will never get larger than [tap water content + dosing level].
In this old post I did the calculations to show what the maximum level would be. Check it out if you're a masochist.
EI daily methods or PMDD + PO4 | Page 2 | UK Aquatic Plant Society

If they don't add iron and if the plants need iron then the plants will exhibit an iron deficiency. If they add more iron than the plant needs then the plants will just take what they want and ignore the rest.

Cheers,

 

[Jafooli]

Cheers Clive, I'm going to let you be for now, as I'm probably draining your energy especially as I have no idea what I'm on about, I think you've helped me more than enough and you've definitely gone out your way to help. I will try to take everything I've learnt from this thread to better my self.

Lets just hope the main concern "the diatoms" will disappear for me in a couple of weeks or so

That thread you linked was quite interesting, you could obviously tell that's the kind of information I was seeking, I understood the equation you gave about NO3.

You mentioned he didn't need to dose NO3 if his tap water was 40ppm or at least the baseline values, I tried to replicate the same equation with 50ppm from my tap water, so says my water report. I also presumed my plants take 20ppm a week for my equation, now on his equation you was adding +20ppm a week, I'm doing the opposite -20ppm a week, so I'm not convinced my equation is right. Long story short I never exceeded 60ppm and my peak was always 80ppm. Basically got the same as your equation.

I started 50ppm-20ppm=30ppm/2=15ppm
15ppm+50ppm=65ppm-20ppm=45pmm/2=22.5ppm etc

I'm not sure if the equation works the same when your taking away NO3 rather than adding it, [tap water content + remainder in tank?]. I'm probably totally wrong once again, so there is no point me adding things like a rough estimate on production via nitrification into the equation if I'm not even on the correct path.

I can see exactly why you put this and I quote" Fretting over toxic nutrient levels in my opinion is a complete waste of time and it really sucks the energy and enjoyment out of the hobby."
Couldn't agree more, I guess when one knows there water report says 50ppm I just wanted to figure how much is in my tank, and then the equation you linked was what I was looking for, but it could be a different story when you add plant uptake into the equation, also just to add I'm actually not that too bothered about NO3, I just used that as a example from the beginning, my more concern was magnesium & GH as I would like it lower, but obviously as you told that guy if he had 40ppm in his tap water, he would then not need NO3 or at least he could dose it lower, so am a bit concerned now if I'm being honest. But I'm just going take your advice and enjoy my tank and add the NO3 anyway. I guess I will just keep an eye on fish, although I have sometimes seen "increase in gill rate" my fish would sometimes go down to the substrate in groups, but there gill rate would be high, and they would be gasping but not at the surface, I once did so much research into it, someone told me it could of been stray voltage, what a waste of time and money that was, I had no idea what I was doing but I gave up with that, anyway I only ever see that occasionally apart from that everything is fine, but if my equation is right, and take into account my high stocking level, so "production via nitrification" then my nitrate may have reached higher than 80-100ppm and into toxic levels.

I also noticed "EI DOSING USING DRY SALTS | UK Aquatic Plant Society" which looks interesting, so that may help when I start to make my own mix.
I can't explain how much I envy them pictures and other people's tanks on here. I just can not see my self achieving such quality.
Light,CO2,Nutrients,Growth Rate, easier writing about it all but yet each one has so much depth no wonder its so hard to achieve perfection. That's why I feel like I need to ask all the questions, I just feel like my tank is not going to achieve such beauty.

Thanks again, If you want to confirm my equation is right or wrong, it would be nice to know, as it would make it easier for me when I do make my own mix. Either way I'm take your advice about not worrying and start enjoying, and hopefully with time I will get a tank I'm proud to one day post on here. Cheers again for all your help!

 

[ceg4048]

Hi Jafooli,
Well, as I mentioned in that post, we have to make some assumptions and the last 2 assumptions were:
4) Assume zero NO3 uptake.
5) Assume zero NO3 production via nitrification.

We don't know these numbers and can never really measure them. They are of the same order of magnitude and tend to cancel each other out, so if you don't assume that the uptake is zero then you also should not assume that NO3 production from filter and sediment nitrification is zero.

You also don't know that the tap has 50ppm. That number is just the Euro-limit and the value was measured at some location other than your house, so even that number is suspect.

It's because we have all these variables and uncertainties that it is pointless to worry about it, especially when we know that we are nowhere near the toxic levels.

I mean, seriously, just look at the abstract on this page Studies on the toxicity of ammonia, nitrate and their mixtures to guppy fry
You can buy the article if you want but the abstract on that page give you a pretty good idea. The parameter in the second sentence 72-h lc50 means that in 72 hours, 50% of the guppy fry died.

Look at the numbers when they mixed ammonia and KNO3 together:
199ppm N from KNO3, which equates to about 875ppm NO3 + 1.26ppm N from NH3 which equates to about 1.5ppm ammonia. That's what it took to kill 50% of the guppy FRY in 3 days.

Imagine if they deleted the ammonia addition. The NO3 concentration required to kill the guppies would be an astronomical number. And that's FRY, the weakest and most vulnerable stage, not adults. You are nowhere near that and will never be. Whatever you think you are seeing as distress in your fish has nothing to do with NO3. That's why it's a waste of time worrying about NO3. We should instead worry about ammonia because it's a couple hundred times more lethal. That's why frequent water changes prevent it's buildup and that's why planted tanks have an advantage.

Cheers,

 

[Jafooli]

Cheers Clive,

I was trying to do the maths all night in my head, it drove me mad, I couldn't understand why NO3 would increase in my tank from my equation. If that was the case, I could fill a cup up, then another and say I have 100ppm of NO3 which is false as we know from above about NO3 molecules and water molecules, so it will just stay at 50ppm even if both cups were combined, but if one cup had 50ppm and the other 30ppm and we combined them it gets complicated for me as it can't be 80ppm. So doing a 50 w/c on my tank left with 30ppm, I have no idea why I was getting 65ppm. That's why I think my equation was wrong as surely it can't be more than the taps water supply unless the nitrification rate was much higher, but anyway like you've said above I guess we don't know the numbers and they can tend to cancel each other out. Its giving me a headache figuring that one out, I've learnt a lot above about ppm and the molecules, and will just call it day with this sum, either way its of no importance.

Thanks for the information about the guppy fry, I'm just going to continue focusing on the important factors and hopefully I will get to where I want to be, rather than wasting time estimating exact no3 levels etc.
When I do get some new scales and make my own mix I will just keep everything in the ppm ranges and if I get everything else correct, co2, flow etc and achieve healthy plants, then I could always start lowering things, such as MgSO4. Thanks for all your help.

 

[ceg4048]

Yeah, good plan mate. When you mix two equal amounts of water which each have different ppm values, the final ppm is just the average of the two, so it's 80ppm/2 = 40ppm.

Cheers,

 

[Jafooli]

Cheers, all along it was just the average.

Thanks again now I fully understand.

 

[Jafooli]

Hey Clive,

Its been nearly a month since you helped me with my issues and I'm not quite winning the war yet.

I think I know much more than what I did, when I first opened this thread, and I now see your helping other people with the exact same problem! Brown algae!

So I think I've got mine to a point where the plants are not sure if there winning, and the brown algae is not sure if its winning either. It seems to be 50/50.

I know I got all my dosing right, I now am now not using CO2, so I hope I'm right in saying my tank is now more low tech. However I am using liquid carbon.
I'm not using pressurized CO2, just because my fish were not getting along with it, fish were dying, acting odd. It was more hassle then it was worth..
So now I am using liquid carbon and around 1/3 EI. I may use CO2 in the future when I can get this tank actually showing signs of growth and much more plant mass.

If anything surely the liquid carbon route gives me even more room for error. But I'm not sure. Anyway I hope you can help me, I'm not sure what you can tell me that you haven't already told me and everyone else.
But the main factors I think which contribute to diatoms, are:

To much light?
Immature Tank?

and GSA, is poor CO2 distribution / flow and low PO4.

I don't suffer GSA any more, even though in these pictures you may see a leaf or two with it, these are old leafs, which I never cut as I had already cut nearly all the plant from its worse infected with brown algae.

But I have not beat the brown algae, and I see some people spend up to a year battling it, and some even giving up on there tank.

Here are some pictures:

This is the glosso, I dug up and thinned out like you mentioned, its doing great. I could not remove the infected leafs as its such a delicate plant. I spread it out, and its bouncing back real good. Much more fresh green growth, and seems to be doing great, all though the picture don't do it justice.

http://oi57.tinypic.com/35komkn.jpg

Here is my stauro repens: In this picture you can see the 3 leafs on the right on the plant, the bottom one is really infected, this is probably a few weeks back, the second leaf would have then been new growth that got infected, and then the third leaf the same procedure, you can see each leaf has got less brown algae, this is what I mean by the algae is not as bad no more, it's effecting the plants not as much, but still imo killing the plant / leaf slowly. As you can see with the new growth my main problem is brown edges on the new leafs.

http://oi62.tinypic.com/15gch3m.jpg

Here is another picture of a plant I'm trying to save (Wisteria), it was the fastest grower in my tank, this is all that remains. This shows how severe the brown algae currently is, so obviously not as bad as what it has been, but its stopping the plant growing, if it does grow it produces a tiny leaf.

http://oi58.tinypic.com/jkvfw9.jpg

Here is a picture of my Echinodorus, this seems to be a continuous pattern with this particular Echinodorus, its eats its self alive:

http://oi58.tinypic.com/oa6jxx.jpg

Here is a picture of my other Echinodorus: (the total opposite is happening, this plant is currently putting out one of the healthiest leafs in the tank, I've never seen it so red.

http://oi62.tinypic.com/14jb6o1.jpg

It can't be due to flow, as the other Echinodorus is in a real high flow area, where as the last one don't get as much flow, but enough to make it sway, also you can see the old infected leafs with GSA and diatoms.

So I've done so many things, I have changed flow, changed CO2 diffusion and distribution, to where now I've removed it and gone more low tech, so now plants should use less nutrients, as liquid carbon is not as prolific as gas CO2, I also am sure flow is getting everywhere, so the liquid carbon should be getting everywhere, its about the 5th day of using liquid carbon. How long will it take my plants to adjust? I've also done many cuttings on these plants, so there probably still rooting into position. I even gone out and purchased new plants to try and give them the edge, as like I say I feel like I'm balancing on a wall, and I don't want to fall the wrong way and be back to dead plants. When I purchased some new plants I was real shocked to see how green they are compared to my plants in the tank. Here is a picture:

http://oi60.tinypic.com/24njxpz.jpg

The hygrophila on the left is the new one, and the crypt on the right behind the rummynose is also new. Interesting enough you can already see both these plants leafs yellowing, why are they yellowing?
I dose enough KNO3? I also dose enough Ca and Mg from what I know, the hygrophila which is yellower is also in my girlfriends tank, same house, no dosing etc, and its greener, all her plants are greener, her stauro repens is dark green, her mosses are greener than grass. So I'm confused. If you have already mentioned things which I've forgotten or not read back on then I apologise but I don't see why I have deficiencies still, but from what I can see I've took everything I think you taught me and cant figure out how to kill this brown algae, and also get my plants thriving. They are growing so slow, and each leaf they produce is tiny.

Here is a tank shot also: http://oi61.tinypic.com/54xj0i.jpg

So if you can give me some more options step by step or something, or anything from these pictures you can see is a major issue, or something is missing.

Once again I am adding everything, I've just literally started 1/3 of EI this week, so today was the first time I have not dosed, I dosed Macro Sunday, Micro Monday, and was going dose again Wednesday, Thursday just to get a bit extra in the tank. How long does it take for plants to get use to a new environment? I see plants take time to adjust to there CO2 surroundings. So is there a chance my tank is fixed, and I need to just wait? I also still do 50% water change a week. My fish seem much better now I am using liquid carbon. I am using 5ml for 200 litre. It should be 4, but I have chose 5 and in a month or so hopefully get to double dose, but liquid carbon don't kill diatoms, so I need to keep trying things.

I hate this brown algae, I know your helping a lot of other people with it as well. I just cant see it being my lights, flow I honestly think its right, I know your probably say its not, I just don't know what else I can do, I never had this issue before even when I had only one filter, this seems to be a new thing that's just entered my tank. I think I've got my dosing right. CO2 is not a issue, I now use liquid carbon. I'm sure its distribution is good. If the flow was any more powerful the plants won't stay in the substrate, even though I cant improve it no more. Its swaying everything, and I've seen youtube videos where people's tank are heavily planted and some plants are not even moving.

My light period is 11 till 8, my girlfriends is 12 till 5, should I go to 5 hours? her tank is suffering no brown algae, I thought it may be something in the water from all the floods the UK had? I don't think that's the issue though, but why is this thing so tuff? I don't want to keep doing black outs, its obviously still coming back but much less aggressive now. I've got about another £20-£30 I could spend on plants, but today I thought I aint going to spend that just encase they all die, I see my new plants already yellowing. I also got a tiger lotus I am hoping that would out compete with algae as-well, I am just trying to focus on growing plants, even if I have to go real low tech. How can I eliminate this stuff. All google tells me is to remove silicates, which ain't even the cause I think you have proved. So what more can I keep doing? or do I need to wait for everything to adjust? if everything don't die by then? I'm thinking literally daily water changes of around 40% for a week might be a good approach but I don't want to ruin my tanks eco system.

Sorry for the essay, I know a lot of other people are suffering the same thing, but as everything in my tank is low tech, surely I should be able to beat this easier.

 

[ian_m]

I'm right in saying my tank is now more low tech. However I am using liquid carbon.

High tech if adding carbon, so back to full EI dosing and light control or else algae farming will dominate your tank.

 

[Jafooli]

Hey Ian

Cheers for the reply, I gather I am still high tech, but not sure how to mention I'm also low tech, I don't know how people refer to it.

I have low light anyway, so my tank is never going to be high tech even with CO2, but I presume high tech is classed as CO2 injection.

I have only not dosed today, and that's because last week I spent hours trying figure out do I dose fully or not, from what I read on Tom barr's hybrid dosing, with excel. Is to use around 1/3 and carry on with water changes but if one wishes they can lower down water changes and lower the excel till they have to do nothing, and then they also can lower dosing even less than 1/3, and only dose when plants need. I don't want to go that real low tech, but he mentions for faster growth rates you can continue excel and keep dosing low with water changes or no water changes.

I'm confused why with carbon I need to carry on full EI dosing, I thought it was like 25% less effective, and as my lights are low, and the liquid carbon is less effective, I can lower my ferts? I also see many people with liquid carbon do 1/3 EI with no algae issues. Also liquid carbon is good at killing certain algae?

So would be interested to know what I should be doing? But in regards to my real issue the brown algae, Full EI with liquid carbon or not full EI, this problem is not going away.

Is there anything I can add to the tank like salt? I heard diatoms don't like salt... or any other chemical that will remove this from my tank, like mentioned above I have followed Clive's advice, other threads, I can't see why its hard to defeat, and I'm not the only one who is finding it difficult. If anyone wants to correct me with my low light I keep referring to its: 2x 30w T8 Bulbs at 18inches above substrate and about 7 months old or even more. When I checked the parr thread I was not even in the low light I also read I don't need replace lights till they die, and I also had been fine previously. Ammonia is 0, even though any test results I give are pointless as you cant trust there results. So my tank is not immature either. If it were my light then that's crazy.... its a Fluval Roma, all you need to do is research that tank and plants, and people are taking there light unit apart as its such a rubbish light, everyone does DIY on it and upgrades it to a T5 unit, do they then go on to face diatoms? not from all the Fluval roma plant growers I see, and I've seen a couple on here. So I'm confused on what causes diatoms... silicates is a myth.. so can't see what else I can do... I don't think I'm being naive in saying I don't think its due to light, flow, immature tank. As I have done so much research and I don't think I'm alone with this brown diatoms algae mess. I don't mind stopping with my liquid carbon, and going real low tech, and stopping water changes and dosing all together, like my girlfriends tank. But I still don't think that's going to solve the issue. Its like a disease that I cant get rid off. No wonder people strip there tanks from it.

 

[ceg4048]

Yeah, I agree with Ian. Any time you enrich carbon it's automatically high tech. While you're correct in saying the liquid delivers less CO2 than gas, all that means is that now you may have issues associated with not enough CO2. Just adding the liquid means nothing if you're not adding enough. You may need to add 2X or 3X the bottle suggestion, and of course that will have it's own toxicity issues.

So it's not really clear where you are with this issue if you randomly decide to use fractional dosing of nutrients and fractional application of carbon. That's why people struggle for months, because they apply arbitrary numbers like that.

If you're still getting GSA then this says immediately that there is still some combination of poor CO2 and poor PO4. If you're still getting yellowing then of course it means there is not enough NO3 or Mg/Fe.

So you have to dose the standard amounts because we have no barometer that measures how much CO2 is being used or how much demand for nutrients there is.

When you withdraw the gas injection the plant health will take an immediate nosedive and will take weeks to recover if you have not also withdrawn some light.

Cheers,

 

[Jafooli]

Cheers Clive,

Well then I am more confused than ever, what more can I do?

Like I said only today have I missed my Macro dose, this problem did not appear today... my dosing is exactly to your dry powder dosing guide, and I don't have 6 WPG!
I also am not using fractional application of carbon, I am using what everyone else and aqua essentials say to use. 5ml per 250 litres, I am using 5ml just to get a bit extra in the tank, and I am monitoring fish health, its only been 5 days, I will slowly increase till 2x the standard dose. Why do I need to increase to 3x or even 4-5x, that don't make sense to me.

My light drives my tank, the CO2 is then next, I have low light so the power of my tanks force is quite low, this means from what I know, CO2 uptake will not be as much along with nutrient uptake, compared to a 6WPG tank, so I am not dosing 4ml and then 8ml liquid carbon one day, I am keeping it stable at 5ml, and will slowly get to double dose. So not sure why I am going to struggle?

I also am not getting GSA on any new growth, just brown edges and a light mist of brown algae then takes over the leaf like seen in the pictures.

So from what I gather my plants are going to take a nosedive, I can understand that, as that confirms what you have taught me and what I've read in your other threads, and numerous articles. So after a few weeks once they have programmed there selfs for my CO2 levels, then maybe I will see less diatoms?

I cant see what's wrong with using 2x the Standard dose of liquid carbon, if that's more than enough for my plants, and its dosed each day. Why will I have issues? what's the point of liquid carbon. Its not another money scam like test kits is it? I just want a low tech tank, with some carbon to get those extra growth rates like Tom barr mentions. If I put my liquid carbon in the bin, then what do I do? how do I remove brown algae.

Sorry guys I just cant get seem to get this right, its really frustrating me out now. I understand the Light, CO2, nutrient demand. Double dose should be more than enough, its not fractional, and if I do full EI there should be more than enough nutrients.

Regarding the yellowing? how much EI should I add then? I am already doing the guidelines, and probably a tad higher. Should I do 5x the amount EI? even though I don't have 30WPG.

Cheers for the help.

 

[ceg4048]

I guess I'm also confused because you just stated that you're dosing 1/3 EI. That's a fraction. You also state that you turned off your CO2, so compared to what you were injecting prior, what you are dosing now is fractional. I have not seen any data that confirms your lighting to be low. Only a PAR meter or the PAR charts give information on that.

GSA is caused by any combination of poor CO2 and poor PO4, so there can be no doubt that there is an issue with either or both. It doesn't really matter what anyone else is using or suggesting as far as dosages are concerned. It only matters what the plants are saying.

Withdrawal of CO2 is not a simple affair. CO2 is like a narcotic, so when you reduce the level the plants suffer symptoms.

Cheers,

 

[EnderUK]

The steps of a Roma owner.
1. Get Roma
2. Decide on planted tank, reads that you need t5 for planted tank. Wished they got the Rio instead.
3. Hacks the roma to fit t5 spending £50+
4. Either ruins hood and has to pay an extra £100+ for new hood or succeeds and is now running very high light for the tank and all the issues that come with that.
5. Joins UKAPS and finds out they wasted their time and money.

If you want to hack up hood apart I can tell you what I did. but you really really don't need to.

 

[Jafooli]

Oh ok, I didn't know we were both confused. I didn't realize I was dosing a fraction. I just presumed from the hours of research I did that its normal guidelines (standard) to dose 1/3 of EI when using liquid carbon.
I presumed it was easier for Tom Barr and other people just to say 1/3 rather than giving dosage calculations. So I just presumed 1/3 of EI with Excel is the standard amount.

If I were using pressurized CO2 then did 1/3 then I could see where your coming from, but looks like I got it wrong, so all along the answer I was seeking is with Excel you use the full amount of EI, and I won't be wasting even more amounts. Which counteracts what I've learnt.

I will go back to full EI then, I just presumed your dry powder guide was for people using pressurized CO2, and the nutrient estimates given were done on a tank of 6WPG.

I also thought a tank with low par, will have less CO2 uptake, and therefore less nutrient uptake. I have no idea why I was thinking all these things, I obviously do not understand it correctly.
I actually thought since I had lower light, I have more room for error regarding CO2 uptake and nutrient uptake, but it seems like these two things increase when you have lower light.

I also am not suffering GSA, but am suffering brown algae, (diatoms) unless GSA is a diatom I'm so confused. http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/algae.htm This says there two different things?

My whole issue is brown algae, its killing my tank, its like a wildfire destroying everything it touches, and new growth is just dying still.

I also thought now I'm not using CO2, and am using liquid carbon, the plants might take some time to adjust, but they should thank me for it still, as at least I'm giving them there drug, maybe not in the amount they want, but its better then none? I cant understand how people with no CO2, don't get GSA or brown algae then?

Tbh its depressing me out now, I thought I understood it all: Light>CO2>Nutrients>Organic waste, but I'm totally wrong. I think I'm just take it all out and buy fake plants, at least I can wash them easily every week. Its a shame as I've had great success before, but looks like I cant defeat what I can't understand, and I've seen many people fall from brown algae, looks like I'm another. I will never understand how a aquarium in the same house, (my girlfriends who knows nothing) has a better tank with healthy plants than mine, and I'm the one who has spent hours reading articles etc, and the end result looks laughable.

Thanks EndlerUK, I actually don't want to upgrade my lighting, as you mentioned in the steps, I did exactly that, I learnt about DIY CO2, on my fluval roma 90, I read T8's dont grow nothing, I managed to get a massive jungle scape with t8's!. I then got confident enough in my ability I grew carpeting plants with T8's I then learnt from Clives articles and others you can grow any plant in nearly any light and it can grow, if given the things it needs.

I actually like my T8's because once again from what I read I should have much more room for error, and the whole process should be easy, this is what I am trying say about the low tech - high tech I am in the middle as my light demand is much lower compared to a roma with T5's.... I should not be having these issues.

Here is my old Roma:

Around 8 months ago I upgraded to a 200, I didn't care about the lights, I was picking low light plants, spending a fotune on Eco Complete, regulator, FE, nutrients, the result at first was good, and now a dead tank.
The best tank I ever had was a tank with DIY co2 with yeast, so unstable CO2, powders I had no idea did what, but I chucked them in, I did hardly no water changes and did it when ever I wanted, and yet all I have learnt is to fail.

Thanks again though for everyone's help on this forum, I obviously can't understand it all properly, I think I'm stick to looking after my girlfriends shrimp, if I can even get that right. I cant see what more I can do. I have took and followed everyone's advice, but I'm still doing something wrong. Sorry if I sound rude above or anything, its annoying. I thought I understood the basics, and cant see why dosing Excel would be a issue. My issue was brown algae and back then I was using pressurized CO2.

I appreciate everyone's help though, and will just keep browsing, especially in the algae section where other people are also facing brown algae, and hopefully someone will find a solution.

 

[ceg4048]

Jafooli, the thing you need to understand is that there is a range of acceptable CO2 and within that range there is another range of acceptable nutrient levels. Both of those ranges sit within a range of lighting. This is not a lift where you press a button to go to a specific floor. We really have no way of know exactly what the nutrient demand is, or what the actual CO2 uptake is. We only know the approximate ranges and we depend on the plants to tell us whether we are within the range or not. Algae and poor growth tell us that we are below the acceptable range. Even so, there are other factors which affect where we are with respect to the acceptable range, such as flow/distribution, temperature, dissolution techniques and so forth.

There is no point comparing what success you had before versus the lack of success you have now, because sometimes you have good luck and sometimes not. There are so many factors, and people make so many assumptions when they have good luck, then they carry those assumption over to the next attempt and the starts don't align, so things go awry.

As I told you, liquid carbon does not deliver the same amount of CO2 to the plants as gas injection does. I cannot tell you exactly what the numbers are but their is a significant difference. So just because someone had good luck using so many mils of the product, it cannot automatically mean that you will have good luck using the same dosages. That would be as if someone told you to use a certain bubble rate just because they had good luck with that rate. You have to determine what bubble rate works for you.

There are good reasons why a yeast CO2 would work well if you are lucky, however, most yeast users are NOT lucky and they have all sorts of problems specifically due to the instability issues. That's why they switch to cylinder, but just switching doesn't automatically guarantee good luck.

And just because you have more room for error it does not mean that you can make unlimited amounts of error. You can still have problems even when you have more room for error. That's why we say to use the basic numbers and make adjustments from there. What you did was to make a whole lot of assumptions that culminated in an error that was outside your margin, large as it was. Adding CO2 changes the fundamental mechanism of plant metabolism. Removing CO2 has just as significant a change. AS far as I can recall, all these problems started when you changed the CO2. When CO2 delivery changes problems occur.

Here is a example of an assumption:

I will go back to full EI then, I just presumed your dry powder guide was for people using pressurized CO2, and the nutrient estimates given were done on a tank of 6WPG.

So the guide was prepared prior to the popularity of Excel and as I said, Excel does not produce as much CO2 as gas injection, but there is no data that says you can automatically deduct 2/3rds of the dosing when using Excel. Very few people use 6wpg, and those that do have all kinds of problems because their tanks are not as efficient as the guy who did use 6wpg and who developed EI. Folks using EI do get problems as a result of flow/distribution and CO2 anomalies. The more light being used and the bigger the tank, the easier it is to use up the margin for error. Many come to the realization that the tank will have problems with very high lighting unless everything else is perfect. In most tanks everything else is NOT perfect, so the margins for error is quickly used up. Dose the standard numbers and let the plants tell you when you can use less.


This can be a type of GSA. If it wipes off easily then it's diatomic. If you can't wipe it off then it's GSA.

Cheers,

 

[Jafooli]

Cheers Clive,

I will try keep this short and non complicated lol.

Jafooli, the thing you need to understand is that there is a range of acceptable CO2 and within that range there is another range of acceptable nutrient levels. Both of those ranges sit within a range of lighting.

The quote above is pretty much what I already understood, so theoretically two people with identical tank's, same flow, same plants, everything the same. One tank has low par say T8's and the other has T5's and say medium par. The guy with the T8's his acceptable CO2 range to the plants will be lower and his acceptable nutrient levels should be lower. The guy with T5's his margin for error is less as the metabolism of his plants will be higher due to the higher light, so if both were injecting the same CO2, and nutrients, you would see the deficiencies in the T5 tank first presuming he was not providing enough. This stuff I already think I understand pretty well, but maybe I am thinking it all wrong still. I more than understand each tank is different and there is plant mass, flow, height from substrate, many factors all playing a role, but still this leads me to my next part:

Adding CO2 changes the fundamental mechanism of plant metabolism.

So Darrel another expert on here he uses the duckweed index, and many other people also. They helped me a while back and said I could go down that road, and I won't even need CO2, as our tank gets about 1ppm of CO2 from gas exchange and that's enough for the plants, however growth will be very slow, and as we know nutrient uptake will be less also. So this is pretty much as low tech as it comes. I don't want to go that low tech.

Now if I had a low tech tank like these guys and then I said I want more growth rates, I'm go set up a pressurized CO2 system and go full EI, its going to take my plants a couple of weeks to get use to the change, and slowly there metabolism will increase when the plant makes the fundamental changes. I know you have spoke about the plants before and how they carry the CO2 etc, and you have to match there needs each day or the system collapses.

So the point I am trying to make is, surely most plants can grow in our tanks with out CO2 injection, but it will take time. Now in my eyes, compared to members on here. I for sure am in the low light section, so I think I am correct in saying, my CO2 acceptable range and nutrient range will be much lower, if I managed to get max CO2 levels in this tank, the plants can only use as much as the light will allow them to use. Surely they will reach a point where to use more CO2, nutrients, they will need more par.

So I've removed my CO2, as it was causing stress, toxicity issues with my fish, and I don't want to go real low tech like mentioned above. So I purchased some liquid carbon, now the problem I am going to have is my plants metabolism is high, as its grown up with high CO2 levels, well I wouldn't say that but its had access to CO2 GAS, my plants are now just getting Excel, 25% less effective, I have no idea what my CO2 levels were previously, but my plants now need to adjust to the new range? surely this can be accomplished? I mean if I stopped all CO2 and didn't even use Excel, surely in weeks time, the plants will have adapted to the 1ppm of CO2 from the surface, there nutrient uptake will be lower, growth will be slower, but they will still grow, and algae shouldn't appear as everyone with low tech would have algae, as long as the plants are healthy they should defend off the algae.

So what I am thinking in my head and trying to say is, why should I have issues?

I have low light, my flow and distribution is great imo, my plants might be taking a nosedive, all though I can't see how they were all dying anyway from diatoms, so now there going to have adapt to my liquid carbon levels, even if that's 8 or 16ppm liquid carbon, surely if I keep providing the nutrients, eventually the plants will adapt to this?

If not then I will just bin the liquid carbon, and do what Darrel does and just stick to 1ppm CO2, add nutrients when needed, the growth will be much slower, but I can't see why adding a constant value of liquid carbon will not give me better results, just not as good results compared to someone with GAS CO2.

So I hope you can confirm some the above for me, because if I am totally wrong about all this, then I need to know before I face more issues.

Also I believe I don't have green spot algae, I have had this in the past, and its still on some leafs in the photo's, I normally just cut them leafs, and Its only ever been about 1 or 2 leafs to each plant. But I've not noticed none appearing for a while. My main problem is brown algae. I can tell you now it comes of the plants, I have removed about 50% of plant mass from my tank, my clothes and towel was covered in brown smudgy stuff. When I rub it off leafs, you can see it dilute into the water. I've rubbed and scrubbed, the brown algae (diatoms) are not as prolific as what they were, but my plants are not growing at all, if they are its tiny amounts, new growth is still getting diatoms on the outter edges and eventually all over. How can I stop these diatoms? I have done all your advice, It cant be because of light? I have also just reduced my light now to 12 till 6 as I can't reduce intensity, even though surely intensity cant be that high!!!? I also am sure my tank is mature... so I have no idea what to do from here. I read threads where people have been battling it for months or even up to a year, or the point they give up and start again.

I hope you can put me back on track again, and I hope most of the stuff I have mentioned is close enough to being correct, other wise I've spent like a year learning, and have learnt hardly anything.
Surely I can grow plants if that be 1ppm CO2, like the duckweed index, or if its 9ppm from carbon, or if its 30ppm pressurised CO2, surely if I let the plants adapt, give them the nutrients, the flow / distribution, and if everything is in acceptable ranges.. I should get a planted tank with minimum issues?

Cheers again Clive.

 

[ian_m]

getting diatoms on the outter edges and eventually all over

I get this on plants I have moved from emmersed growing to in tank full CO2 growing, especially at the bottom of the tank furthest from the light. Otto's help in removing some of it (but generally ignore it). It is indicating the leaves are dying due to their sudden change in CO2 circumstances 400ppm air to 30ppm tank, leaching nutrients into the water feeding the algae. All new growth is fine and green no sign of algae, so I just trim away the old stuff.

So your plants will be dying as you have moved away from unknown gaseous CO2 levels, to slightly more known liquid carbon levels (and different carbon uptake method) thus your plants will/may take a while to adjust, dying and leaching "algae food" until they adjust to their new surrounding. This is why consistent steady CO2 levels is such a major requirement.

Is you filter adequately removing water born diatoms. When I got "new tank syndrome" diatoms I put temporary floss in the filter, to attempt to take them out. Rinsed floss before replanting and water change and then cleaned floss afterwards in order to get as much as possible out the tank. I assume you are doing water changes ?, weekly with high-tech tank.

One thing to watch with Excel (and other liquid carbons) is it will melt some plants, even at low doing levels. I dosed Excel as well as CO2. The plants either get used to it and recover, like all the remaining plants I have left in my tank or just melted away to nothing despite only 1/2 dosing Excel.

 

[Jafooli]

Thanks Ian.

I was getting this diatom stuff when I was also using pressurized CO2 but this has only started at max a month ago....I had noticed the CO2 was increasing on its own accord, I noticed deficiencies appearing, made this thread. Lowered my CO2 as it went really high and fish were also stressed, + lower CO2, less nutrient demand....I also improved CO2 distribution, improved my dosing, improved tank flow. Pretty much stepped up my game thanks to Clive. I removed all the infected plants, but it still keeps returning but like I say not as prolific, but its still covering the plants.

I presume from what you have mentioned the diatoms may have appeared due to the increasing and decreasing in CO2. I'm not sure. If what you say is correct then I guess that's how they have appeared. Only my plants have not come from emmersed as they have been in the tank since the start.

I kind of need a new plan of action, or find out what's causing the diatoms. If it is because of the reason above which you mention, then surely each week my tank should improve, which it is doing. BUT.. plants are still hardly growing, diatoms are still there and still winning, but its much less severe as it was.

I do water changes each week, Before I made this thread I reckon I was doing about 40%, I only noticed when I checked my routine. I basically changed everything I do thanks to Clives help, I improved CO2, flow, I changed from liquid dosing EI to dry dosing. I now know exactly what I dose, and I now do 50% w/c a week. I guess removing all the infected plant mass made my CO2 level's rise in my tank, and it don't matter how low I injected CO2, fish were not acting right, even 3 hours in. I'm not after crazy growth rates, or pearling. I just want a nice steady tank that will grow that bit quicker than someone who injects no CO2 or liquid carbon. So I presumed liquid carbon is better than nothing. Maybe in the future once plants take off again, I will then look into pressurized CO2 again, but for now I want my plants to transition into there new environment, hopefully a more stable one now..... as so far fish seem much happier with liquid carbon. Like I say growth rates are not my main priority but I want it faster than pure low tech, so if my plants can adapt to say liquid carbon dosing, then I will be happy. Surely that's better than just giving them the 1ppm CO2 from say gas exchange, + I would then have to do less water changes, as I read when they adapt to the low tech approach, the CO2 increase from the water change can bring on algae and all type of problems. I want to stick to 50% water changes not only for my EI dosing, but for my fish health, and I read clown loaches should get about 50% water change a week aslo.

I have noticed my filters sponges are becoming more clean each week, I must admit they seem to be really brown when I squeeze the sponges so this could be diatoms on the sponges? or just extra mulm for some reason.

Its interesting you say

water born diatoms

This is kind of what I feel when I look at my tank, this is what I am trying to also get across, I feel like light is not my problem, my tank is definitely not showing signs of excess ammonia or I can't see why it would of suddenly come immature. I feel like the tank is diseased, like its in the water... even if I remove all the new infected, next few days it will land on new growth. So I don't know, maybe it is the plants leeching the disease there self's? as there adjusting to the new environment. I don't know what symptoms plant's show when they change CO2 environment apart from what you have just mentioned which is what I am getting, all Clive said was they will nosedive, so maybe they do leech algae food, if diatoms are a algae?

There has to be something out there that can kill diatoms, I feel like my plants are just holding on, I have purchased new plants also, but I don't want to buy another £30 worth just encase they also die.

Also forgot to mention in my previous thread:

If you're still getting yellowing then of course it means there is not enough NO3 or Mg/Fe.

My water report says 50mg/l of Nitrate, I'm already being told in the invert section I'm have problems with my girlfriends shrimp with those readings from my water, even though we cant test Nitrate, so I have no clue what is really is... so that's already another matter I need to sort out for my girlfriend....

I add about 8ppm of KNO3, 3x a week into my tank, so lets say I do have 50mg/l or even 20mg/l 3x 8ppm of KNO3 should be more than enough?? I can't see the amount of plants I have using all of that, and like I say flow is good so imo they should be getting more than enough.. I don't mind adding more as we know it don't harm fauna, but not convinced its that.

Mg, we know I get a lot of that in my water as I'm from a area with chalk pits, etc, and apparently we get a lot of Mg, either way I am adding enough of that I think but I can't test my water, so that leaves Fe, Iron..which would be in my micro mix, I only add 1/4 2x a week, to help lower TDS as we talked about that before, the yellowing has always been in my tank even before I changed my dosing... so maybe I should go back to 3x micro a week, I'm just not sure which of the 3 it could be. How can my girlfriends plants in the same house be more green than mine? I know I got more plants, but yet again my tank has more water... I know I have a form of carbon so nutrient uptake is more, but plants are hardly growing so I am not convinced. Either way I will keep at full EI, and now with my liquid carbon levels hopefully uptake rate will be less than what it was, once my plants have made the appropriate changes.

Thanks again Ian for your help, I definitely do feel like this disease of diatoms is somehow in my water, and I'm not sure if a week of daily water changes at about 40% is going to do any good, it might ruin my eco system, I now also have a 6 hour photo period so that might help the plants in there transition, as it was 9 hours before.

( I also did ask if anyone has made a list of plants that melt due to carbon, but cant find any, my tank mostly has crypts, echinodorus, hygrophila's, stuaro repens, glosso, tiger lotus, java fern)
.