• 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

Plants with and without CO2 in pictures

Flukeworld

Flukeworld

Member
Joined
6 Feb 2021
Messages
61
Location
Bulgaria
I am planning to do this for sometime now, basically to make comparison pics of my plants from the tank with CO2 and the other one without. There are more differences of course than just the CO2 injection like light levels and fertilization which are required for non CO2 tank. This also makes a difference, but still its obvious CO2 is the main differentiator here.

01. Staurogyne Repens.jpg
02. Sagittaria Subulata.jpg
03. Cryptocoryne Wendtii 'brown'.jpg
04. Lagenandra Meeboldii 'red'.jpg
05. Bucephalandra sp. Brownie Brown.jpg
06. Hygrophila Polysperma 'Rosanervig'.jpg
07. Limnophila Sessiliflora.jpg
08. Pogostemon Stellatus Octopus.jpg
09. Ludwigia Repens.jpg
10. Ludwigia Palustris Green.jpg
11. Ludwigia Palustris Red.jpg
12. Micranthemum Umbrosum.jpg
13. Hemianthus Micranthemoides.jpg
 
Flukeworld said:
but still its obvious CO2 is the main differentiator here.
Click to expand...

Not really....

Not intending to start a CO2 vs. non-CO2 war here, but the above post is somewhat misleading in my opinion. Wendtii’s, Buce Brown, S. Repens or Rosernavig are not hard to grow low-tech - will take bit longer for sure, but otherwise not a problem. And why show plants such as the depicted Luwigia that are notoriously hard to grow in a non-CO2 tank? In no small part due to the way they are cultivated by growers.... Anyway, let's not try to make it black and white - nothing in this hobby is ever black and white. There are variations in terms of what CO2 tank keepers can accomplish or rather, often fail to accomplish (check the algae section on this forum). And of course there are variations in terms of what non-CO2 tank keepers can accomplish as well - for instance:

A year old tank with high light, lean dosing and NO CO2 - not many, even here on this forum applying CO2, are matching this with these plant species:
1669171406571.png
Source. Above @Sudipta tank is definitely an anomaly, but worth remembering for proper balance and perspective.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
John q said:
Awesome post 👍
Probably just me but my limnophila sessiliflora grew more compact in low light, no co2. To my eyes the same comparison can be made with your pics.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
As for the Limnophila, yes, seems it grows much more compact and dense in my non CO2 tank, not sure is it the light or its both light and CO2. The difference between rings of leaves on the stem is amazing - with high tech aquarium its can go over 5cm with empty stem, where in the lazy tank its no more than 1-2cm and looks much better. The only good from high light and CO2 for Limnophila is that the tops get reddish/orange once it reaches closer to the light.
 
Last edited:
MichaelJ said:
Not really....

Not intending to start a CO2 vs. non-CO2 war here, but the above post is somewhat misleading in my opinion. First off, what is the source of these pictures? They look very constructed. Why didn't they show flourishing Wendtii’s Buce's, S. Repens or Rosernavig from a non-CO2 tank - which are not hard to grow low-tech - will take bit longer for sure, but otherwise not a problem) ? And why show plants such as the depicted Luwigia that are notoriously hard to grow in a non-CO2 tank? In no small part due to the way they are cultivated by growers.... Anyway, let's not fool anyone here and not try to make it black and white - nothing in this hobby is ever black and white. There are variations in terms of what CO2 tank keepers can accomplish or rather, often fail to accomplish (check the algae section on this forum). And of course there are variations in terms of what non-CO2 tank keepers can accomplish as well - for instance:

A year old tank with high light, lean dosing and NO CO2 - not many, even here on this forum applying CO2, are matching this:
View attachment 198058
Source. Above @Sudipta tank is definitely an anomaly, but worth remembering for proper balance and perspective.

Cheers,
Michael
Click to expand...
Hello,
Sorry if it looks like advertising post, but that is not my intention. For me many of the pics show that some plants may look if not better (limnophilia is much dense, hydrophilia is more orange) than the same as compared to the high tech fast growing tank. Its not a secret that CO2 boosts the growth with a lot, which in many cases is not so pleasant thing as it requires much more maintenance. The plants shown are the plants I have. Its even interesting for me to see this comparison depicted each plant close to each other from different tanks. I was thinking it would be interesting to the public. If I knew it would trigger someone, I wouldnt post those.
As for the amazingly beautiful tank you posted, well, I wont believe there is no CO2 in some form at least liquid one. But anyway I will take it as it is said.
 
Last edited:
Flukeworld said:
The plants shown are the plants I have. Its even interesting for me to see this comparison depicted each plant close to each other from different tanks.
Click to expand...
Hi @Flukeworld, thats the bit that I objected to. Its sort of a good case high-tech vs. bad case low-tech... I would have objected as well if the picture collage would have shown all the high-tech plants covered in algae and beautiful algae-free low-tech examples. It's hard to judge these examples without knowing more details about the tanks and conditions the plants was grown under and as said many of the plants (listed above) will indeed do well in low-tech under proper care.
Flukeworld said:
I was thinking it would be interesting to the public. If I knew it would trigger someone, I wouldnt post those.
Click to expand...
I think your intention was well meant. Don't be discouraged by my comments - hey, it got us talking 🙂

Flukeworld said:
As for the amazingly beautiful tank you posted, well, I wont believe there is no CO2 in some form at least liquid one. But anyway I will take it as it is said.
Click to expand...
No CO2 - gaseous nor "liquid".

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
MichaelJ said:
Hi @sparkyweasel, I actually failed to realize that it was based on @Flukeworld's own experience - my bad!

I will make some slight changes to my original post to reflect this. However, the point I was trying to drive home still stands of course.

Cheers,
Michael
Click to expand...
Well, you have a point. Without knowing the context it would look like an advertisement for going gassing.. which I would not recommend so easily. This includes a lot more maintenance and care than going slow. But anyway.
If you check my journal may be it would be more clear what I am up to, but I agree I owe the public more clearance of what I am going trough and what are those pics.

So here they are, pics from the day.
Main tank 170 liters by size, real 140 liters including the canister, CO2 injected, 2x Zetlight Lancia 2 - 36 wats, Fluval 407 canister, full EI dosing with self made micro and macros from salts using the IFC calculator. 70-75% water changes weekly. Started on 28.07.2020:
20221115_165207.jpg
I cannot say its perfect. I work a lot on getting it better, but still cannot solve the BGA here and there (check the stone colloring).

This one is an experimental one. Its been redone several times, now it runs from 01.07.2022 trying to be somewhat slow going fry fish tank. No CO2, 34 liters real volume, Fluval 207 canister bumped with media to the top and running lowered in less than 50% capacity, Zetlight Lancia 2 - 16 wats. Same fertilization as the big tank but 1/10 of dosage weekly, same water changes weekly. If I increase the light it gets overwhelmed with hair algae. Still have some here and there, and somewhat I see black beard trying its way on slow growers, so I cannot afford more light on this one..
20221123_185721.jpg

May be it worth mentioning that I have very soft water, which I harden a bit with Magnesium and Calcium on water changes.
About the lightning periods, I start at 10AM to 11AM as warmup lightning, then from 11AM to 5PM its on heavy light but not on maximum, from 5PM to 7PM its sunset on 15%. From 7PM to 10PM its ambient light on 5%.
Plants are taken in their form from the large tank. I can see the morphing with time, which is really nice experience. Thus, I made the pics which are shown here as comparison.

Here the full picture, which I believe worth the view:
20221115_165211.jpg
 
Flukeworld said:
This weekend I have replanted my both aquariums, as stem plans grew to that point where cutting would remove the best of them, so here one more:

View attachment 198265

I would love to see what other people experience having both fast and slow growing systems.
Click to expand...
Great job! You obviously know how to do both.... I'll go with the NO CO2 version. Less work for me and less complexity, but yes, the CO2 bunch looks great!

Cheers,
Michael
 
MichaelJ said:
Great job! You obviously know how to do both.... I'll go with the NO CO2 version. Less work for me and less complexity, but yes, the CO2 bunch looks great!

Cheers,
Michael
Click to expand...
I believe its like the guitar vs piano - its hard to start on a guitar but its the one that can get you to good playing fast, if you have it of course, but never to the greatness of what you can do on a piano if you master it. Translated, if you have common sense and knowledge you can master a CO2 tank, but to master a non CO2 one is the next level. When I am saying mastering, I mean something looking close as what MichaelJ posted above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top