Lighting For 55 Gallon
- Thread starter mancin
- Start date
SuperColey1
Planted Section
The water has a natural equilibrium level that it will try to reach. The reason many people suggest no surface turbulence is to maintain the injected levels which are higher than this equilibrium. The water will always try to return to the equilibrium level and turbulence speeds this process up.
Therefore if you are injecting and have turbulence then you lose the 'extra' quicker. however many of us still have turbulence and just increase the injection rate to compensate. With DIY this isn't really feasible as the user is grasping to reach as high a level as possible. With non CO2 the equilibrium level is diminished by the plants using it and yes the water will try to return to its equilibrium but turbulence means that the process is speeded up slightly.
Turbulence will never lose CO2 from a non CO2 tank as it will always be at or under the equilibrium level. It also brings in O while it is speeding up the 'return' which is another good thing in all tanks.
Water changes are a good thing but not as necessary as people may think. Plants are a great filter. Diane Walstad methods use plants with no filters. I am not suggesting that.
I agree
I agree
Partly agree here. I don't think you'll have any issues with amount of light I suggested r.e. CO2 but as threefingers states if it is working with the current lights then there is no need to up them
AC
three-fingers
Fish Connoisseur
Ah right cool, I agree with pretty much everything your saying, except this piece:
As I have found this to be untrue. I talked about it with Aaron starting here: [URL="http
/www.fishforums.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=280212&view=findpost&p=2327361"]http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=2327361[/URL].
So I would avoid an airpump if you want plants to have better access to CO2.
Barrreport may have the answer somewhere, since as Aaron mentioned, he does have a CO2 analyser
.
But I've not seen any figures yet, and while I'm under no illusion that the test kits I'm using are accurate, both kits noticed a drop in CO2 when I put in an air pump, and measured levels in my high light tank to be 5-8ppm by the end of the day(before I started injecting CO2).
As I have found this to be untrue. I talked about it with Aaron starting here: [URL="http
/www.fishforums.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=280212&view=findpost&p=2327361"]http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=2327361[/URL].So I would avoid an airpump if you want plants to have better access to CO2.
Barrreport may have the answer somewhere, since as Aaron mentioned, he does have a CO2 analyser
.But I've not seen any figures yet, and while I'm under no illusion that the test kits I'm using are accurate, both kits noticed a drop in CO2 when I put in an air pump, and measured levels in my high light tank to be 5-8ppm by the end of the day(before I started injecting CO2).
You guys are fantastic!! This is great information. I'll continue my weekly water changes. I wasn't planning on upgrading the lighting unless I run into lighting problems, but I have been doing my research so that I know what to get in the event that I do upgrade. 
It is something I'm keeping an eye on. I wanted to give the reflectors some time to see if they would work well with my plants. If not, that's fine, but it's definitely a cheaper 'alternative' if it works for my tank and I want to rule it out before I spend the extra $$$ on brand new lighting.
It is something I'm keeping an eye on. I wanted to give the reflectors some time to see if they would work well with my plants. If not, that's fine, but it's definitely a cheaper 'alternative' if it works for my tank and I want to rule it out before I spend the extra $$$ on brand new lighting.
SuperColey1
Planted Section
this is from the barrreport where I asked the question after suggesting to someone else on this forum what you are suggesting here. I admitted later in the thread on here that I was wrong This was another thing I learned and will continue forever learning things I guess
http/www.barrreport.com/co2-aquatic-plan...not-ripple.html
AC
This was another thing I learned and will continue forever learning things I guess http
/www.barrreport.com/co2-aquatic-plan...not-ripple.htmlAC
three-fingers
Fish Connoisseur
We should nag him to test it and do experiments . Wouldn't be the easiest to do though, I would imagine experiments would require measure rates of plant growth.
That post was a very good read, the idea of misting air in low light tanks to give the plants more access to CO2 (I presume because their leaves are in contact with the tiny air bubbles and the CO2 in the air diffuses much faster) is a very interesting one, maybe this why ADA produce the Pollen Glass AIR diffusers? (I never looked into what they were for).
However, I don't believe Tom was implying using an air pump for more CO2 was a good idea. Air stones don't produce mist, they produce relatively large bubbles that break the surface, agitation it and providing more area for CO2 diffusion, bringing in closer to the very low equilibrium levels.
Doing something like aiming a spraybar from above the water into it to create an air mist may be effective (dissolved CO2 levels would be very low, but plants will have access to CO2 in the mist), but as Tom says, he has done no tests - so while that may or may not be an effective idea for the plants, it also might not be as effective as just avoiding surface agitation.
So I don't think you were wrong back then? Is there a link to that thread?
. Wouldn't be the easiest to do though, I would imagine experiments would require measure rates of plant growth.That post was a very good read, the idea of misting air in low light tanks to give the plants more access to CO2 (I presume because their leaves are in contact with the tiny air bubbles and the CO2 in the air diffuses much faster) is a very interesting one, maybe this why ADA produce the Pollen Glass AIR diffusers? (I never looked into what they were for).
However, I don't believe Tom was implying using an air pump for more CO2 was a good idea. Air stones don't produce mist, they produce relatively large bubbles that break the surface, agitation it and providing more area for CO2 diffusion, bringing in closer to the very low equilibrium levels.
Doing something like aiming a spraybar from above the water into it to create an air mist may be effective (dissolved CO2 levels would be very low, but plants will have access to CO2 in the mist), but as Tom says, he has done no tests - so while that may or may not be an effective idea for the plants, it also might not be as effective as just avoiding surface agitation.
So I don't think you were wrong back then? Is there a link to that thread?
SuperColey1
Planted Section
I'll check for the thread and post it tomorrow
What I mean is say the equilibrium level is 3ppm. (Will be lower in higher temps I suspect)
The water tries to maintain equilibrium at 3ppm it won't go above this level without us forcing it in via injection. When the plants use CO2 the level drops and the water tries to return to 3ppm. When we disturb the surface the CO2 won't be lost because it is already under the equilibrium. The agitation just gives the water a faster route of returning to the 3ppm. At night it doesn't really matter. The plants produce CO2, the water expells the amount over the 3ppm.
Therefore what I am saying is that with agitation we maintain the 3ppm because the 'added area of water surface' brings the amount used by plants back in quicker. In much the same way as we bring more O into the water by more surface turbulence.
I would suggest the amount of CO2 created by fish (unless its a 20x overstocked ebayer's tank) would be absolutely minimal in comparison to the 3ppm equilibrium level.
Seems from the thread you linked to that Aaron says the same as me I guess we both read the same sites (although I have never read any Walstad from book nor web)
It seems from reading the following link that 0.5ppm is the concetration of CO2 in 'sterile' water, not in water in general. The 8/9ppm suggestion comes from page 93 of DWs book and I guess is due to her choice of substrate. The chap in the next link says 3-5ppm (like me ) Don't know where I read that but it wasn't on the link below, incidentaly how do you measure your levels? Is it via the Ph/KH chart by any chance If so I would assume that is why your levels seem so high, I don't think they are actually 15ppm in the evening although I have been proved wrong many times before. lol:
http/fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/mont...2/msg00617.html
I think non Co2 equilibrium is a subject noone seems to care about enough to test but you can pick some snippets of 'wisdom' from between the lines Maybe we have all gone past the stage of doing natural tanks and concentrate more on the higher tec levels these days.
http/www.barrreport.com/general-plant-to...irculation.html
And this is way over my head
http/www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/...bonate/CO2.html
I also just noticed these snippets in Tom's Non Co2 thread:
Doing water changes adds CO2 back to a CO2 limited tank. Plants and algae both can and do adapt to low CO2 environments and induce genes to make enzymes that concentrate CO2 around Rubisco, the CO2 fixing enzyme. Algae tend to be better at it and have a faster response time and much shorter life cycle. When we add the CO2 at higher levels, this causes the plants and algae to destroy the low CO2 enzymes and start growing without of them since they no longer need them to fix CO2 form the KH ( the -HCO3). Why keep all this machinery around if you no longer need it? Doing weekly water changes "fools" the plants and helps encourage algae more. Algae are faster to respond to low CO2 than plants. Once the plants do adapt, they can do well. Plants want stable CO2 and nutrients to do best.
The other options are add lots of mulm instead and leonardite. Leonardite is great, it last a very long time, adds a slow release form of carbon, matches the gravel's color, sinks easily poses no issues if you disturb and uproot plants. You should always add fresh mulm to any new tank. Add some form of carbon as well, pre soaked/boiled soil, pre soaked peat, leonardite.
If you want Leonardite it goes under the 'tradename' of Black Diamond in the US. In the UK it is called 'Soil Builder Granules' and made by a company called earthworks. It is cheap stuff, I use it whether CO2 enriched or not :
http/www.edirectory.co.uk/pf/880/mia/d/e...ack/pid/4262092
The CO2 build up from night is used up in about 20-60 minutes when you turn on the lights. Then the plants go into CO2 limited mode and stay there. The amount from fish/bacteria is relatively small compared to a water change and the fish/bacteria and diffusion take place during the day as well, not just at night. It's not an algae issue, it's a plant issue. Messing with the plant's adaptation will cause them to shut down and slow their growth until the environment stabilizes.
Some reading for your amusement
AC
What I mean is say the equilibrium level is 3ppm. (Will be lower in higher temps I suspect)
The water tries to maintain equilibrium at 3ppm it won't go above this level without us forcing it in via injection. When the plants use CO2 the level drops and the water tries to return to 3ppm. When we disturb the surface the CO2 won't be lost because it is already under the equilibrium. The agitation just gives the water a faster route of returning to the 3ppm. At night it doesn't really matter. The plants produce CO2, the water expells the amount over the 3ppm.
Therefore what I am saying is that with agitation we maintain the 3ppm because the 'added area of water surface' brings the amount used by plants back in quicker. In much the same way as we bring more O into the water by more surface turbulence.
I would suggest the amount of CO2 created by fish (unless its a 20x overstocked ebayer's tank) would be absolutely minimal in comparison to the 3ppm equilibrium level.
Seems from the thread you linked to that Aaron says the same as me
I guess we both read the same sites (although I have never read any Walstad from book nor web)It seems from reading the following link that 0.5ppm is the concetration of CO2 in 'sterile' water, not in water in general. The 8/9ppm suggestion comes from page 93 of DWs book and I guess is due to her choice of substrate. The chap in the next link says 3-5ppm (like me
) Don't know where I read that but it wasn't on the link below, incidentaly how do you measure your levels? Is it via the Ph/KH chart by any chance If so I would assume that is why your levels seem so high, I don't think they are actually 15ppm in the evening although I have been proved wrong many times before. lol: http
/fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/mont...2/msg00617.htmlI think non Co2 equilibrium is a subject noone seems to care about enough to test but you can pick some snippets of 'wisdom' from between the lines
Maybe we have all gone past the stage of doing natural tanks and concentrate more on the higher tec levels these days.http
/www.barrreport.com/general-plant-to...irculation.htmlAnd this is way over my head
http
/www.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/...bonate/CO2.htmlI also just noticed these snippets in Tom's Non Co2 thread:
Doing water changes adds CO2 back to a CO2 limited tank. Plants and algae both can and do adapt to low CO2 environments and induce genes to make enzymes that concentrate CO2 around Rubisco, the CO2 fixing enzyme. Algae tend to be better at it and have a faster response time and much shorter life cycle. When we add the CO2 at higher levels, this causes the plants and algae to destroy the low CO2 enzymes and start growing without of them since they no longer need them to fix CO2 form the KH ( the -HCO3). Why keep all this machinery around if you no longer need it? Doing weekly water changes "fools" the plants and helps encourage algae more. Algae are faster to respond to low CO2 than plants. Once the plants do adapt, they can do well. Plants want stable CO2 and nutrients to do best.
The other options are add lots of mulm instead and leonardite. Leonardite is great, it last a very long time, adds a slow release form of carbon, matches the gravel's color, sinks easily poses no issues if you disturb and uproot plants. You should always add fresh mulm to any new tank. Add some form of carbon as well, pre soaked/boiled soil, pre soaked peat, leonardite.
If you want Leonardite it goes under the 'tradename' of Black Diamond in the US. In the UK it is called 'Soil Builder Granules' and made by a company called earthworks. It is cheap stuff, I use it whether CO2 enriched or not
:http
/www.edirectory.co.uk/pf/880/mia/d/e...ack/pid/4262092The CO2 build up from night is used up in about 20-60 minutes when you turn on the lights. Then the plants go into CO2 limited mode and stay there. The amount from fish/bacteria is relatively small compared to a water change and the fish/bacteria and diffusion take place during the day as well, not just at night. It's not an algae issue, it's a plant issue. Messing with the plant's adaptation will cause them to shut down and slow their growth until the environment stabilizes.
Some reading for your amusement
AC
aaronnorth
www.ukaps.org
here is the thread if that is what you are reffering to
[URL="http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...;hl=equilibrium"]http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...;hl=equilibrium[/URL]
Andy, the link which went 'over your head' is just analysing the equilibrium of carbon dioxide to carbonic acid. which is basically
CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3
H2CO3 <=> H+ + HCO3-
we need a paper which is analysing the equilbrium point of CO2 levels in air to water,
lets just hope Tom reads this
[URL="http
/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...;hl=equilibrium"]http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...;hl=equilibrium[/URL]Andy, the link which went 'over your head' is just analysing the equilibrium of carbon dioxide to carbonic acid. which is basically
CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3
H2CO3 <=> H+ + HCO3-
we need a paper which is analysing the equilbrium point of CO2 levels in air to water,
lets just hope Tom reads this
three-fingers
Fish Connoisseur
I'll check for the thread and post it tomorrow
What I mean is say the equilibrium level is 3ppm. (Will be lower in higher temps I suspect)
The water tries to maintain equilibrium at 3ppm it won't go above this level without us forcing it in via injection. When the plants use CO2 the level drops and the water tries to return to 3ppm. When we disturb the surface the CO2 won't be lost because it is already under the equilibrium. The agitation just gives the water a faster route of returning to the 3ppm. At night it doesn't really matter. The plants produce CO2, the water expells the amount over the 3ppm.
Therefore what I am saying is that with agitation we maintain the 3ppm because the 'added area of water surface' brings the amount used by plants back in quicker. In much the same way as we bring more O into the water by more surface turbulence.
Cool
.No, the equilibrium level is still 0.5ppm, and adding surface agitation will only bring it towards that.
The reason non-sterile water has more is because of the bacteria and other organisms respiring. Take a sample of pond water with 3ppm of CO2, shake it around for long enough for CO2 to diffuse, and it should go back down to 0.5ppm. Wait a bit for the organisms to respire more and it should go to 3ppm again.
The organisms are in effect "injecting" CO2.
Of course that would need to be done with a CO2 analyser
. In my pretty new very lightly stocked shrimp set up with quite high lighting, I was finding 5-8ppm CO2 by the end of the day. In my heavily stocked and heavily planted with medium lighting corner tank I can get anywhere between 8-15ppm by the end of the day (depends on if the power head breaking the surface is working). Before I added the power head and air pump, CO2 levels were even higher than that.
Its not just the fish, it's the bacteria on pretty much every surface of the aquarium, in the substrate and in the filter breaking down waste.
Like I said in the other thread, levels would vary from tank to tank, but as long as they are above 0.5ppm, surface agitation is working against the plants.
While I don't trust those levels to be very accurate, I used two different test kits (Aquasonic CO2 test kit, and a pH/KH cart using a Nutrafin KH test kit and an API pH kit) and the results were similar so I don't think they are that far off. The pH/KH chart result was much higher than 15ppm because I have soft ~ pH 7 water from the tap, and I'm guessed the bogwood in my tank was skewing those results, so I just used the lower results from the other test kit (which I used several times to make sure I was getting consistent results).
Some reading for your amusement
I'd like to find out what it takes for plants to go into CO2 limited mode, is it literally 0ppm? Or is it just low concentrations low enough so that it's harder for the plant to scavenge for the CO2, like maybe 3ppm? Obviously it would depend on species, and it may not be bad for some if they can use other carbon sources well.
But regardless, surface agitation still doesn't make sense to me yet unless the CO2 is below 0.5ppm, which to me thus far seems very unlikely in our aquariums.
I hope Tom does read this, I think I might also PM Bignose to see if he has any thoughts on the subject, chemistry seems to a strong point of his
.Similar threads
Most reactions
-
343 -
198 -
157 -
140 -
123 -
122 -
102 -
95 -
89 -
83 -
80 -
76 -
75 -
72 -
A
56