Plants In Your Tank

[waterdrop]

Dave,

Yes, the OP (James) I think was just asking whether to leave his lights on 24/7 (a question that happens frequently in the "New" forum.) There's no telling whether he really wanted to embark on any greater efforts towards the plants but Truck probably gave some reasonable beginner things to think about.

I'm probably to most guilty of pushing the hijack of the thread and I should probably just take my ramblings over into the planted forum. Sorry James!

But, back to your post Dave, I agree about the liquid carbon vs. the CO2 carbon, I've read it in any number of other places I believe, besides many of your good posts: the observation among planted tank practitioners is that CO2 is still superior to liquid carbon, no matter what type, low light or high light, of overall strategy the planted tank is being run with. In a low-light strategy the consensus seems to be that although liquid carbon would still not be quite as good, it at least becomes a much more reasonable option. Anyway, you've had me pretty convinced of that for a while. ( I'm sure I must seem a pretty weird bird, not just straightforward trying a real planted tank of my own but trying to just understand the principles via reading and a small bit of playing with my son's little tank! Anyway, appreciate y'alls patience with me!)

ALSO, another thing you mention is -new- to me: I always thought reactors and diffusers were roughly equal ways to deliver CO2 to the plants, with maybe reactors down in the filter piping system being a bit superior because the little bubbles of CO2 got even more chance to get chopped up and to diffuse into the water. Its really interesting hearing you say there may be yet another thing to consider.. that of "gaseous CO2 right at the leaf" VS. "aqueous CO2" distributed in the water flow. How significant is the difference? Is this a subtle thing or something that most planted tank folks know about and debate or what? Would be so interesting to understand this better..

~~waterdrop~~

 

[Dave Spencer]

ALSO, another thing you mention is -new- to me: I always thought reactors and diffusers were roughly equal ways to deliver CO2 to the plants, with maybe reactors down in the filter piping system being a bit superior because the little bubbles of CO2 got even more chance to get chopped up and to diffuse into the water. Its really interesting hearing you say there may be yet another thing to consider.. that of "gaseous CO2 right at the leaf" VS. "aqueous CO2" distributed in the water flow. How significant is the difference? Is this a subtle thing or something that most planted tank folks know about and debate or what? Would be so interesting to understand this better..

~~waterdrop~~

Have you ever noticed how much more pearling you get off plants after a water change, that were exposed to air? That is because the plants will have had access to an unlimited supply of gaseous CO2. Try achieving those levels of pearling using a reactor.

I use in line diffusion for aesthetic reasons. Having minimal hardware in the tank is important to a lot of aquascapers. Having said that, reactors become the more favourable option for diffusion in larger tanks due to difficulties in distributing CO2 bubbles around such a large area that contains a large plant mass and complex hard scape.

The most non water change derived pearling I got was when I used ceramic diffusers on my 60l and 120l. I used proportionally more CO2 than I would have done with a reactor, because a lot of bubbles from the CO2 diffuser reach the surface without coming in to contact with the plants. Reactors supply aqueous CO2 whereas ceramics supply aqueous and gaseous.

One major disadvantage with reactors is that they reduce the flow output of the filter. Despite all of the above, I still use reactors as a first choice.

This point of aqueous V gaseous is not a point I have seen debated, it is purely due to personal observation. People on other planted tank forums have noticed it too. I think Miss Wiggle was enquiring about the increased pearling from her plants after a water change a good while ago.

Dave.

 

[james morrisontoxic2]

wow from a newbies point of view,you chaps know a lot thanks for all your help ,realy interesting reading all your thoughts and points,this is a great forum

 

[waterdrop]

James,

You're taking it really well! Just wait til the search function comes back up, that'll make it a lot easier to find lots of discussions like this!

~~waterdrop~~

Dave,

I did a 50% water change on my son's tank friday and in the process I removed the giant mass of java ferns that were floating and I hadn't planted yet. I set them temporarily, damp, in a bucket while I gravel cleaned the substrate during the change. After the water change they were pearling like crazy. This would seem to reinforce your post nicely and help me remember the info! It would seem the trip out into the air gave them access to tons of CO2 and they took advantage of it. Almost makes me think a good "hospital treatment" from a plants point of view might be a trip out to the air!

What is the physical makeup of a ceramic diffuser and how to they vary in quality? I have just thought of the ceramic discs as being like airstones and requiring a pretty good pressure (too much for DIY) to push the co2 through, but I'd appreciate having a more detailed understanding.

Thanks, WD

 

[kcharley]

Wow! This is fascinating. Thank you James for starting this and thank you Aaron, WD and Dave for all the info.

As an odd (Sorry WD you are not the first person to call me odd. ) newbie, I am enjoying this. (I'm not smart so I will have to re-read it and several other articles before I can repeat any of it, let alone understand it.)

Okay, what I have picked out of this is the liquid carbon like Excel is a good product but not a good replacement for CO2 either pressurized or DIY. Second, the liquid carbon is a bit of an algaecide, which is part of the explanation why my algae problem has been minimal of late. (I also reduced the light by adding a frosted glass panel with some electrical tape on it.)
Third, there are advantages and disadvantages to diffusers and reactors. (I am going with a reactor, following in Dave's footsteps for aesthetic reasons.)

I do have a question. I'm thinking of keeping my hob filter and delivering the CO2 through the reactor via either an internal or external waterpump. Part of my reason is cost as the waterpump is cheaper than a canister filter, part is I was hoping the reactor with either gravel, bio-balls or ceramic rings would act as a second biologic filter. Thus, I would have a backup if my hob dies without warning. (As I think about it, this shouldn't be a huge concern as I could easily move an established filter from another tank and rehome the betta or do daily water changes.) So the question is, "Am I nuts for thinking of running the reactor on a water pump?"

I just thought of a wild third option. If there is a small diameter soaker hose, couldn't I just put that in the gravel and deliver the CO2 without a pump at all?

Shifting gears, I have an observation on the liquid supplements. They may be hard on fish especially sensitive ones as I lost a gold ram shortly after a dosing and had the other one showing stress. I am now dosing for more often but at lower levels. The surviving ram is doing much better.

I've got to run to work now. I'll check back when I can.

Greg

 

[james morrisontoxic2]

thanks waterdrop most interesting

 

[aaronnorth]

Pearling also occurs after a waterchange because our tap water is highly saturated in O2, so when we fill the tank up, plants are still photosynthesising and therfore producing oxygen, because no more O2 can dissolve in the water, we see oxygen bubbles forming on the plants.

I am not sure how ceramic diffusers are made up, but quite a few people use the '2 for £5' set on ebay which serve well. These prodce quite small bubbles,

Rhinox brand are dearer (but not too dear ), and you do get smaller bubbles still.

Then ther is the high price stuff like ADA and Cal-Aqua. I am not sure about these, i would imagine they would be good but after a while ALL ceramic diffusers will start to get clogged and the size of the bubbles will lower (I clean mine weekly to ensure optimum performance)

All cermaic diffusers are said to dissolve at least 90% + CO2.

Kcharley, you can run a reactor on a waterpump, here is a video:
http/uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNrY6REQNcc

 

[james morrisontoxic2]

no probs mate ive found it brill my self theres some clever people on this forum

 

[kcharley]

Kcharley, you can run a reactor on a waterpump, here is a video:
[URL="http/uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNrY6REQNcc"]http/uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNrY6REQNcc[/URL]

Thanks Aaron. Interesting setup. I'm glad the office is deserted this morning. I couldn't turn the sound down. Nothing like a little Stones on a Sunday morning.

 

[Dave Spencer]

Pearling also occurs after a waterchange because our tap water is highly saturated in O2, so when we fill the tank up, plants are still photosynthesising and therfore producing oxygen, because no more O2 can dissolve in the water, we see oxygen bubbles forming on the plants.

I`m not too sure about this Aaron. If the water was O2 saturated the bubbles would form on everything, including the fish. The plants accumulate O2 bubbles because they are producing it faster than it dissolves in to the water. The CO2 available to the plants from a water change put the photosynthesis in to over drive, causing madder than normal pearling.

Dave.

 

[aaronnorth]

Pearling also occurs after a waterchange because our tap water is highly saturated in O2, so when we fill the tank up, plants are still photosynthesising and therfore producing oxygen, because no more O2 can dissolve in the water, we see oxygen bubbles forming on the plants.

I`m not too sure about this Aaron. If the water was O2 saturated the bubbles would form on everything, including the fish. The plants accumulate O2 bubbles because they are producing it faster than it dissolves in to the water. The CO2 available to the plants from a water change put the photosynthesis in to over drive, causing madder than normal pearling.

Dave.

Fish do not produce oxygen though... do they?

Your statment about plants being in contact with the air may be correct, but this doesnt work plants that are lower down to the susbtrate, like HC/ glosso etc, yet after a water change they will still pearl.

 

[Dave Spencer]

Your statment about plants being in contact with the air may be correct, but this doesnt work plants that are lower down to the susbtrate, like HC/ glosso etc, yet after a water change they will still pearl.

I am not sure what this conversation is about to be honest. What I am saying is that there is more pearling after a water change due to plants having access to gaseous CO2. The water being high in O2 is largely irrelevant because the plants produce O2 at a rate far greater than can be dissolved by the water under any pearling conditions. It is more pronounced during a water change.

I thought you were implying that the bubbles formed because the water was O2 saturated, and no other reason. Plants pearling does not saturate the water column with O2. If the water column was O2 saturated you would see bubbles on the glass, fish etc...

As for plants lower down that are pearling....well they would do this in a high light/non limiting CO2 environment anyway. It may be more pronounced after a water change because the plants that were above the water line are carbon loaded and not taking so much from the water column, making more available to the foreground plants (just surmising here, Aaron).

When I carry out water changes in any of my tanks there is more pronounced pearling from the plants that were exposed than those that were not. You can check this out for yourself easily enough.

Dave.

P.S. WD, you can use ceramic diffusers with DIY CO2, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[aaronnorth]

I will just post what i have been told about water changes/ pearling:

Because our tap water is saturated in oxygen, and no more can be dissolved in the water - when plants are producing O2, none of this is being dissolved into the water, so they start to form on the leaves as the oxygen has no where else to go.

I now see where you are coming from with bubbles on the fish, glass etc. Because it is coming out of aqueous solution and into gaseous solution

this is the thread where i first learnt about O2 in the water, just looks like i forgot some of the onfo in it slightly lol
http/ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&a...ge&start=10

 

[waterdrop]

Wow! This is fascinating. Thank you James for starting this and thank you Aaron, WD and Dave for all the info.

As an odd (Sorry WD you are not the first person to call me odd. ) newbie, I am enjoying this. (I'm not smart so I will have to re-read it and several other articles before I can repeat any of it, let alone understand it.)

Okay, what I have picked out of this is the liquid carbon like Excel is a good product but not a good replacement for CO2 either pressurized or DIY. Second, the liquid carbon is a bit of an algaecide, which is part of the explanation why my algae problem has been minimal of late. (I also reduced the light by adding a frosted glass panel with some electrical tape on it.)
Third, there are advantages and disadvantages to diffusers and reactors. (I am going with a reactor, following in Dave's footsteps for aesthetic reasons.)

I do have a question. I'm thinking of keeping my hob filter and delivering the CO2 through the reactor via either an internal or external waterpump. Part of my reason is cost as the waterpump is cheaper than a canister filter, part is I was hoping the reactor with either gravel, bio-balls or ceramic rings would act as a second biologic filter. Thus, I would have a backup if my hob dies without warning. (As I think about it, this shouldn't be a huge concern as I could easily move an established filter from another tank and rehome the betta or do daily water changes.) So the question is, "Am I nuts for thinking of running the reactor on a water pump?"

I just thought of a wild third option. If there is a small diameter soaker hose, couldn't I just put that in the gravel and deliver the CO2 without a pump at all?

Shifting gears, I have an observation on the liquid supplements. They may be hard on fish especially sensitive ones as I lost a gold ram shortly after a dosing and had the other one showing stress. I am now dosing for more often but at lower levels. The surviving ram is doing much better.

I've got to run to work now. I'll check back when I can.

Greg

Hi kcharley,

Yes there is a clear ranking in my mind of methods of getting the "C" nutrient to the plants:
1) Best: pressurized CO2, monitored and kept as stable as possible.
2) A fair ways down from best (lol): DIY CO2 (DoItYourself fermentation in plastic soda bottles) (lots of work)
3) Third best: Liquid Carbon (as we've discussed) (expense ongoing and probably not as good by definition)

All are quite different approaches and therefor have some dramatically different pluses and minuses I believe. Pressurized, if you don't build it yourself has a pretty large upfront cost but after its adjusted is easiest to maintain and most consistent and has by far best reputation for plants. DIY, very cheap up front but work getting it built and then ongoing work keeping it maintained and things can go wrong but maintaining is pretty cheap. Liquid-C is obviously expensive ongoing and is not CO2, so is a different animal with respect to the plants.

Yes, Liquid-C is frequently discussed and used as an algaecide. There was at least one big thread where that was discussed in great detail and it is worth reading but I don't have the link within TFF. And yes, one of my takes from that thread is that liquid-C products can be tricky with respect to safety to certain plant species and fish, both in some cases.. not generally but depending on how you use it.

Per your comment about your CO2 reactor also serving as a biofilter.. yes, technically there is no reason beneficial bacteria would not populate the surfaces of say, bioballs, if they were used, just like any other surface with flowing water. But usually a CO2 reactor would be so small that it would not serve as a significant biofiltration addition I would think.

Skinny "soaker hose diffuser" idea: Hey! Cool product idea for someone.. I could see that being a dream CO2 distributor if it worked as one could picture it stretching out across a large tank. Until someone figured out a material and had it actually work though, it would have to remain a daydream though I guess!

~~waterdrop~~

 

[kcharley]

Hi kcharley,

Yes there is a clear ranking in my mind of methods of getting the "C" nutrient to the plants:
1) Best: pressurized CO2, monitored and kept as stable as possible.
2) A fair ways down from best (lol): DIY CO2 (DoItYourself fermentation in plastic soda bottles) (lots of work)
3) Third best: Liquid Carbon (as we've discussed) (expense ongoing and probably not as good by definition)

All are quite different approaches and therefor have some dramatically different pluses and minuses I believe. Pressurized, if you don't build it yourself has a pretty large upfront cost but after its adjusted is easiest to maintain and most consistent and has by far best reputation for plants. DIY, very cheap up front but work getting it built and then ongoing work keeping it maintained and things can go wrong but maintaining is pretty cheap. Liquid-C is obviously expensive ongoing and is not CO2, so is a different animal with respect to the plants.

Yes, Liquid-C is frequently discussed and used as an algaecide. There was at least one big thread where that was discussed in great detail and it is worth reading but I don't have the link within TFF. And yes, one of my takes from that thread is that liquid-C products can be tricky with respect to safety to certain plant species and fish, both in some cases.. not generally but depending on how you use it.

Per your comment about your CO2 reactor also serving as a biofilter.. yes, technically there is no reason beneficial bacteria would not populate the surfaces of say, bioballs, if they were used, just like any other surface with flowing water. But usually a CO2 reactor would be so small that it would not serve as a significant biofiltration addition I would think.

Skinny "soaker hose diffuser" idea: Hey! Cool product idea for someone.. I could see that being a dream CO2 distributor if it worked as one could picture it stretching out across a large tank. Until someone figured out a material and had it actually work though, it would have to remain a daydream though I guess!

~~waterdrop~~

Hi WD,

I am going the pressurized CO2 route. I have the regulator and should receive the tank and regulator this week. I hope to have it running in a couple of weeks.

Right now I'm using liquid carbon and ferts as I needed to do something fast. (I unintentionally overlit the tank without CO2 and had to fight back the resulting algae.) That will change when I get the CO2 going and get the dry ferts. Like any newb, I'm making a few mistakes and trying to learn from them.

On the positive side, these tanks are the best I've ever had, and I actually had a mated pair of angelfish years ago. (Wish I had known how to measure basic water quality then. It was really cool to watch them lay eggs. Would have been cooler if I had known what I was doing and could have gotten the eggs to hatch and raise the fry.)

On the biofilter issue, my hob doesn't seem to have a large area for bio filtering. Thus, I'm interested when I see a chance to get some more. I also like the idea of having some redundancy. Hopefully, I will never need it.

On the soaker hose diffuser idea, if I can find the time I will poke around the gardening/hydroponics sites some and see what I can find, but I should probably get the basic CO2 going first before I experiment with untried delivery techniques.

Later,

Greg