[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[APD] Re: CO2 30ppm

> Prior, I had never once ever heard a single soul mention more than 15ppm
> for a plant tank anywhere.

>Sorry Tom, you have been great at getting the word out in terms of "fighting
>algae by growing plants" and you have done some great work actually pinning
>down the values of nutrients that seem to be critical.  But I can't let you
>take credit for this one. ;-)  Ines Scheurmann was advocating CO2 levels
>between 20-30 mg/L as early as 1950 in Germany, and this information was
>available to us in English here in the U.S. by the mid-80's. (hey, we were
>30 years behind the times, but...)

I said I, me personally.
I'm sure others have tried other routines.
I'm sure there are othe references as I suggested in the Bowes reference for support of 30ppm.
The most common blurb is 10-15ppm with 15ppm being the most widely stated amount on the web and it the books I have here.

>The point where I heard 10-15 mg/L being popularized was when Tetra came out
>with those horrible little diving bells and uncontrollable (and
>unfill-up-able<g>) little CO2 systems.  My feeling is that they figured
>they'd split the difference... 10-15 mg/L was better than none, and it gave
>more margin for error before people started killing their fish.  I suspect
>this second was a major concern with over stocked, under planted tanks with
>too little light, and poorly controlled CO2 delivery systems.


>> So why 20-30ppm?
>> I based it on the plants response, fish? They where fine, I had Discus,
>> Congo tetras etc.
>> I also had much higher light than most folks.

>Again, in the 80's, there was at least one article I remember in Aquarium
>Today where an aquarist in Germany pushed the level (slowly and carefully)
>up to 40 mg/L without harm to the fish in the tank.  This was done as an
>experiment on the safety of CO2 use, however, I don't think you actually
>need to keep levels that high.  The point was, there was a wide margin of
>safety.  Personally, I've been keeping my CO2 level between 20-25 mg/L since
>I started using pressurized CO2. (and before I met you ;-)

Main point here is that few folks have said much about or challenged 15ppm as a good level(which is fine for a low light/under planted tank.

>> So if you add 2x more light, you'll need 2-3x more nutrients and CO2 is
>> the first one to worry about.

>Absolutely.  I know you know this, but I'll remind other people reading this
>that plants are 43% carbon by dry weight.  This need MUST be met somewhere
>if growth is going to be healthy.

You bet, at a rate also related to light.

>OK, here's a question for you, Nutrient Meister.<g>  Do plants take up
>nutrients at night or only during the photoperiod? 


> Are you better off doing
>a "megadosing" like this in the morning, or just before the lights go out in
>order to have the plants slurp them up as fast as possible?

I like to do waters in the morning.
So I dose at night.

I do not think it matter much.
No light means no algae, .....if........... something is unbalaced.
But the thing is to fatten up the plants, some don't like "fat" plants, rather they prefer "lean" red plants.

Many folks have still done the 15ppm so I raised it much like the German feller.
I did the same thing he did independently, so he can have the credit, that's fine with me.
I can report he's right then:-) but unless you get that message out and show it, it'll be lost.

Tom Barr

Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com