This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Co2 Micro Bubbles and fish health

Discussion in 'CO2 Enrichment' started by Professor Myers, Oct 19, 2007.

  1. Professor Myers

    Professor Myers Guru Class Expert

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm here to pick a fight ! :p

    Could someone "Anyone" Please direct me to "Any" and or "All" "Scientific Data" demonstrating that Co2 Micro Bubbles have "Any" Ill Effect on Fish Health.

    This suppostion often gets tossed into the discussion of Co2 misting and It's my own personal observation and belief that this is Absolute Hogwash ! :mad:

    I am really anxiously looking forward to any "Demonstrated Facts" to the contrary.

    Until then I'd graciously invite everyone to simply eliminate this rubbish from all future discussions on this board, as it's pure conjecture, and it may mislead, and discourage folks from the practice of Co2 misting or improving upon the efficiency and mechanics of it.

    This Is A Myth...Nothing More ! :rolleyes:

    BOOGA ! BOOGA !!! :D Prof M
     
  2. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,517
    Likes Received:
    404
    I know of nothing on this topic, as washing in of CO2 laden water in pure CO2 form is not a normal occurance except in this specific case.

    We do see high levels of CO2 in Brazil and in Florida seeping from Krast limestone springs/ground water, 10-25 ppm or so, depending on location, dense lush plant growth, very well populated and productive fish populations swimming around etc, crystal clear water etc. But it's in the [aq] form, not the [gas] form.

    Differentiation between the gas and the aqueous phase would be an experimental challenge to say the least, you cannot label the CO2 with radio active Carbon to tell what phase the CO2 is in.

    I can do it with respect to growth indirectly(using N2 gas as a control for breaking up the boundary layers) and I can measure the differences due to the boundary layers with plant's and photosynthetic O2 production, or some other measure of growth(dry weigh differences etc).

    So........unless someone is willing to spend a lot of time, has a design that will answer this question and energy and money to do this and do it right, we will never have the answer, of course there will always be some poster, preaching doom and gloom, but never offering any real test, any real support but is extremely passionate about arguing on line.
    Pure speculation.

    There are some defining personality traits I've seen in the group.
    1. Often have no experience even testing to begin with or setting up designed experiments of any sort.
    2. Act as if they are experts and on the same playing field and have some sort of "authority", apparently based on "ignorance".
    I admit my ignorance and then I go about doing something about it. I call it learning and educating yourself.
    3. They engage in semantics, not debate, not learning, because they are not really interested in debate or learning, they are interested in fulfilling their ego's desires.

    After getting a lashing till their ego's bleed, some have it in for you. But I'll keep lashing them till they learn not to use arguments for their ego.
    Solution?
    Stick to the topic, try and figure out solutions rather than being a troll egomanica.

    Now most are not this way(fortunately).
    Folks often ask some questions simply because they do not know, or are trying to get involved etc, with true intention. But it becomes clear when they take it personally and try to play stupid child games with you. The "real folks" have nothing to fear, just pursue the passion and seek the knowledge.

    No one will ever bite your head off for that except a real troll.


    Regards,
    Tom Barr
     
  3. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,517
    Likes Received:
    404
    There is some evidence for super saturation of O2(bubble eye etc), but not CO2.
    Some fish get the bends etc due to gas pressure changes etc, but these have not been shown due to CO2 or in our tanks and are generally due to the aqueous phase, not the gas phase.

    The fish and us for that matter mush take up the O2 and expel the CO2 via the aqueous phase, not the gas phase, the exchange takes place in our lungs from gas to aqueous.

    Our blood, fish's blood, plant cells etc are in a liquid water medium, not A GAS PHASE!
    So it must go to the liquid dissolved phase either way, all CO2 mist will do increase the rate of exchange since it hits the fish and the plants.

    If you accept this idea, that it is bad for fish, then we should increases in health using O2 gas mist since the exchange will also increase relative to a say 7ppm dissolved [aq] phase for the mist/non mist treatments.

    How would you measure fish health?

    Perhaps culling some and measuring the blood, the metabolites, stress enzyme levels(HSP's etc).

    Measuring respiration differences of the fish in a closed chamber(this has many issues and is hardly realitistic).

    Hard to say, of course suggesting behavioral differences suggest = negative or positive issues is far more dubious and runs into some many assumptions that even behavioral biologist have many issues with.

    Fish have troubles without any plants or gas being added.
    There's plenty of research that suggest 10ppm of CO2 or higher is bad, but few whine and cry over that bit of research, but it's taken from degraded natural or man made systems in lakes etc or near sewer outflows etc.


    Regards,
    Tom Barr
     
Loading...

Share This Page