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. We are after as many aquarium plant images that we can get, doing so will assist us in completing the aquarium plant database.

    https://barrreport.com/threads/aquatic-plant-images-wanted.14374/
    Dismiss Notice

less co2, better growth?

Discussion in 'CO2 Enrichment' started by i4yue, Jun 24, 2013.

  1. i4yue

    i4yue Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    1
    Local Time:
    6:49 AM
    So Iv seen people with high light and lower co2 and have amazing growth. My tank is high light and high co2 and my growth isn't bad, but not as good as expected. why is that? for example, my 55 has 4 t5 and co2 at 7bps. my friends 55 also has 4 t5 but co2 at 1bps and he doesn't have algae. when I had my co2 that low algae was meverywhere... and growth sucked... explanations anyone?
     
  2. Matt F.

    Matt F. Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    4
    Local Time:
    6:49 AM
    I, too, have noticed this. In my buddy's 55 gallon tank that gets a 10% water change once a week (with no dechlor), no fertilization,
     
  3. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,691
    Likes Received:
    711
    Local Time:
    6:49 AM
    Quire a few things are left out that are informative when making such comparisons, bubble rates are not good for measuring CO2.
    My ATI's kill and stomp most other brands of T5's, bulb types also make a difference. But then again, I have a PAR meter.

    So poor measurement and discussion of their set up leads to huge differences in said ppm's/PAR etc.

    With less CO2/no ferts(this is not true, they are coming from SOMEWHERE), plants will still grow, but it's more difficult for most people.
    You can strongly limit PO4............and this is likely the case............since none are beign added, which will make PO4 more limiting than say CO2.
    PMDD method suggested this routine 15 years ago, nearly 20 years ago actually.

    Goes back to Liebig's law of the minimum.
    In other words, there is dependency from strongly limiting say one nutrient like PO4, on all other factors of growth.

    http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/

    But this was for algae control, which is obviously false.

    But, the method still grows plants, just nowhere near as well as a non limiting method, EI is about the only one common in the hobby, or Hoagland's in Hydroponics.
    Soil and new ADA soil is non limiting also, but this does not last for more than maybe 1-2 years for Nitrogen.

    The other nutrients?
    Soil will last for maybe a decade I'd say.
    But not for N.

    So...........if you make sure to add that, and some Ca/K/Mg/Traces, you'll be doing well, but adding some NO3/PO4 will only help.

    Non limiting nutrient dosing highlights your issues with light and CO2. So you can focus on those and then.........no worry about any of that.
     
  4. i4yue

    i4yue Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    1
    Local Time:
    6:49 AM
    planted aquariums has got soooo many scientific things behind it.... I don't think I could learn in a lifetime...
     
  5. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,691
    Likes Received:
    711
    Local Time:
    6:49 AM
    It all revolves around Liebig's law.
    I'd seriously Question whether they get more growth with less CO2, that's not correct.
    They still get growth, but it is at a slower rate.

    Because many are poor at CO2 management, limiting a nutrient has been popular for all the wrong reasons.
    They do not acknowledge the dependency.

    As if by "magic".

    Or this one is real hoot " there is so much we do not know about Science and nature."
    No manure Sherlock. But it does not support what they claimed.
    This is appealing to "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
    We ALREADY know that Liebig's law controls each of the main aspects of growth, light, CO2, temp, ferts, etc.
    Plants will STILL grow without dosing in some tanks, while others will require decent dosing to achieve a high level of growth and vitality.
    Is this surprising knowing what we know about Liebig's law? Not in the least.
    Observations made by a wide group of people with many variables that often are overlooked or left out really make it hard to make any general sense of what works or not.
    Some use CO2, some do not, should we believe the non cO2 folks or go with the CO2 enrichment?
    Both are valid methods.


    Does Liebig's law show such believers room for improvement? Certainly.
    Are such improvements good management? Sometimes, this is debatable, but that is different from some of these weak logical fallacies used.
    I think many know better, but still try and use these false logic approaches, that pisses me off. Caesar said it best "Men willingly believe what they want to believe".
    That is what causes many good growers to fall for less is best approaches for ferts, but not light or CO2 enrichment.
    They want to believe it.

    Some classics from this group of believers:

    "argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons. Examples? there are plenty in this hobby.
    ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
    If I had a nickel for everytime that happened to me.........
    appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something.
    bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it.
    confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs.
    confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning"
    non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?


    Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:

    1) Skepticism of unsupported claims

    2) Combination of an open mind with critical thinking

    3) Attempts to repeat experimental results.

    4) Requires testability

    5) Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

    6) Uses descriptive language

    7) Performs controlled experiments

    8) Self-correcting

    9) Relies on evidence and reason

    10) Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge

    11) Produces useful knowledge



    Pseudoscience relies on some of the following criteria:

    1) Has a negative attitude to skepticism

    2) Does not require critical thinking

    3) Does not require experimental repeatability

    4) Does not require tests

    5) Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

    6) Uses vague language

    7) Relies on anecdotal evidence

    8) No self-correction

    9) Relies on belief and faith

    10) Makes absolute claims

    11) Produces no useful knowledge
    "
     
  6. aquabillpers

    aquabillpers Lifetime Charter Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    3
    Local Time:
    6:49 AM
    Maybe, maybe not.

    But if you chose the the soil-based, lower light, non-CO2 approach to planted aquaria that Diana Walstad advocates, you wouldn't have to be concerned with many of the technical issues that that are raised here and at other planted tank sites. You could just watch the plants grow.

    Good luck!

    Bill
     
  7. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,691
    Likes Received:
    711
    Local Time:
    6:49 AM
    But many want the pain it seems, but when asked what might be ideal, they often state the deliverable goals of the non CO2 methods.

    Most are not patient though.
     
  8. Tom Barr

    Tom Barr Founder
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,691
    Likes Received:
    711
    Local Time:
    6:49 AM
    Following Aquabillpers logic:

    How is possible that a non CO2 planted tank does well, and is algae free?
    How can a tank do so well without any water changes, any dosing of fertilizers and no CO2 enrichment, or high light?
    I mean if we chose to argue a philosophy, we should be consistent throughout.

    Why are many selective and only take one element that they like to believe is somehow best, rather than the holistic view?
    Non CO2 goes for the holistic view for less is best, EI/high light, rich CO2 goes the full non limiting route.
    Different goals, and as you increase/decrease the rates of growth for the desired management, you need to adjust each aspect, not just ferts, or assume you are doing something that might be magic, chances are, you are not, you just overlooked something.

    But if you strongly limit say PO4, you are now wasting all that light, and the CO2, and the other ferts, since they are all in excess, liebig's law is clear as day about this, if PO4 is the most limiting factor, then everything else is wasted, excess levels of pollution as some have claimed EI to be.
    CO2 was a huge debate when it was suggested for use in aquariums.

    It kills more fish and causes more issues than any other.

    But these fallacies that many hobby enjoy believing seem particularly enamoured with fertilizers, mostly just N and P, sometimes K, and little bit Traces.
    But it's okay to have high excessive levels in the soil for some reason. Suddenly that's okay.

    But never poo poo CO2 usage?
    Wha?
    It all centers around Liebig's law. You cannot escape that.
    If the method is not placed in that context, then we really have little idea what the heck we are talking about.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice