Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [UniQuaria] Re: A Different CO2 Theory

Expand Messages
  • Nimish Mathur
    Thanks Giancarlo, That does make sense, but what I was stressing at was that is it not possible to have a medium -high light setup tank with loads of surface
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 1 12:42 AM
    • 0 Attachment

      Thanks Giancarlo,

       

      That does make sense, but what I was stressing at was that is it not possible to have a medium –high light setup tank with loads of surface agitation and a good flow of water (like in the wild) so that there is always some (even though very little) CO2 always available to the plants? What causes CO2 deficiency? Is it absence of CO2 or irregular availability of CO2? Will a constant supply of CO2 in very little quantities not work? Would it be an experiment worth trying? I will have to read Walstead again.. guess I forgot a lot about it or I find it difficult to agree with some points. How does soil Aid in increasing carbon content?

       

      Thanks,

      Nim

       


      From: Giancarlo Podio [mailto:gpodio@...]
      Sent: 31 March 2005 21:38
      To: UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [UniQuaria] Re: A Different CO2 Theory

       



      Not quite. There is a big difference between the ease at which carbon
      is taken in from air or underwater. It is rather difficult for plants
      to use carbon dissolved in water which makes most non-CO2 enriched
      tanks "CO2 limited". We therefore raise the CO2 concentration in
      order to increase the osmotic pressure between the two mediums,
      making it easier for the plant to absorb it. This is the case with
      many nutrients and the base of most modern fertilization techniques.
      So it's not just about the percentage of a certain element that makes
      up the plant matter itself, but the ability to absorb it in different
      conditions and therefore higher or lower concentrations are used to
      change the ease of uptake.
       
      It's enough for a low to medium lit tank. In most cases however,
      limiting gas exchanges can lead to higher CO2 levels in the tank
      compared to atmospheric concentrations due to fish and bacteria
      respiration and breakdown of organic substances.


      > What happens in streams in rivers? I find
      > it difficult to digest the idea of rotting leaves and bacterial
      processes in
      > the soil creating enough CO2 that plants need, rather, atmospheric
      dissolved
      > CO2 as the water flows sounds more reasonable.
      >

      Well there's a lot to be said about soil substrates. They can indeed
      provide carbon in sufficient quantities. Planted tanks of the past
      were often setup with soil or semi soil substrates. They obviously
      also have their downfalls which made modern substrates an easier
      choice for most with the addition of CO2. If interested, Diana
      Walstad's book has a great collection of information regarding all
      aspects of nutrient uptake and in particular soil substrates.

      You also need to consider that most plants we keep submerged are not
      fully submerged in nature, some are only submerged completely during
      the rainy seasons, others only the base is submerged and so on. So
      many of them do have access to atmospheric CO2 where in our tanks
      they usually don't. Think of what happens when a submerged plant
      reaches the water's surface, it quickly takes off due to access to
      atmospheric CO2.

      A low light tank is probably closer to a natural environment than a
      high light tank. Not because of the lighting but because of the
      nutrient levels and speed of plant growth. Although nature provides a
      lot of sun, running waters have a very low concentration of
      nutrients, however because they are constantly flowing, they don't
      run risks of accumulation or deficiency as they bring a constant
      supply of nutrients to the plants.

      Giancarlo Podio, LMD





      Need help with your website? Go to the individuals we went to for www.UniQuaria.com, the expert team at High Aspirations, Inc. This highly qualified group can do anything and everything to make your website exceed your expectations. Please visit their website at www.highaspirationsinc.com.

      Wish to Unsubscribe? I can't imagine why but if you do, send a message to:
      UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com             



    • Nimish Mathur
      Ah yes Tom, I forgot about that :-( PH, KH, Temperature etc. should affect the equilibrium. I was thinking of a setup that will replenish the CO2 back to the
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 1 12:48 AM
      • 0 Attachment

        Ah yes Tom, I forgot about that L PH, KH, Temperature etc. should affect the equilibrium. I was thinking of a setup that will replenish the CO2 back to the water from the atmosphere as fast as the plants can consume it. Does it sound like a possibility?

         

        I am not too sure about plant preference between Excel and CO2, but I think since excel is a intermediate part of what plants convert from CO2 for their consumption, excel will be used first and then CO2 will be touched. However, since the process of photosynthesis takes place at a very large surface area, some parts may have CO2 available abundantly to them and some may not. Would like to hear some answers on this subject too J

         

        Nim

         

         


        From: Tom Reagin [mailto:tgreagin@...]
        Sent: 01 April 2005 02:26
        To: UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [UniQuaria] A Different CO2 Theory

         

        Not that I know anything about the subject, but I
        agree that the CO2 in the air should reach some
        equilibrium with the CO2 in the water.  I doubt that
        it is a simple higher concentration moves to lower
        concentration.  I would think that pH, temperature,
        buffering capacity should all affect what the
        equilibrium is.  The rate of movement would also be
        affected by the surface area.  Humidity may also
        affect the exchange.  The answer boils down to the
        difference in the rate the plants use the CO2 and the
        rate the water will acquire CO2 from the air.  I would
        think that a moderate "fish" load would be a
        significant factor.

        Does anyone know if adding Flourish Excel to a CO2
        supplemented tank increases uptake of CO2 by the
        plants.  Is there a saturation of CO2 that prevents
        the plants from using the Excel as a carbon source?

        Sorry for my ramblings.  It interests me.

        Yours

        TomR

        --- Nimish Mathur < nimmat4@... > wrote:
        > Guys,
        >

        >
        > I have been thinking about a theory and need some
        > help validating it:
        >

        >
        > We all know that CO2 is well soluble in water.I find
        > it difficult to digest the idea of rotting leaves
        > and bacterial processes in
        > the soil creating enough CO2 that plants need,
        > rather, atmospheric dissolved
        > CO2 as the water flows sounds more reasonable.
        >

        is it possible that
        > we could have a lush
        > planted medium - high light tank with a couple of
        > spraybars that keep
        > replenishing the 0.3% CO2 back in the water so the
        > plants never really
        > starve of the CO2?

        Thomas G. Reagin, O.D.
        104 Church Street
        Decatur, GA    30030

        Voice (404)378-3694
        Fax (404)373-0741


                   
        __________________________________
        Yahoo! Messenger
        Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
        http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest


        Need help with your website? Go to the individuals we went to for www.UniQuaria.com, the expert team at High Aspirations, Inc. This highly qualified group can do anything and everything to make your website exceed your expectations. Please visit their website at www.highaspirationsinc.com.

        Wish to Unsubscribe? I can't imagine why but if you do, send a message to:
        UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com             



      • Giancarlo Podio
        ... You can increase gas exchange by adding an air pump, that would replenish CO2 faster than the plants are using it, but the concentration will not be higher
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 1 6:56 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com, Tom Reagin <tgreagin@y...> wrote:
          > Not that I know anything about the subject, but I
          > agree that the CO2 in the air should reach some
          > equilibrium with the CO2 in the water. I doubt that
          > it is a simple higher concentration moves to lower
          > concentration. I would think that pH, temperature,
          > buffering capacity should all affect what the
          > equilibrium is. The rate of movement would also be
          > affected by the surface area. Humidity may also
          > affect the exchange. The answer boils down to the
          > difference in the rate the plants use the CO2 and the
          > rate the water will acquire CO2 from the air. I would
          > think that a moderate "fish" load would be a
          > significant factor.

          You can increase gas exchange by adding an air pump, that would
          replenish CO2 faster than the plants are using it, but the
          concentration will not be higher than atmospheric levels. In most
          cases you will acchieve a higher concentration from your fish load
          alone if you were to limit gas exchange, not too much to lower oxygen
          levels too much, but enough to limit the loss of CO2.

          > Does anyone know if adding Flourish Excel to a CO2
          > supplemented tank increases uptake of CO2 by the
          > plants. Is there a saturation of CO2 that prevents
          > the plants from using the Excel as a carbon source?

          It does seem to help even in CO2 enriched tanks. I don't know the
          exact process but it is in a form that requires less "converion" on
          behalf of the plants. Excel alone does not provide the same high
          speed growth that CO2 gas provides, but it does seem to improve the
          quality of growth in some setups.

          Giancarlo Podio, LMD
        • McDowell, Steven
          As I check the marketing text on Flourish Excel, I noticed that it says the following: Flourish Excel(tm) also has iron reducing properties which promote the
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 1 7:14 AM
          • 0 Attachment

            As I check the marketing text on Flourish Excel, I noticed that it says the following:

            Flourish Excel™ also has iron reducing properties which promote the ferrous state of iron (Fe+2), which is more easily utilized by plants than ferric iron (Fe+3).”

            Would this be the effective characteristic of Excel?  That it allows plants to be more effective in taking in the Iron, and the state that the iron is in before Excel is added makes it easier for the algae to take before the plants can get it???

            Steve  

             


            From: Giancarlo Podio [mailto:gpodio@...]
            Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:56 AM
            To: UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [UniQuaria] Re: A Different CO2 Theory

             


            --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com, Tom Reagin <tgreagin@y...> wrote:
            > Not that I know anything about the subject, but I
            > agree that the CO2 in the air should reach some
            > equilibrium with the CO2 in the water.  I doubt that
            > it is a simple higher concentration moves to lower
            > concentration.  I would think that pH, temperature,
            > buffering capacity should all affect what the
            > equilibrium is.  The rate of movement would also be
            > affected by the surface area.  Humidity may also
            > affect the exchange.  The answer boils down to the
            > difference in the rate the plants use the CO2 and the
            > rate the water will acquire CO2 from the air.  I would
            > think that a moderate "fish" load would be a
            > significant factor.

            You can increase gas exchange by adding an air pump, that would
            replenish CO2 faster than the plants are using it, but the
            concentration will not be higher than atmospheric levels. In most
            cases you will acchieve a higher concentration from your fish load
            alone if you were to limit gas exchange, not too much to lower oxygen
            levels too much, but enough to limit the loss of CO2.

            > Does anyone know if adding Flourish Excel to a CO2
            > supplemented tank increases uptake of CO2 by the
            > plants.  Is there a saturation of CO2 that prevents
            > the plants from using the Excel as a carbon source?

            It does seem to help even in CO2 enriched tanks. I don't know the
            exact process but it is in a form that requires less "converion" on
            behalf of the plants. Excel alone does not provide the same high
            speed growth that CO2 gas provides, but it does seem to improve the
            quality of growth in some setups.

            Giancarlo Podio, LMD







            Need help with your website? Go to the individuals we went to for www.UniQuaria.com, the expert team at High Aspirations, Inc. This highly qualified group can do anything and everything to make your website exceed your expectations. Please visit their website at www.highaspirationsinc.com.

            Wish to Unsubscribe? I can't imagine why but if you do, send a message to:
            UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com             



          • Giancarlo Podio
            Plant growth is always limited by one or more elements. PMDD used phosphates as the limiting factor to starve algae by creating a competition for phosphate
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 1 7:23 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Plant growth is always limited by one or more elements. PMDD used
              phosphates as the limiting factor to starve algae by creating a
              competition for phosphate between plants and algae. If any one
              element becomes limiting the plants will stop or slow down their
              growth rate as a result, leaving the rest of the nutrients in the
              tank to become available to algae. Most non CO2 tanks are CO2 limited
              because CO2 levels are not sufficiently high enough to allow a fast
              enough uptake to make use of the available light and nutrients,
              that's why limiting PO4 as in the PMDD method works well to limit
              algae growth.

              I always consider the lighting to be the driving factor behind how
              fast plants should be growing in a tank. In high light tanks you must
              provide sufficient nutrients, CO2 and phosphates included, to make
              use of the available light. If any other element becomes limited,
              such as CO2, the rest of the nutrients become "eccess" because plants
              are not competing for them, leading to algae problems. In high light
              tanks, light itself should be the limiting factor while all other
              nutrients should be present in quantities sufficient to sustain the
              growth rate but not too high to accumulate.

              In soil, CO2 is produced as organic matter decays. It can certainly
              provide more CO2 than gas exchange can however it does not supply
              sufficient CO2 for a high light tank. That's why soil is not used in
              most high light tanks. If you are setting up a planted tank without
              CO2 of any kind, a semi soil substrate can prove to be very
              effective. Some plants such as the lace plant and many crypts do
              extremely well in soil substrates rather than gravel. But we're
              always talking of medium-low light setups.

              You can certainly try it, my guess is that you will run into black
              brush algae due to CO2 limitation. Be prepared to lower the lighting
              or add CO2 if you run into problems. If you also limit other
              nutrients and provide them in small quanities on a daily basis you
              may be able to balance things out, but the eccess of light will
              likely still cause problems and not speed up plant growth any because
              the plants will be limited by other elements, leading to the question
              of "why have more light if the plants can't make use of it?"

              But everything is worth trying in my books, I've tried it in the past
              and I've learned many things from that and other experiences.

              Giancarlo Podio, LMD



              --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com, "Nimish Mathur" <nimmat4@y...>
              wrote:
              > Thanks Giancarlo,
              >
              >
              >
              > That does make sense, but what I was stressing at was that is it not
              > possible to have a medium -high light setup tank with loads of
              surface
              > agitation and a good flow of water (like in the wild) so that there
              is
              > always some (even though very little) CO2 always available to the
              plants?
              > What causes CO2 deficiency? Is it absence of CO2 or irregular
              availability
              > of CO2? Will a constant supply of CO2 in very little quantities not
              work?
              > Would it be an experiment worth trying? I will have to read
              Walstead again..
              > guess I forgot a lot about it or I find it difficult to agree with
              some
              > points. How does soil Aid in increasing carbon content?
              >
              >
              >
              > Thanks,
              >
              > Nim
              >
              >
            • Giancarlo Podio
              I don t believe algae have any advantage in taking up ferric iron compared to plants, I think both would benefit from the ferrous state of iron. But reduction
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 1 7:29 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                I don't believe algae have any advantage in taking up ferric iron
                compared to plants, I think both would benefit from the ferrous state
                of iron. But reduction is a very important part of making trace
                elements available to plants, it's the magic behind acidic soils and
                substrates which assist in reducing iron to make it available to
                plant roots. It's certainly not going to do you any harm to have some
                help in the water column in reducing iron. Some fertilizers contain
                similar elements to assist in reduction of elements.

                Giancarlo Podio, LMD

                --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com, "McDowell, Steven"
                <steven.mcdowell@k...> wrote:
                > As I check the marketing text on Flourish Excel, I noticed that it
                says the
                > following:
                >
                > "Flourish Excel(tm) also has iron reducing properties which promote
                the
                > ferrous state of iron (Fe+2), which is more easily utilized by
                plants than
                > ferric iron (Fe+3)."
                >
                > Would this be the effective characteristic of Excel? That it
                allows plants
                > to be more effective in taking in the Iron, and the state that the
                iron is
                > in before Excel is added makes it easier for the algae to take
                before the
                > plants can get it???
                >
                > Steve
                >
                >
                >
              • Patrick, American Fish Guy
                Major problem here: How can CO2 levels in the river where a plant grows be higher than the levels in the air around it? I don t think it can unless there is
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 1 8:28 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                      Major problem here: How can CO2 levels in the river where a plant grows be higher than the levels in the air around it?  I don't think it can unless there is something producing huge amounts of CO2 under the water.  "osmosis" or whatever it is called (I forget if that is the correct word) only allows water to hold as much CO2 as the air above it because if there is more, it will move into the air to work toward equalization.  Plus, so water may not even be able to hold as much CO2 as the air because it has a lower saturation point.  CO2 injection may sound good, but it doesn't sound natural to me at all.
                   
                  Patrick
                   
                  -------Original Message-------

                  Not quite. There is a big difference between the ease at which carbon is taken in from air or underwater. It is rather difficult for plants to use carbon dissolved in water which makes most non-CO2 enriched tanks "CO2 limited". We therefore raise the CO2 concentration in order to increase the osmotic pressure between the two mediums, making it easier for the plant to absorb it. This is the case with many nutrients and the base of most modern fertilization techniques. So it's not just about the percentage of a certain element that makes up the plant matter itself, but the ability to absorb it in different conditions and therefore higher or lower concentrations are used to change the ease of uptake.
                  Add FUN to your email - CLICK HERE!
                • Giancarlo Podio
                  ... plant grows ... can unless ... water. osmosis ... only allows ... more, it ... We didn t say CO2 levels in rivers are higher than atmospheric
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 1 8:59 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick, American Fish Guy"
                    <patrickmn1@h...> wrote:
                    > Major problem here: How can CO2 levels in the river where a
                    plant grows
                    > be higher than the levels in the air around it? I don't think it
                    can unless
                    > there is something producing huge amounts of CO2 under the
                    water. "osmosis"
                    > or whatever it is called (I forget if that is the correct word)
                    only allows
                    > water to hold as much CO2 as the air above it because if there is
                    more, it
                    > will move into the air to work toward equalization.

                    We didn't say CO2 levels in rivers are higher than atmospheric
                    concentrations. In the quoted portion of my post below I was
                    referring to the use of higher CO2 concentrations in aquariums.

                    > Plus, so water may not
                    > even be able to hold as much CO2 as the air because it has a lower
                    > saturation point.

                    Yes but the air is not saturated with CO2, we'd all be dead if that
                    were the case. Even the saturation point of CO2 in water is deadly
                    for both fish and plants.

                    > CO2 injection may sound good, but it doesn't sound
                    > natural to me at all.

                    Very little about keeping animals is "natural". Aquariums are no
                    exception. In nature no one prunes plants in order to keep them below
                    the water's surface where they would otherwise have access to
                    atmospheric CO2. It all depends on what your goals are, if you want a
                    high growth rate for whatever reason, CO2 is the hardest element to
                    provide in sufficient quantities and one of the most basic elements
                    that makes up all life forms. It doens't just sound good, it is good.
                    Just like you may un-naturally fertilize a plant in your garden, some
                    of us fertilize plants in the aquarium. CO2 is just a fertilizer,
                    nothing more.

                    Aquascaping, the art of designing an aquatic planted environment,
                    would be a very difficult task if we had to wait months for a plant
                    to reach a desired size or height. That's probably one of the biggest
                    driving forces behind many fast growing setups.

                    And the fruits and veggies you eat every day, most of them are grown
                    in greenhouses where CO2 levels are kept rather high to speed up
                    growth rate. Natural or not, carbon plays one of the largest roles in
                    all life forms and is usually the element limiting all plant growth,
                    in nature and in our tanks.

                    Giancarlo Podio, LMD

                    > Patrick
                    >
                    > -------Original Message-------
                    >
                    > Not quite. There is a big difference between the ease at which
                    carbon is taken in from air or underwater. It is rather difficult for
                    plants to use carbon dissolved in water which makes most non-CO2
                    enriched tanks "CO2 limited". We therefore raise the CO2
                    concentration in order to increase the osmotic pressure between the
                    two mediums, making it easier for the plant to absorb it. This is the
                    case with many nutrients and the base of most modern fertilization
                    techniques. So it's not just about the percentage of a certain
                    element that makes up the plant matter itself, but the ability to
                    absorb it in different conditions and therefore higher or lower
                    concentrations are used to change the ease of uptake.
                  • Tom Reagin
                    Thanks for the reply Giancarlo. TomR ... Thomas G. Reagin, O.D. 104 Church Street Decatur, GA 30030 Voice (404)378-3694 Fax (404)373-0741
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 1 10:29 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks for the reply Giancarlo.

                      TomR

                      >
                      > It does seem to help even in CO2 enriched tanks. I
                      > don't know the
                      > exact process but it is in a form that requires less
                      > "converion" on
                      > behalf of the plants. Excel alone does not provide
                      > the same high
                      > speed growth that CO2 gas provides, but it does seem
                      > to improve the
                      > quality of growth in some setups.
                      >
                      > Giancarlo Podio, LMD
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      Thomas G. Reagin, O.D.
                      104 Church Street
                      Decatur, GA 30030

                      Voice (404)378-3694
                      Fax (404)373-0741



                      __________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
                      http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
                    • Patrick, American Fish Guy
                      Thanks for clearing it up for me. :) Patrick ... We didn t say CO2 levels in rivers are higher than atmospheric concentrations. In the quoted portion of my
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 1 12:54 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks for clearing it up for me. :) 
                         
                        Patrick
                         
                        -------Original Message-------
                        We didn't say CO2 levels in rivers are higher than atmospheric
                        concentrations. In the quoted portion of my post below I was
                        referring to the use of higher CO2 concentrations in aquariums...
                        Add FUN to your email - CLICK HERE!
                      • Stanley Radzewicz
                        Plants are capable of storing the carbon form in Excel, whereas they cannot store as much CO2, so even with the light off the photosynthetic dark reaction can
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 1 4:43 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Plants are capable of storing the carbon form in Excel, whereas they
                          cannot store as much CO2, so even with the light off the
                          photosynthetic dark reaction can still proceceed with the Excel as a
                          carbon source.

                          Stan

                          --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com, "McDowell, Steven"
                          <steven.mcdowell@k...> wrote:
                          > As I check the marketing text on Flourish Excel, I noticed that it
                          says the
                          > following:
                          >
                          > "Flourish Excel(tm) also has iron reducing properties which promote
                          the
                          > ferrous state of iron (Fe+2), which is more easily utilized by
                          plants than
                          > ferric iron (Fe+3)."
                          >
                          > Would this be the effective characteristic of Excel? That it
                          allows plants
                          > to be more effective in taking in the Iron, and the state that the
                          iron is
                          > in before Excel is added makes it easier for the algae to take
                          before the
                          > plants can get it???
                          >
                          > Steve
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > _____
                          >
                          > From: Giancarlo Podio [mailto:gpodio@u...]
                          > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:56 AM
                          > To: UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [UniQuaria] Re: A Different CO2 Theory
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com, Tom Reagin <tgreagin@y...> wrote:
                          > > Not that I know anything about the subject, but I
                          > > agree that the CO2 in the air should reach some
                          > > equilibrium with the CO2 in the water. I doubt that
                          > > it is a simple higher concentration moves to lower
                          > > concentration. I would think that pH, temperature,
                          > > buffering capacity should all affect what the
                          > > equilibrium is. The rate of movement would also be
                          > > affected by the surface area. Humidity may also
                          > > affect the exchange. The answer boils down to the
                          > > difference in the rate the plants use the CO2 and the
                          > > rate the water will acquire CO2 from the air. I would
                          > > think that a moderate "fish" load would be a
                          > > significant factor.
                          >
                          > You can increase gas exchange by adding an air pump, that would
                          > replenish CO2 faster than the plants are using it, but the
                          > concentration will not be higher than atmospheric levels. In most
                          > cases you will acchieve a higher concentration from your fish load
                          > alone if you were to limit gas exchange, not too much to lower
                          oxygen
                          > levels too much, but enough to limit the loss of CO2.
                          >
                          > > Does anyone know if adding Flourish Excel to a CO2
                          > > supplemented tank increases uptake of CO2 by the
                          > > plants. Is there a saturation of CO2 that prevents
                          > > the plants from using the Excel as a carbon source?
                          >
                          > It does seem to help even in CO2 enriched tanks. I don't know the
                          > exact process but it is in a form that requires less "converion" on
                          > behalf of the plants. Excel alone does not provide the same high
                          > speed growth that CO2 gas provides, but it does seem to improve the
                          > quality of growth in some setups.
                          >
                          > Giancarlo Podio, LMD
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Need help with your website? Go to the individuals we went to for
                          > www.UniQuaria.com, the expert team at High Aspirations, Inc. This
                          highly
                          > qualified group can do anything and everything to make your website
                          exceed
                          > your expectations. Please visit their website at
                          www.highaspirationsinc.com.
                          >
                          > Wish to Unsubscribe? I can't imagine why but if you do, send a
                          message to:
                          > UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > _____
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UniQuaria/
                          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UniQuaria/>
                          >
                          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > <mailto:UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                          >
                          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
                        • Stanley Radzewicz
                          ... But if you did say that then you would have been correct: Water CO2 levels relative to O2 levels exceed that of air due to the greater solubility of CO2 in
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 2 2:00 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com, "Giancarlo Podio" <gpodio@u...> wrote:

                            > We didn't say CO2 levels in rivers are higher than atmospheric
                            > concentrations. In the quoted portion of my post below I was
                            > referring to the use of higher CO2 concentrations in aquariums.
                            >

                            But if you did say that then you would have been correct: Water CO2
                            levels relative to O2 levels exceed that of air due to the greater
                            solubility of CO2 in water. Lets revisit the numbers...

                            In the aquarium, concentrations of CO2 range about 1-2 ppm, O2 levels
                            are somewhat less than 9ppm (9ppm is the max disolved O2 at 20c,
                            respiration, by fish and bacteria and plants, will remove O2 to a lower
                            value). The equilibrium ratio is about six parts O2 to one part CO2.

                            In air, O2 averages around 20%, CO2 about .3% or about 66 parts O2 for
                            each part of CO2, thus the concentration of CO2 in water is quite a bit
                            higher relative to oxygen.

                            A liter of air contains 260mg of O2 and about 4mg of CO2, a liter of
                            water contains 9mg O2 and about 1.5mg CO2.

                            CO2 injection of course can temporarily raise the CO2 levels to 35 or
                            more ppm and clearly this CO2 quantity is greater than the total
                            disolved O2.

                            In soft drinks the disolved CO2 might be 8 g/l or 8000ppm.

                            And just for fun, that 9mg max @20c of disolved O2 is just about twice
                            what fish require to thrive, so fish and other aerobic creatures can
                            pull the O2 level to 4.5ppm and still not noticably suffer.

                            cf:
                            http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/CO2/co2-level.html
                            http://www.aquariumsite.com/freshwater/chemistry.php

                            Stan
                          • Giancarlo Podio
                            But we are not discussing O2 levels, Patrick though we said CO2 levels in rivers would be higher than atmospheric CO2 concentrations which is very rarely the
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 3 9:55 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              But we are not discussing O2 levels, Patrick though we said CO2
                              levels in rivers would be higher than atmospheric CO2 concentrations
                              which is very rarely the case, and even where it is the differences
                              are neglectable. Gas exchage rates are high in flowing rivers and
                              fish load is extremely low compared to our tanks so the effects of
                              fish respiration really don't change a river's chemistry much at all.

                              There is little purpose in comparing O2 levels with CO2 as one will
                              not displace the other.

                              The ease of CO2 solubility in water doesn't really effect the
                              concentration as gas exchange promotes equilibrium between our
                              atmosphre and our waters. The ease of solubility will effect how long
                              it will take to reach equilibrium, or the rate at which CO2 can be
                              absorbed or released by each medium, not the concentration itself.

                              Giancarlo Podio, LMD


                              --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com, "Stanley Radzewicz"
                              <radzewicz@y...> wrote:
                              >
                              > --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com, "Giancarlo Podio" <gpodio@u...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > > We didn't say CO2 levels in rivers are higher than atmospheric
                              > > concentrations. In the quoted portion of my post below I was
                              > > referring to the use of higher CO2 concentrations in aquariums.
                              > >
                              >
                              > But if you did say that then you would have been correct: Water CO2
                              > levels relative to O2 levels exceed that of air due to the greater
                              > solubility of CO2 in water. Lets revisit the numbers...
                              >
                              > In the aquarium, concentrations of CO2 range about 1-2 ppm, O2
                              levels
                              > are somewhat less than 9ppm (9ppm is the max disolved O2 at 20c,
                              > respiration, by fish and bacteria and plants, will remove O2 to a
                              lower
                              > value). The equilibrium ratio is about six parts O2 to one part CO2.
                              >
                              > In air, O2 averages around 20%, CO2 about .3% or about 66 parts O2
                              for
                              > each part of CO2, thus the concentration of CO2 in water is quite a
                              bit
                              > higher relative to oxygen.
                              >
                              > A liter of air contains 260mg of O2 and about 4mg of CO2, a liter
                              of
                              > water contains 9mg O2 and about 1.5mg CO2.
                              >
                              > CO2 injection of course can temporarily raise the CO2 levels to 35
                              or
                              > more ppm and clearly this CO2 quantity is greater than the total
                              > disolved O2.
                              >
                              > In soft drinks the disolved CO2 might be 8 g/l or 8000ppm.
                              >
                              > And just for fun, that 9mg max @20c of disolved O2 is just about
                              twice
                              > what fish require to thrive, so fish and other aerobic creatures
                              can
                              > pull the O2 level to 4.5ppm and still not noticably suffer.
                              >
                              > cf:
                              > http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/CO2/co2-level.html
                              > http://www.aquariumsite.com/freshwater/chemistry.php
                              >
                              > Stan
                            • Nimish Mathur
                              Guys, 4 days since I turned off my CO2 on the tank and increased surface agitation. Plants are still pearling and growing at a fast pace (a bit slower then
                              Message 14 of 21 , Apr 4 2:13 AM
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Guys,

                                 

                                4 days since I turned off my CO2 on the tank and increased surface agitation. Plants are still pearling and growing at a fast pace (a bit slower then with CO2 but still at par) but the growth now looks more natural and condensed. The distance between leaf nodes has considerably reduced but the rate of throwing a new leaf is still the same. Strange that they are still pearling with no pressurized CO2 and also I am having a bit of a problem now with green spot algae and some dust algae. Guess, the CO2 kept them under control but now one day I used excel and the next day I got no extra algae. Ottos are not really able to keep up so might have to get them more.

                                 

                                I must say that the tank looks much more natural then what it did 4 days ago. Hygrophylla is more condensed, cabomba and limnophilla are no longer leggy type (/2” distance between leaf nodes), Difformis is starting to grow vertically, Hydrocotyle is forming a nice ground cover and only a couple of stalks reaching the surface and a couple of emerged as well. Echinodorous ozelot has sent out a flower stem J so expecting lots of ozelots now. Myriophyllum was for some reason battered by my angels a week ago but now the new growth looks a lot greener and bigger. Bacopa is still suffering as it always does for me L. Ludwigia has been more or less the same.

                                 

                                If I had RO water, maybe the algae could have been controlled but overall I am very happy with the outcome in 4 days. Lets watch it for another few weeks and see J

                                 

                                Will keep posted.

                                 

                                Nim

                                 

                                 

                                 


                                From: Nimish Mathur [mailto: nimmat4@... ]
                                Sent: 31 March 2005 20:50
                                To: UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [UniQuaria] A Different CO2 Theory

                                 

                                Guys,

                                 

                                I have been thinking about a theory and need some help validating it:

                                 

                                We all know that CO2 is well soluble in water. We try to push CO2 in the water for the plants to be able to take. Now the plants do not really care how much ppm CO2 we push in as long as they have it available to them all the time? Rite?

                                 

                                Atmosphere has 0.3% CO2 so Ideally if we have a waterfall, the amount of CO2 dissolved in the water will also be 0.3% of all dissolved gasses? Osmotic pressure or something similar to maintain same concentration in both mediums? Does this defy any science? Since we can have a bit of CO2 in the water and have the capability to replenish this small amount, is this quantity enough for plants or not? What happens in streams in rivers? I find it difficult to digest the idea of rotting leaves and bacterial processes in the soil creating enough CO2 that plants need, rather, atmospheric dissolved CO2 as the water flows sounds more reasonable.

                                 

                                So if all of the above is true, is it possible that we could have a lush planted medium – high light tank with a couple of spraybars that keep replenishing the 0.3% CO2 back in the water so the plants never really starve of the CO2? I am sure if atmospheric CO2 is dissolved in the water at small quantities, the plants will really never starve.

                                 

                                Feedback appreciated J

                                 

                                Nim

                                 

                                 



                                Need help with your website? Go to the individuals we went to for www.UniQuaria.com, the expert team at High Aspirations, Inc. This highly qualified group can do anything and everything to make your website exceed your expectations. Please visit their website at www.highaspirationsinc.com.

                                Wish to Unsubscribe? I can't imagine why but if you do, send a message to:
                                UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com             




                              • Giancarlo Podio
                                Just keep an eye on things Harry, just because the plants are more to your liking doesn t mean they are in better health. We often create a phosphate
                                Message 15 of 21 , Apr 4 8:00 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Just keep an eye on things Harry, just because the plants are more to
                                  your liking doesn't mean they are in better health. We often create a
                                  phosphate deficiency a couple days before taking photos to bring out
                                  the reds, although pleasing to the eye it is a simptom of deficiency
                                  and if kept for any length of time will lead to problems.

                                  I think you will be able to convert your plants to use Excel
                                  efficiently however I would do so gradually as it often takes a
                                  little time before the plants adapt to the new carbon source. I have
                                  a small 2 gallon tank with an 18W CF fixture using Excel as it's only
                                  source of carbon, works very well. Obviously if you use Excel your
                                  are not validating your theory as the aeration is no longer the
                                  source of carbon, but it will work IMO.

                                  I think you would run into considerable problems if you were to try
                                  this method without the addition of Excel, at least unless you lower
                                  the intensity of the lights or create some shadows by leaving some
                                  plants reach the surface.

                                  Keep us updated on your progress.
                                  Giancarlo Podio, LMD




                                  --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com, "Nimish Mathur" <nimmat4@y...>
                                  wrote:
                                  > Guys,
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > 4 days since I turned off my CO2 on the tank and increased surface
                                  > agitation. Plants are still pearling and growing at a fast pace (a
                                  bit
                                  > slower then with CO2 but still at par) but the growth now looks
                                  more natural
                                  > and condensed. The distance between leaf nodes has considerably
                                  reduced but
                                  > the rate of throwing a new leaf is still the same. Strange that
                                  they are
                                  > still pearling with no pressurized CO2 and also I am having a bit
                                  of a
                                  > problem now with green spot algae and some dust algae. Guess, the
                                  CO2 kept
                                  > them under control but now one day I used excel and the next day I
                                  got no
                                  > extra algae. Ottos are not really able to keep up so might have to
                                  get them
                                  > more.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I must say that the tank looks much more natural then what it did 4
                                  days
                                  > ago. Hygrophylla is more condensed, cabomba and limnophilla are no
                                  longer
                                  > leggy type (/2" distance between leaf nodes), Difformis is starting
                                  to grow
                                  > vertically, Hydrocotyle is forming a nice ground cover and only a
                                  couple of
                                  > stalks reaching the surface and a couple of emerged as well.
                                  Echinodorous
                                  > ozelot has sent out a flower stem :-) so expecting lots of ozelots
                                  now.
                                  > Myriophyllum was for some reason battered by my angels a week ago
                                  but now
                                  > the new growth looks a lot greener and bigger. Bacopa is still
                                  suffering as
                                  > it always does for me :-(. Ludwigia has been more or less the same.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > If I had RO water, maybe the algae could have been controlled but
                                  overall I
                                  > am very happy with the outcome in 4 days. Lets watch it for another
                                  few
                                  > weeks and see :-)
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Will keep posted.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Nim
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > _____
                                  >
                                  > From: Nimish Mathur [mailto:nimmat4@y...]
                                  > Sent: 31 March 2005 20:50
                                  > To: UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: [UniQuaria] A Different CO2 Theory
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Guys,
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I have been thinking about a theory and need some help validating
                                  it:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > We all know that CO2 is well soluble in water. We try to push CO2
                                  in the
                                  > water for the plants to be able to take. Now the plants do not
                                  really care
                                  > how much ppm CO2 we push in as long as they have it available to
                                  them all
                                  > the time? Rite?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Atmosphere has 0.3% CO2 so Ideally if we have a waterfall, the
                                  amount of CO2
                                  > dissolved in the water will also be 0.3% of all dissolved gasses?
                                  Osmotic
                                  > pressure or something similar to maintain same concentration in both
                                  > mediums? Does this defy any science? Since we can have a bit of CO2
                                  in the
                                  > water and have the capability to replenish this small amount, is
                                  this
                                  > quantity enough for plants or not? What happens in streams in
                                  rivers? I find
                                  > it difficult to digest the idea of rotting leaves and bacterial
                                  processes in
                                  > the soil creating enough CO2 that plants need, rather, atmospheric
                                  dissolved
                                  > CO2 as the water flows sounds more reasonable.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > So if all of the above is true, is it possible that we could have a
                                  lush
                                  > planted medium - high light tank with a couple of spraybars that
                                  keep
                                  > replenishing the 0.3% CO2 back in the water so the plants never
                                  really
                                  > starve of the CO2? I am sure if atmospheric CO2 is dissolved in the
                                  water at
                                  > small quantities, the plants will really never starve.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Feedback appreciated :-)
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Nim
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Need help with your website? Go to the individuals we went to for
                                  > www.UniQuaria.com, the expert team at High Aspirations, Inc. This
                                  highly
                                  > qualified group can do anything and everything to make your website
                                  exceed
                                  > your expectations. Please visit their website at
                                  www.highaspirationsinc.com.
                                  >
                                  > Wish to Unsubscribe? I can't imagine why but if you do, send a
                                  message to:
                                  > UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                                  >
                                  >
                                  <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1294i0lp2/M=298184.6018725.7038619.300117
                                  6/D=gr
                                  >
                                  oups/S=1705417564:HM/EXP=1112385021/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http:
                                  /www.n
                                  > etflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> click here
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                                  M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=
                                  > :HM/A=2593423/rand=490251565>
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > _____
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UniQuaria/
                                  >
                                  > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  > UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  > <mailto:UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                  >
                                  > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                  > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
                                • Nimish Mathur
                                  Giancarlo, I am not Harry :-) Well, this is the update. It has been more then a month since I stopped CO2 to that tank and the situation now is: I do not get
                                  Message 16 of 21 , May 7, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    Giancarlo, I am not Harry J

                                     

                                    Well, this is the update.

                                     

                                    It has been more then a month since I stopped CO2 to that tank and the situation now is:

                                     

                                    I do not get any algae. Very little GSA on the side and front glass, Plants are still growing out of control. With the same light intensity, even Myriophyllum is growing great.

                                     

                                    When I switched off CO2, I got a little problem with green spot algae (GSA) but that was for only a couple of weeks. The tank now seemed to have balanced itself out. Earlier, I was getting nitrate deficiencies (I mean in the test kits… not on the plants) by the end of 1 week. Now My nitrates deplete below 10 after 2 weeks.

                                     

                                    Also, since I am creating a lot of surface agitation (powerhead placed at 45 degree angle 3” below the surface and a spray bar attached to a 1500LPH canister), the surface scum problem is way gone. Fish feel a lot better as they are never deprived of oxygen. I was getting BGA at a few spots on the gravel and sides of a filter which is gone.

                                     

                                    Your comments and views on this please J

                                     

                                    Nim

                                     

                                     


                                    From: Giancarlo Podio [mailto:gpodio@...]
                                    Sent: 04 April 2005 16:01
                                    To: UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [UniQuaria] Re: A Different CO2 Theory

                                     


                                    Just keep an eye on things Harry, just because the plants are more to
                                    your liking doesn't mean they are in better health. We often create a
                                    phosphate deficiency a couple days before taking photos to bring out
                                    the reds, although pleasing to the eye it is a simptom of deficiency
                                    and if kept for any length of time will lead to problems.

                                    I think you will be able to convert your plants to use Excel
                                    efficiently however I would do so gradually as it often takes a
                                    little time before the plants adapt to the new carbon source. I have
                                    a small 2 gallon tank with an 18W CF fixture using Excel as it's only
                                    source of carbon, works very well. Obviously if you use Excel your
                                    are not validating your theory as the aeration is no longer the
                                    source of carbon, but it will work IMO.

                                    I think you would run into considerable problems if you were to try
                                    this method without the addition of Excel, at least unless you lower
                                    the intensity of the lights or create some shadows by leaving some
                                    plants reach the surface.

                                    Keep us updated on your progress.
                                    Giancarlo Podio, LMD




                                    --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com , " Nimish Mathur " <nimmat4@y...>
                                    wrote:
                                    > Guys,
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > 4 days since I turned off my CO2 on the tank and increased surface
                                    > agitation. Plants are still pearling and growing at a fast pace (a
                                    bit
                                    > slower then with CO2 but still at par) but the growth now looks
                                    more natural
                                    > and condensed. The distance between leaf nodes has considerably
                                    reduced but
                                    > the rate of throwing a new leaf is still the same. Strange that
                                    they are
                                    > still pearling with no pressurized CO2 and also I am having a bit
                                    of a
                                    > problem now with green spot algae and some dust algae. Guess, the
                                    CO2 kept
                                    > them under control but now one day I used excel and the next day I
                                    got no
                                    > extra algae. Ottos are not really able to keep up so might have to
                                    get them
                                    > more.
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > I must say that the tank looks much more natural then what it did 4
                                    days
                                    > ago. Hygrophylla is more condensed, cabomba and limnophilla are no
                                    longer
                                    > leggy type (/2" distance between leaf nodes), Difformis is starting
                                    to grow
                                    > vertically, Hydrocotyle is forming a nice ground cover and only a
                                    couple of
                                    > stalks reaching the surface and a couple of emerged as well.
                                    Echinodorous
                                    > ozelot has sent out a flower stem :-) so expecting lots of ozelots
                                    now.
                                    > Myriophyllum was for some reason battered by my angels a week ago
                                    but now
                                    > the new growth looks a lot greener and bigger. Bacopa is still
                                    suffering as
                                    > it always does for me :-(. Ludwigia has been more or less the same.
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > If I had RO water, maybe the algae could have been controlled but
                                    overall I
                                    > am very happy with the outcome in 4 days. Lets watch it for another
                                    few
                                    > weeks and see :-)
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > Will keep posted.
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > Nim
                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >
                                    >   _____ 
                                    >
                                    > From: Nimish Mathur [mailto:nimmat4@y...]
                                    > Sent: 31 March 2005 20:50
                                    > To: UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Subject: [UniQuaria] A Different CO2 Theory
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > Guys,
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > I have been thinking about a theory and need some help validating
                                    it:
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > We all know that CO2 is well soluble in water. We try to push CO2
                                    in the
                                    > water for the plants to be able to take. Now the plants do not
                                    really care
                                    > how much ppm CO2 we push in as long as they have it available to
                                    them all
                                    > the time? Rite?
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > Atmosphere has 0.3% CO2 so Ideally if we have a waterfall, the
                                    amount of CO2
                                    > dissolved in the water will also be 0.3% of all dissolved gasses?
                                    Osmotic
                                    > pressure or something similar to maintain same concentration in both
                                    > mediums? Does this defy any science? Since we can have a bit of CO2
                                    in the
                                    > water and have the capability to replenish this small amount, is
                                    this
                                    > quantity enough for plants or not? What happens in streams in
                                    rivers? I find
                                    > it difficult to digest the idea of rotting leaves and bacterial
                                    processes in
                                    > the soil creating enough CO2 that plants need, rather, atmospheric
                                    dissolved
                                    > CO2 as the water flows sounds more reasonable.
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > So if all of the above is true, is it possible that we could have a
                                    lush
                                    > planted medium - high light tank with a couple of spraybars that
                                    keep
                                    > replenishing the 0.3% CO2 back in the water so the plants never
                                    really
                                    > starve of the CO2? I am sure if atmospheric CO2 is dissolved in the
                                    water at
                                    > small quantities, the plants will really never starve.
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > Feedback appreciated :-)
                                    >

                                    >
                                    > Nim
                                    >

                                    >

                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Need help with your website? Go to the individuals we went to for
                                    > www.UniQuaria.com, the expert team at High Aspirations, Inc. This
                                    highly
                                    > qualified group can do anything and everything to make your website
                                    exceed
                                    > your expectations. Please visit their website at
                                    www.highaspirationsinc.com.
                                    >
                                    > Wish to Unsubscribe? I can't imagine why but if you do, send a
                                    message to:
                                    > UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com             
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ADVERTISEMENT

                                    >
                                    <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1294i0lp2/M=298184.6018725.7038619.300117
                                    6/D=gr
                                    >
                                    oups/S=1705417564:HM/EXP=1112385021/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http:
                                    /www.n
                                    > etflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> click here
                                    >
                                    >

                                    > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                                    M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=
                                    > :HM/A=2593423/rand=490251565>
                                    >

                                    >
                                    >   _____ 
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    > *      To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UniQuaria/
                                    >  
                                    > *      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    > UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    > <mailto:UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                    >  
                                    > *      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                    > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.





                                    Need help with your website? Go to the individuals we went to for www.UniQuaria.com, the expert team at High Aspirations, Inc. This highly qualified group can do anything and everything to make your website exceed your expectations. Please visit their website at www.highaspirationsinc.com.

                                    Wish to Unsubscribe? I can't imagine why but if you do, send a message to:
                                    UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com             



                                  • MBethke
                                    Comments?? How about congratulations on your success,,,, I m a big time Balanced aquarium fan. Lots of plants , lots of rocks and caves.. and even a bog
                                    Message 17 of 21 , May 7, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Comments?? How about congratulations on your success,,,,
                                       
                                      I'm a big time Balanced aquarium fan. Lots of plants , lots of rocks and caves.. and even a bog portion.
                                       
                                      Any comments? Write a book as anyone who can grow plants well and control the "Green Attack"  (algae) so well is an expert in my eyes.
                                       
                                      I must say that what I do find ridiculous is those who say surface transfer  and not agitation is the only way to keep levels of O2 up.
                                       
                                      You and I know that blasting a powerheads stream into the tank will increase the oxygen levels and my fish sometimes get in the stream and swim for a while like a treadmill, probably better then tossing money at a gym every month. (LOL)
                                       
                                      Mark
                                       
                                       
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 12:07 AM
                                      Subject: [UniQuaria] A Different CO2 Theory - Update

                                      Giancarlo, I am not Harry J

                                       

                                      Well, this is the update.

                                       

                                      It has been more then a month since I stopped CO2 to that tank and the situation now is:

                                       

                                      I do not get any algae. Very little GSA on the side and front glass, Plants are still growing out of control. With the same light intensity, even Myriophyllum is growing great.

                                       

                                      When I switched off CO2, I got a little problem with green spot algae (GSA) but that was for only a couple of weeks. The tank now seemed to have balanced itself out. Earlier, I was getting nitrate deficiencies (I mean in the test kits… not on the plants) by the end of 1 week. Now My nitrates deplete below 10 after 2 weeks.

                                       

                                      Also, since I am creating a lot of surface agitation (powerhead placed at 45 degree angle 3” below the surface and a spray bar attached to a 1500LPH canister), the surface scum problem is way gone. Fish feel a lot better as they are never deprived of oxygen. I was getting BGA at a few spots on the gravel and sides of a filter which is gone.

                                       

                                      Your comments and views on this please J

                                       

                                      Nim

                                       

                                       


                                      From: Giancarlo Podio [mailto:gpodio@...]
                                      Sent: 04 April 2005 16:01
                                      To: UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [UniQuaria] Re: A Different CO2 Theory

                                       


                                      Just keep an eye on things Harry, just because the plants are more to
                                      your liking doesn't mean they are in better health. We often create a
                                      phosphate deficiency a couple days before taking photos to bring out
                                      the reds, although pleasing to the eye it is a simptom of deficiency
                                      and if kept for any length of time will lead to problems.

                                      I think you will be able to convert your plants to use Excel
                                      efficiently however I would do so gradually as it often takes a
                                      little time before the plants adapt to the new carbon source. I have
                                      a small 2 gallon tank with an 18W CF fixture using Excel as it's only
                                      source of carbon, works very well. Obviously if you use Excel your
                                      are not validating your theory as the aeration is no longer the
                                      source of carbon, but it will work IMO.

                                      I think you would run into considerable problems if you were to try
                                      this method without the addition of Excel, at least unless you lower
                                      the intensity of the lights or create some shadows by leaving some
                                      plants reach the surface.

                                      Keep us updated on your progress.
                                      Giancarlo Podio, LMD




                                      --- In UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com , " Nimish Mathur " <nimmat4@y...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > Guys,
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > 4 days since I turned off my CO2 on the tank and increased surface
                                      > agitation. Plants are still pearling and growing at a fast pace (a
                                      bit
                                      > slower then with CO2 but still at par) but the growth now looks
                                      more natural
                                      > and condensed. The distance between leaf nodes has considerably
                                      reduced but
                                      > the rate of throwing a new leaf is still the same. Strange that
                                      they are
                                      > still pearling with no pressurized CO2 and also I am having a bit
                                      of a
                                      > problem now with green spot algae and some dust algae. Guess, the
                                      CO2 kept
                                      > them under control but now one day I used excel and the next day I
                                      got no
                                      > extra algae. Ottos are not really able to keep up so might have to
                                      get them
                                      > more.
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > I must say that the tank looks much more natural then what it did 4
                                      days
                                      > ago. Hygrophylla is more condensed, cabomba and limnophilla are no
                                      longer
                                      > leggy type (/2" distance between leaf nodes), Difformis is starting
                                      to grow
                                      > vertically, Hydrocotyle is forming a nice ground cover and only a
                                      couple of
                                      > stalks reaching the surface and a couple of emerged as well.
                                      Echinodorous
                                      > ozelot has sent out a flower stem :-) so expecting lots of ozelots
                                      now.
                                      > Myriophyllum was for some reason battered by my angels a week ago
                                      but now
                                      > the new growth looks a lot greener and bigger. Bacopa is still
                                      suffering as
                                      > it always does for me :-(. Ludwigia has been more or less the same.
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > If I had RO water, maybe the algae could have been controlled but
                                      overall I
                                      > am very happy with the outcome in 4 days. Lets watch it for another
                                      few
                                      > weeks and see :-)
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > Will keep posted.
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > Nim
                                      >

                                      >

                                      >

                                      >
                                      >   _____ 
                                      >
                                      > From: Nimish Mathur [mailto:nimmat4@y...]
                                      > Sent: 31 March 2005 20:50
                                      > To:UniQuaria@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Subject: [UniQuaria] A Different CO2 Theory
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > Guys,
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > I have been thinking about a theory and need some help validating
                                      it:
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > We all know that CO2 is well soluble in water. We try to push CO2
                                      in the
                                      > water for the plants to be able to take. Now the plants do not
                                      really care
                                      > how much ppm CO2 we push in as long as they have it available to
                                      them all
                                      > the time? Rite?
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > Atmosphere has 0.3% CO2 so Ideally if we have a waterfall, the
                                      amount of CO2
                                      > dissolved in the water will also be 0.3% of all dissolved gasses?
                                      Osmotic
                                      > pressure or something similar to maintain same concentration in both
                                      > mediums? Does this defy any science? Since we can have a bit of CO2
                                      in the
                                      > water and have the capability to replenish this small amount, is
                                      this
                                      > quantity enough for plants or not? What happens in streams in
                                      rivers? I find
                                      > it difficult to digest the idea of rotting leaves and bacterial
                                      processes in
                                      > the soil creating enough CO2 that plants need, rather, atmospheric
                                      dissolved
                                      > CO2 as the water flows sounds more reasonable.
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > So if all of the above is true, is it possible that we could have a
                                      lush
                                      > planted medium - high light tank with a couple of spraybars that
                                      keep
                                      > replenishing the 0.3% CO2 back in the water so the plants never
                                      really
                                      > starve of the CO2? I am sure if atmospheric CO2 is dissolved in the
                                      water at
                                      > small quantities, the plants will really never starve.
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > Feedback appreciated :-)
                                      >

                                      >
                                      > Nim
                                      >

                                      >

                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Need help with your website? Go to the individuals we went to for
                                      > www.UniQuaria.com, the expert team at High Aspirations, Inc. This
                                      highly
                                      > qualified group can do anything and everything to make your website
                                      exceed
                                      > your expectations. Please visit their website at
                                      www.highaspirationsinc.com.
                                      >
                                      > Wish to Unsubscribe? I can't imagine why but if you do, send a
                                      message to:
                                      > UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com             
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ADVERTISEMENT

                                      >
                                      <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1294i0lp2/M=298184.6018725.7038619.300117
                                      6/D=gr
                                      >
                                      oups/S=1705417564:HM/EXP=1112385021/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http:
                                      /www.n
                                      > etflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> click here
                                      >
                                      >

                                      > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
                                      M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=
                                      > :HM/A=2593423/rand=490251565>
                                      >

                                      >
                                      >   _____ 
                                      >
                                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      >
                                      > *      To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UniQuaria/
                                      >  
                                      > *      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      > UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                      > <mailto:UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                      >  
                                      > *      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.





                                      Need help with your website? Go to the individuals we went to for www.UniQuaria.com, the expert team at High Aspirations, Inc. This highly qualified group can do anything and everything to make your website exceed your expectations. Please visit their website at www.highaspirationsinc.com.

                                      Wish to Unsubscribe? I can't imagine why but if you do, send a message to:
                                      UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com             





                                      Need help with your website? Go to the individuals we went to for www.UniQuaria.com, the expert team at High Aspirations, Inc. This highly qualified group can do anything and everything to make your website exceed your expectations. Please visit their website at www.highaspirationsinc.com.

                                      Wish to Unsubscribe? I can't imagine why but if you do, send a message to:
                                      UniQuaria-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com             


                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.