View Full Version : Is CO2 necessary?
carttman
02-19-2006, 5:30 PM
What I absolutely have to have CO2 in a 29 gallon tank with 65 watts of light?
IceH2O
02-19-2006, 5:59 PM
Try it without CO2, just use Flourish or some other fert.
If you don't get algae you're good, if you do then you know you need CO2.
happychem
02-20-2006, 7:57 AM
Agreed, you're pretty much right on the border of necessary, so try it without. It will certainly help, no doubt, but if you can grow the plants successfully without much algae, why add a level of complication.
Iguanamom
02-20-2006, 10:36 AM
I found myself in the same boat last year...ran without CO2 and had a horrible outbreak of green sheet algae. It's still hanging around after a lights out treatment. Most of my plants died, but I'm starting over with CO2 and more attention to water column fertilizers. I guess since I'd grown plants in the past with success, I thought the jump to higher light would be a snap...but I was wrong and I'm hoping the additional fertilizer in both forms will balance things out and I'll be successful once again.
"Balance" is the magic word. If you have low light (<2WPG for me), life is slower and simpler. If you increase light, ferts and bioavailable carbon must also increase, or you are shooting yourself in the foot. Increasing one leg of a tripod is non-functional, all must increase equally. Increase light and increase ferts without CO2/Excel and you are on the slippery downhill slope to algae heaven.
Iguanamom
02-20-2006, 11:28 AM
Absolutely right RTR. Learning the hard way even though your exact explanation was staring me in the face (a picture for crying out loud!) in one of my favorite plant books that I use regularly.
Ms.Bubbles
02-20-2006, 12:49 PM
" Increase light and increase ferts without CO2/Excel and you are on the slippery downhill slope to algae heaven.
RTR--do you mean CO2 AND Excel, or CO2 OR Excel?
happychem
02-20-2006, 1:26 PM
or, but both can be used together as well.
happychem got it - either CO2 or Excel, or both CO2 and Excel. Either/both provide bioavailable carbon, but they are not quite equal. CO2 itself is "better", but either can be used with success.
Ms.Bubbles
02-21-2006, 10:10 AM
"Balance" is the magic word. If you have low light (<2WPG for me), life is slower and simpler... Increasing one leg of a tripod is non-functional, all must increase equally. Increase light and increase ferts without CO2/Excel and you are on the slippery downhill slope to algae heaven.
So how does one determine the correct "balance" of light, ferts and carbon?
plantbrain
02-21-2006, 10:34 AM
What I absolutely have to have CO2 in a 29 gallon tank with 65 watts of light?
Let's rephrase the question, is it absolutely required to have a 65 w PC light on a 29 gal tank to grow plants without CO2? No.
Would less light be better?
Probably. I'd suggest 2 x NO FL 20w lights.
Would the tank and plants do much better with CO2 or Excel? Yes.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Or another variant: My 29 has 3 x 20W NO light. Without CO2 or Excel, it is hair algae heaven.