# picture example of c02 vs non c02 tanks



## thatguy (Oct 16, 2005)

these are 2 10 gallon tanks that sit right next to each other.
they both share the same 30 watt power glo bulb. 
both tanks use play sand as a substrate.

neither tank gets ferts.

the tank on the left gets co2 via a ceramic diffusor. its placed in the front corner of the tank, not in the flow of the filter.

the tank on the right gets no co2.

the only difference between the two tanks, is that the one on the left gets co2.


----------



## thatguy (Oct 16, 2005)

both tanks

they are both planted with aromatica, and planted at the same time. the growth in the co2 tank has far eclipsed the non co2 tank. in the same time period, the co2 tank has been trimmed down 1 time to half its height and subsequently grown back to what you see now.


----------



## JaySilverman (Jun 19, 2005)

Well I'll be damned.


----------



## trckrunrmike (Jan 31, 2005)

I know what I'm getting for Christmas!


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

_neither tank gets ferts._

I understand the simplicity of the experiment, but what are you implying about the ferts?


----------



## thatguy (Oct 16, 2005)

there is no implication in regards to the ferts.
the fact that there is no ferts is mentioned to keep the focus on just co2 and not have another variable that growth can be attributed to.

this photo comparison illustrates the importance of co2 and what kind of difference it can make just in itself.


----------



## Marc (Apr 27, 2005)

[smilie=u:


----------



## soyadude (Dec 17, 2005)

You work for milwaukee instruments don't you 

j/k.


----------



## random_alias (Nov 7, 2005)

If you had dosed ferts the difference in growth would have been even more dramatic since carbon would have remained the limiting factor in the one tank while nutrients would not have been a limiting factor holding the Co2 tank from utilizing even more carbon.

The fact that there were no ferts used and yet the differences between the two were still so dramatic says a lot for what a fertilized, well lit, carbon enriched tank can do that a tank with a limiting factor just can't compete with.

rayer: rayer:


----------



## New 2 Fish (Dec 31, 2004)

That is just incredible!!


----------



## Faruk Gençöz (Nov 4, 2005)

Very simple and effective way of demonstrating the effect of CO2.

There is a difference and this difference inevitably push people to inject CO2. We usually give value to the appearance, amount of the plants etc. From that point, for an aesthetically oriented human being, CO2 can be considered as a must. I sometimes want to taste well grown, very good looking plants. I haven't done it yet but I wonder if an animal or an insect which feed on the leaves of plants would like to *prefer* CO2ed plant over nonCO2ed one.


----------



## sayembara (Dec 13, 2005)

CO2 can give a big impact...personally I have seen its effects in my tanks.


----------



## wannabescaper (Oct 14, 2005)

Looking at this as an experiment, I have a few questions: 

Were the tanks planted at the same time?
Were they planted with the same species?
How old are they at the time of the pictures?

Very cool idea


----------



## thatguy (Oct 16, 2005)

wannabescaper said:


> Looking at this as an experiment, I have a few questions:
> 
> Were the tanks planted at the same time?
> Were they planted with the same species?
> ...


yes, they were created at the same time. ie substrate and setup were the same day. the tanks were planted with aromatica in both tanks. the aromatica came from the same source tank as well.

the plants are about 3 months old, the co2 tank has been trimmed down to less than half its height in the past and has grown back 1 time over.


----------



## MATTHEW MAHLING (Dec 1, 2005)

It was nice to make your aquaintance once again. That's a great experiment Bro. I'm glad I started to use co2


----------



## acbaldwin (Nov 3, 2005)

JaySilverman said:


> Well I'll be damned.


Needed repeating.


----------



## filipnoy85 (Jan 26, 2006)

That's really cool. Thanks for finally providing hard evidence we can use to convince our significant others that CO2 and all the goodies you need with it are essential!


----------



## Magoo (Mar 1, 2006)

Dang, The difference is SHATTERING!


----------



## John S (Jan 18, 2005)

in the tank with co2 have you tested it to see how high the co2 ?? is and is there any fish in the tanks


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

Well there are always other variables, you can never totally duplicate an enviornment, but it is no surprise to me that injecting C02 would dramatically increase the growth rate. I do not think that is ever in doubt. The big question is do you want that dramatic a growth rate. I do not think the plants in the non C02 tank look particularly bad. You can also use a non C02 approach with the Walstad method. While the growth rate may be much slower, the plants will be healthy none the less.

I have aromatica in both a C02 injected and a non co2 tank, bith 55 gallon. The non C02 tank has a little more light. There is not too much difference in growth other than the fact the C02 injected tank has grown a little faster. The aromatica in the non C02 is still growing, still forming some roots and side shoots on the upper stems. There are other plants however that I just can not even keep alive without C02.


----------



## Hawkeye (Aug 20, 2004)

Using CO2 is like plants on steroids!!

Hawk


----------



## anthonysquire (Mar 15, 2006)

Can you get the same results using flourish? I think that's what I'm thinking of.


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

To be fair, you should add the same amount of ferts and see.

10X the biomass, now that's dry weight.

Freshweight of submersed plants, means that 90-95% of the FW is water.

So it might look more than it really is if you compared tomatoes etc
the actual carbon, Nitrogen etc is low.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## pacolopezmujica (Jun 19, 2005)

*The diffuser in front*

Hi,
Just want to know, what's the advantage or disadvantage on having the diffuser directly on the filter intake so that CO2 be distributed all over the system?
Thanks,
Pacolopez


----------



## nap83 (Feb 7, 2006)

co2 does make a lot of difference i agree (and by the way nice presentation!). i wanted to grow an amazon sword on my low light low tech set up. as we all know amazon swords will not grow in my tank since i carry only 1.5 wpg. i snuck in a co2 bubble wand in the back of the amazon sword and bam! it's the biggest thing in the tank! when tank aficionados ask me why my sword looks so lush and healthy on such a dimly lit tank, they're just amazed. co2's crazy!


----------



## thatguy (Oct 16, 2005)

John S said:


> in the tank with co2 have you tested it to see how high the co2 ?? is and is there any fish in the tanks


ive since broken these tanks down, but at the time i targeted 30-40 ppm of co2.

no fish, just shrimp in both tanks.


----------

