# CO2 deficiency cause algae Myth Busted



## Edward

*CO2 deficiency cause algae Myth Busted*

Who says CO2 deficiencies cause algae? 

Do we have to kill our fish to have enough CO2? Not really. Here we have _Glossostigma elatinoides_ under high and very high light. 











As we can see the plant's structure below 1 ppm of CO2 doesn't look healthy, but is 100% algae free. This is an important discovery. Higher CO2 around 2 ppm and more seems to produce nice looking healthy plants. 

This is a proof of another myth to be busted. If you have algae issues check your lighting, minerals, temperature and consistency. 
Any questions?

Thank you
Edward


----------



## chiahead

I wonder how this same experiment would work on slower growers? Nice find though. I always appreciate new info on the ways we think were doing things the "right" way!


----------



## JJman

Interesting find. Would you mind describing a little more detail on how you conduct these experiments? I'm interested on things like your setup and the controls that you have. Also, what did you use to measure the CO2 down to 1 ppm resolution? Thanks!


----------



## TWood

What a nice fat piece of bait to see if you can lure him back!


----------



## Laith

Interesting picture... how much light was high and very high light?


----------



## Craig Tarvin

chiahead said:


> I wonder how this same experiment would work on slower growers? Nice find though. I always appreciate new info on the ways we think were doing things the "right" way!


I think that the only algae considered to be influenced by low CO2 levels is BBA, and I have never seen it grow on a fast growing plant like Glosso. Why not try Anubias?


----------



## Wheeler

This is garbage. Are we supposed to just take this at face value? You plainly admit that you grew these plants "under high and very high light", so that make 2 variables that you told us about. Not great scientific method so far. 

You're making a TALL claim, and one that I and a ton of others believe to be plain old untrue. High light and low CO2 = poor plant growth and unchecked algae. I know the guy who espouses this stuff is a blowhard, and preaches a lot of thing I don't agree with, but this, IME, is right on.

Explain yourself, please.


----------



## Craig Tarvin

Wheeler said:


> This is garbage. Are we supposed to just take this at face value? You plainly admit that you grew these plants "under high and very high light", so that make 2 variables that you told us about. Not great scientific method so far.
> 
> You're making a TALL claim, and one that I and a ton of others believe to be plain old untrue. High light and low CO2 = poor plant growth and unchecked algae. I know the guy who espouses this stuff is a blowhard, and preaches a lot of thing I don't agree with, but this, IME, is right on.
> 
> Explain yourself, please.


I avoided being that direct, but I agree 100%.

I think this claim is like driving down the block one time, without your seatbelt, without getting into an accident... and then claiming that seatbelts don't save lives.


----------



## rusticitas

Was the actual claim that low CO2 _causes_ algae? I've usually only seen suggestions to raise CO2 to help combat algae. There is a correlation, I would suspect, but I'm not sure that raising CO2 to help combat algae implied that low CO2 _caused_ algae. Algae will show up when there isn't enough, or a balance of, the nutrients that the plants need. Right? (I'm still learning all this, but this was my current understanding.)


----------



## banderbe

TWood said:


> What a nice fat piece of bait to see if you can lure him back!


That was my first thought. If anything would get him to post again, this would be it.


----------



## MrSanders

I mean honestly Edward.... are you kidding? What sort of claim is that? Its like picking up one of those tabloid magazines and saying "well it must be true it says it right here and there are pictures to prove it" Lets see some data to PROVE it.... dont simply come on here and post a claim that has NOTHING at all to back it up.

Honestly what are you here for???? Why do you post things like this? To me this seems more like a personal issue between you and Tomm Barr... and a bit of resentment.... you try to rope people in to back you up and believe in the things you do to prove him wrong. But once you get people to show intrest in what you have to offer it ends there and you offer no further evidance or proven methods.... Simply smart remarks like your bigger and better and if we had just done it exactly like you said and waiting long enough things would pan out and we would see what you claim to have going on in your tanks..... 

If this is about helping better understand the hobby and be more successful in their attempts then by ALL means please do so.... but if this is something personal where your just trying to be the one who is right in the end.... well.... I think a lot of people already think down on you for that exact reason......


----------



## ruki

:lol: 

This has to be a joke post...

How can this be proof when this alleged experient is lacking necessary statements of:
* hypothesis clearly stated
* description of the test environment (control and treatment tanks)
* introduction of at least one type of algae into the both environments to demonstrate that CO2 versus non-CO2 has some effect on algae growth.

If not a joke, this appears to not be an experiment, but an observation. It seems to be, "I tried raising glosso under different CO2 levels for a very short time period and was lucky not to get algae on any of them."

Any questions?

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Gomer

I'm sorry Edward, but your "proof" is as good as:

*Driving 100mph in 1st gear destroys your car Myth Busted*










As we can see here, although the image quality isn't that good, the car is in perfect condition. This is an important discovery.

This is a proof of another myth to be busted. 
Any questions?


----------



## hoppycalif

Tony, any car capable of going 100 mph in first gear probably won't be destroyed by doing so - assuming that the revs are not beyond the red zone for that car, and that isn't likely to be the case, however.....oh, was this a joke?? Sorry.

About Edward's claim: He didn't say 100 mph,....oops sorry. I find it very interesting when Edward, or anyone else posts a claim such as that, even with very scanty evidence. It does some good, in that it makes us rethink our beliefs and try to cook up ways to support or refute the claim. When he started his now famous thread about low KH not being a problem that was greeted with some derision too, but I think that one has been pretty well accepted now. Personally I am in the camp that disagrees on this one, but I still hope he continues to try to demonstrate that it is true. A little more knowledge is always helpful.

And, I agree that this is most likely aimed at one other person who is a very strong advocate of CO2 in the tank being the primary fix for everything from algae issues to ugly little ceramic treasure chests. The latter is still awaiting proof, but the former seems to be well supported.


----------



## Edward

Hi 
People are killing fish with high CO2 levels because of algae issues. This approach seems to be incorrect. Why? Because there is no algae on the CO2 starved plants I have posted above. Please see detail picture bellow. 











The picture shows how CO2 deficient plants look like. Both are mature plants, the larger is under 6 Wpg at 9" distance from the bulb and the smaller is under 250 Watt MH at 25" distance from the bulb. No artificial CO2 was used. 

The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate how CO2 deficiency may actually look like. This could be the first depiction of such occurrence. I thing sharing results of our experiments will improve the technique we use today. 

Thank you
Edward


----------



## Glouglou

*CO2 Mania!*

I think Edward want to demonstrate here is that the strange power of the new Snake oil in aquaria. CO2
It seem that a lot of aficionados, add this product to the max until the poor fish occupant gasp for mercy (never mind them) and all your problem Go away: algae, nutrient deficiency and fishy. Look like a Nazi experiment, no, it's the new miracle drug CO2 

We can see here that CO2 is beneficial. Between the no CO2 example and the few ppm the difference is staggering and , yes, if you bump your CO2 to a certain level algae will disappear, and a little bit more everything alive disappear.

You can do the same thing with motor oil, a drop in a tank will disturb the life of simple organism, but if you add the whole pint, I promise your algae problem will vanished...


----------



## Jason Baliban

The other piece to this puzzle is nutrients.

What are your nutrient and water parms?

I dont think there is really any secret here. Amano has been growing beautiful plants for years now with low nutrients and low CO2.

High light, high nutrients, and high CO2 seem to be an american/western approach.

I have been growing the best plants of my life the last 6 months with just 30ppm of co2, and very lean nutrients. Its no secret that I think that a high nutrient and high co2 approach has no sustainability.

jB


----------



## bugs

I did not think that CO2 had a direct effect on algae. I thought the theory was based on ensuring vigorous plant growth, through provision of all the necessary nutrients etc, meant that algae failed to compete.

Hence why the gearing for nutrient requirements (inc CO2) revolves around light levels, with low-light/slow growth tanks not requiring CO2.

This experiment seems to prove that growing plants under high light without CO2 affects growth rate & plant health.


----------



## redstrat

I understand the point of this is to get people thinking and take a look at our current theories but what are you really trying to argue. 

Co2 alone is not a cure for algae??? ok I'll buy that but added CO2 does seem to offer a bit of a cushion or room for error with the other nutrients. CO2 also increases the plants ability to use the nutrients in the water by boosting the rate of photosynthesis. 

CO2 is harmfull to the fauna of the tank??? CO2 is constantly in the water, I'd be hard pressed to beleive you have plants growing let alone glosso in 0ppm CO2 conditions. There is CO2 in the air around the aquarium, this CO2 dissolves through the surface of the water and can give you 3ppm or so, plus if you have fish they are also adding a small portion of CO2. Fish carry on their lives showing no signs of stress as long as their gills can dissolve enough CO2 back into the water during respiration. They start to show clear signs of stress when you push their limits with this and as long as you maintain 30ppm CO2 you shouldn't see signs of stress like this. Watch for and avoid their signs of stress and the fish will be happy and healthy. 

Plants can grow without CO2? serriously??? CO2 is very important for photosynthesis.

I have to agree with Jason Baliban here and say that CO2 is a good way to promote healthier plant growth and achieve it much easier. 

Within days of adding CO2 to a "high light" fertilized planted tank, you will notice less algae, more robust and faster plant growth, these results are constantly repeated by many people here on apc and to me I feel its pretty irrefutable evidence that this is true. I haven't heard many people say they lose any tank inhabitants from the addition of CO2 unless a mistake was made. 

I think one of the most important things to consider when adding CO2 to a planted tank is to respect the limits of saftey for the fish. Dont make sudden increases in CO2 concentrations and always keep an eye out for their safety.


----------



## Wheeler

Edward said:


> Hi
> People are killing fish with high CO2 levels because of algae issues. This approach seems to be incorrect. Why? Because there is no algae on the CO2 starved plants I have posted above. Please see detail picture bellow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The picture shows how CO2 deficient plants look like. Both are mature plants, the larger is under 6 Wpg at 9" distance from the bulb and the smaller is under 250 Watt MH at 25" distance from the bulb. No artificial CO2 was used.
> 
> The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate how CO2 deficiency may actually look like. This could be the first depiction of such occurrence. I thing sharing results of our experiments will improve the technique we use today.
> 
> Thank you
> Edward


Nope. Still not satisfied. The point of this thread was NOT "to demonstrate how CO2 deficiency may actually look like". It was to demonstrate how low CO2 does not cause algae, remember?

Who is killing their livestock?!... I have to say- I'm a little disappointed. Edward, people will look to you, just based on your Moderating this forum and your association with PPS, as a leader and an authority on the subject. You're not doing the hobby any favors by "rocking the boat", and then not backing it up properly with REAL, VIABLE, and REPEATABLE evidence.

Just trying to keep things honest here...


----------



## Gomer

I can show you an algae free close up of a fast growing plant plant and neglect to show the neighboring plant covered in algae, the hardscape covered in algae, and the glass covered in algae.

My point is that when you look at something under a microscope, you loose sight of everything around the subject.


----------



## hoppycalif

I have been a strong advocate of increasing the CO2 ppm until the fish show signs of unhappiness, then backing back down a bit. But, that was before I found a simple little device like the ADA "drop checker" or equivalent would let me know what the CO2 level in the tank is, so I can adjust it and keep it adjusted to almost any level I want - no more guessing by watching the fish. I have lose fish due to too high a CO2 level, but not by trying to raise it to the absolute maximum amount. My loss was when the bubble rate was higher than I thought I had it set at.

CO2 has helped me and continues to help me grow healthy plants. So, I will continue to use it, and I will use a "drop checker" to be sure I am maintaining a consistent high level of CO2 in the water. That will change only when I see good evidence that my eyes are fooling me.

Incidentally, a good "drop checker" will help that car to go 100 mph without damage too!!


----------



## Gomer

> Incidentally, a good "drop checker" will help that car to go 100 mph without damage too!!


Not in 1st gear


----------



## MrSanders

> CO2 deficiency cause algae Myth Busted
> Who says CO2 deficiencies cause algae?


 That is what you started this thread with Edward.....



> Nope. Still not satisfied. The point of this thread was NOT "to demonstrate how CO2 deficiency may actually look like". It was to demonstrate how low CO2 does not cause algae, remember?
> 
> Who is killing their livestock?!... I have to say- I'm a little disappointed. Edward, people will look to you, just based on your Moderating this forum and your association with PPS, as a leader and an authority on the subject. You're not doing the hobby any favors by "rocking the boat", and then not backing it up properly with REAL, VIABLE, and REPEATABLE evidence.
> 
> Just trying to keep things honest here...
> __________________
> Best Wishes,
> John Wheeler


 Sorry but I'm going to have to agree with John 100 times over..... you caught some s*** and now your trying to twist what you said because you wish you hadn't said it that way.... for what every reason i don't know? lack of true evidance to back it up maybe? who knows.....


----------



## Edward

Wheeler, Sanders
maybe this will help you?

CO2 deficiency does not cause algae on plants and here are pictures to show you how CO2 deficient plants look like. They are not covered in algae.


----------



## MrSanders

Well thats for that bit in info... 

however I still don't know many people who are going to be relieved to hear that a lack of CO2 won't cause algae to grow on thier plants.... but everything else most likely will be covered.... and that even though thier plants arn't covered in algae... they are stunted and sick....


----------



## stepheus

I don’t think it’s a very good idea killing edward over something like this. I am on the fence for this matter though. Not surprisingly, for edward, making claims like that does cause uproars since the world is constantly bombarded by theories that proves to be untrue after a while of practice. Practitioners get frustrated. That is why forumers protested when they found reason for doubt...

Here is for being techy. Some issues to be looked into, besides the ones already mentioned when doing an experiment like this would be:
1.	What kind of algae are we talking about? We cant generalize all types of algae as most have different growth patterns etc.
2.	Are the other parameters that may case algae issues controlled? Ceteris paribus?
3.	What is the margin of error that is to be tolerated?
4.	If there is correlation, is it significant?
5.	How many samples do we take for the agreed margin of error?
6.	What is the probability of the results in the experiment happening to a planted aquaria if similar parameters are monitored?
7.	Assumptions?

The above steps maybe tedious, but, it can be done quite quickly for someone who has been practicing it. If someone is serious in doing this experiment, I don’t mind processing the data then post the results here under your credit. 

Why not redo the experiment if this is an interesting area of research.


----------



## dennis

OK,
First, stop the hate. I understand completely how the title, topic and concepts raised by Edward can lead to hard feelings but this is supposed to be fun. If you disagree, as I do, that is fine but please do not turn it into a flame. If you have questions about Edwards method, ask him-> without the sarcasm.

Now, that being said. My expereinces have shown me that CO2 levels can help combat algae issues through increased and healthy plant growth. On very many occasions I have develpoed algae issue, changed only the CO2 and algae goes away. That idea and the mechanisms behind it is fairly easy to understand, IMO. 

Obviously, Edward has a method that works for him. He is trying to share some of his experiences. I do disagree with the blanket statement and general assumption but I woudl be interested to know the full details about Edwards setup. What are the other parameters, filter type, substrate, frequency and quality of cleaning and water changes, nutrient levels, etc, etc? How long did these conditions of poor growth exhist. In my expereince, a short period of poor growth conditions that is remedied won't cause algae. IIRC, Gomer's custom 30 gallon tank that was so loved by all 3 judges in the AGA (thoug did not win, which suprises me some) was not running CO2 for a while and with Tek lighting. The same exact situatuons and solutions do not work for everyone.

I disagree with the wording of this thread but I would like to know more about the entire setup and conditions.

BTW, we all know that Tom cannot come back here. He is banned but would not return even if we asked him. Edward knows that and again, blanket statments about "calling people out" are uncalled for and have no basis.


----------



## Edward

Hi dennis




dennis said:


> My expereinces have shown me that CO2 levels can help combat algae issues through increased and healthy plant growth. On very many occasions I have develpoed algae issue, changed only the CO2 and algae goes away. That idea and the mechanisms behind it is fairly easy to understand, IMO.


 Yes, Carbon is absolutely necessary for plants to have. CO2 levels have a direct affect on growth rate so the question now is how much is needed to have healthy looking aquarium? Personally, I would like to have a PAUSE on plant growth so I don't have to do trimming 2x a week in all aquariums. Lowering CO2 concentration may provide such a regulator. I don't know but it looks like the Carbon is the only nutrient not causing algae issues when becomes deficient. Try NO3, Ca or Fe and algae comes in no time. Why not Carbon?

Agreed with the empty CO2 tank issue, but I think the problem is the environmental rate of change rather then the lack of CO2. Plants and fish go to shock for a day or two and then you hook up the new CO2 tank. Everything returns to 'normal'. 

I am not trying to tell people to discard their CO2 tanks, get 400 Watt MH and forget about it. See, when all works well here I get bored and do something to kill it. This time I turned the CO2 off on 6 aquariums. Plant growth almost froze. Plants able to use Carbon from KH are doing ok and the other have holes in older leaves. But there is no algae on plants, on glass and on crystal white silica sand. That's amazing. So why not share it, agree?

Thank you
Edward


----------



## dennis

Edward,

I do agree with all of that, though my opinion is that if you want slower growth, limiting light will never cause algae, in general at least. However, I do understand getting bored and/or wanting to experiment Finding the mechanism behind that would be interesting. One relationship I see is that you run "lean" nutrient levels, based on my slim knowledge of PPS. What is interesting to me is that I imagine your setups are much more stable than most of us running EI.

I don't have time to really go into more tonight but stability, regardless of levels, are key IMO. 

In the mean time, please show us your setups and details about levels. I understand know that you were trying to simply say that low CO2 levels are not a cause of algae, initially. If you suddenly change your levels do you get some problems or do you maintain your tanks well enough to prevent algae before it starts?

Details, I need details. Not to believe you but to better understand what is happening.


----------



## hoppycalif

Edward said:


> *CO2 deficiency cause algae Myth Busted*
> 
> Who says CO2 deficiencies cause algae?
> 
> Do we have to kill our fish to have enough CO2? Not really. Here we have _Glossostigma elatinoides_ under high and very high light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we can see the plant's structure below 1 ppm of CO2 doesn't look healthy, but is 100% algae free. This is an important discovery. Higher CO2 around 2 ppm and more seems to produce nice looking healthy plants.
> 
> This is a proof of another myth to be busted. If you have algae issues check your lighting, minerals, temperature and consistency.
> Any questions?
> 
> Thank you
> Edward


Edward I am trying to figure out how you managed to get to zero CO2 in a tank, how you got to 1 ppm, 2 ppm and 15 ppm, and how you measured those concentrations. I think it is impossible to have an aquarium at zero ppm of CO2 unless you put it in an airtight container and supply the air space with pure oxygen and nitrogen only. If you don't do that the water will reach equilibrium with the atmosphere above it, giving you from about .5 to about 3 ppm of CO2. And, try as hard as I can, I can't find a way to measure the ppm of CO2 in water with better than +/- 5 ppm, if even that good. Please, let us know how you did that, at least so some of us can duplicate the results. That isn't my reason for wanting to know it, though. I am just very, very interested in how to measure CO2 in water.


----------



## banderbe

I would guess that 0 ppm CO2 means Edward added 0 ppm of CO2, not that there was 0 ppm of CO2 in the water.

Further I would speculate that he knows how much CO2 a given bubble rate yields, and from there it's a simple matter to calculate the rate that would yield 1 ppm, 2 ppm, 15 ppm, etc.

I would second the observation that there does seem to be a rivalry of some kind between Edward and Tom, but I think that can only benefit the community.

Competition is a *good* thing.


----------



## Edward

chiahead said:


> I wonder how this same experiment would work on slower growers? Nice find though. I always appreciate new info on the ways we think were doing things the "right" way!


Thank you chiahead
The slowest growing plants here are _Cryptocoryne beckettii__ 'petchii'_ and _Cryptocoryne pontederiifolia_. Their health is unaffected even though they are sitting right under the 250 Watt MH at 0 - 1 ppm of CO2. Please see pictures bellow.


----------



## Edward

Here are some pictures of the plants growing for few months under 2 x 250 Watt MH at around 1 ppm of CO2. Such conditions are not supposed to support plant life. 

_







_

_







_

_







_

_







_

_







_

_







_

_







_


----------



## Edward

rusticitas said:


> Was the actual claim that low CO2 _causes_ algae?


 about a million times


----------



## Edward

Thank you stepheus
More research needs to be done about the CO2 levels and what the light correlation really is. Any volunteer?


----------



## Edward

JJman, hoppycalif, davis.1841, 
You got it right. There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to dissolve 3 ppm in our aquariums. Lifetime supply and it's free. Here is the deal. Very well aerated water moves pH to the lowest value before lights go on. After high light photoperiod water is depleted of most of the CO2 moving pH to its highest level. This gives us a range between zero and three ppm. This makes it easy to estimate where the ppm is. The goal is to have enough at the end of the day. 
Here is a picture of _Hemianthus callitrichoides_ perling like crazy under 6 Wpg at 2 - 3 ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere. 










(Sorry, the server is overloaded again, no pictures) 

Thank you
Edward


----------



## Wheeler

Still not seeing any real proof... Scratch that. I've seen NO proof. Why not make this a sticky? 

This is my last post on this thread.


----------



## BryceM

Hmmmm.

First, I agree with Dennis - there is very rich ground here for differences of opinion, but let's keep the discussion civil.

Second, there is a real need for some science to back up any claim such as this. Anecdotal evidence is no evidence whatsoever. It is certainly possible to set up a tank without CO2 addition that rumbles along without algae issues. I kept such a tank for many months. It was a low-moderate light setup, plant growth was modest, and things generally looked ok. It was full of "easy" plants. The tank was quite sparse compared to my current taste and I found CO2 to be the single biggest improvement in my plant-keeping abilities.

In my opinion/experience, a tank is sustainable over the long term by using one of two methods. The first would be a lower-light, lower-nutrient tank with or without CO2 addition. The second would be a high-light tank with CO2 addition, and a careful and consistent monitoring of water parameters. If (and only if) you are willing to do the work to keep a high-light tank in the "sweet spot", it's perfectly sustainable for any period of time.

It may be possible to keep a high-light tank algae free without CO2 addition, but I doubt it.

If Edward has found a way to do it, I'm all ears. Please share. If he's speaking of a low or moderate light setup, then it's pretty much old news in my book. CO2 is a luxury, but not strictly necessary in that situation. High light = different story.

Like always, there are too many variables in play here to support a conclusion. How far are the lights from the surface? How clean are the shields? How old are the bulbs? How long are they on per day? What type of bulbs are they? How deep is the tank? How good are the reflectors? Etc. Etc. Etc.


----------



## Freemann

I can only say this. I had a tank for 4 years that was 70 lt under 75w MH no ferts, no CO2 but soil under substrate and this is not the only time. This was 4w/gal, there were about 7 species of easy plants (crypts, anubias e.t.c) doing perfectly well (not surviving) for 4 years, and not a speckle of algae. Still I think that Edward and correct me Edward if I am wrong did not phrase his point well. His point and again correct me if I am wrong is that low CO2 is not the cause of algae in a high light tank, it is a combination of parameters in relation to CO2 that causes the algae. No doubt if you add a ton of ferts in a tank under high light you will have to "burn" them and the only way would be to increase CO2, otherwise algae will "burn" them (I even suspect that some types of algaes take advantage of all this CO2). Still adding so much CO2 that the fish will stress (plant prolly stress aswell) is no excuse for the addition of all this ferts to start with, and anyway I doubt if you can counter effect all the effects that this ferts will have by themselves on the general health of the tank anyway and there are effects believe me. Still difficult plants need *enough* ferts, and *enough* CO2 will balance the tank and get them growing with np.
So my point is, the problem is not low CO2, it is too much ferts to start with.


P.S Think of it, which are the best tanks out there at the moment? ADA tanks. Now forget ADA brand for a moment and consider what makes ADA tanks what they are?
Quite low CO2, low nutrients in the column, not even the most incredibly rich substrate and quess what, they look like the healthiest tanks. Do we have to look any further when it is infront of our noses?


----------



## hoppycalif

Edward said:


> JJman, hoppycalif, davis.1841,
> You got it right. There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to dissolve 3 ppm in our aquariums. Lifetime supply and it's free. Here is the deal. Very well aerated water moves pH to the lowest value before lights go on. After high light photoperiod water is depleted of most of the CO2 moving pH to its highest level. This gives us a range between zero and three ppm. This makes it easy to estimate where the ppm is. The goal is to have enough at the end of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> Edward


So, if I read this correctly, you are assuming what the ppm of CO2 in the water is, based on the assumption that well aerated water will have 3 ppm of CO2 in it. My testing indicated to me that water just sitting out in the open will slowly reach an equilibrium of something in the neighborhood of .5 ppm of CO2, not 3 ppm. And, I would expect that if I bubbled air thru that water the time to reach that .5 ppm would be greatly decreased, but it would still end up at about .5 ppm. I am belaboring this point only because you labeled your photos as 0,1,2, etc. ppm of CO2, and I think that is a mistake.

Whether or not you are correct in your conclusion, and I'm still not sure what that conclusion was, I don't know. I think you are saying that low CO2 does not cause algae. That is, in my opinion, correct. But, low CO2, combined with high light intensity will generally result in an outbreak in BBA. If there are no BBA spores in the tank, no BBA will grow in the tank. If I were to do that experiment I think I would use a tank that had experienced BBA recently, I would use PC lighting, mounted about 2-4" above the water, I would use at least 2.5 watts per gallon over at least a 20 gallon tank, and I would measure the ppm of CO2 in the water, using a "drop checker" type measurement, where the imperfections of the tank water did not affect the measurement. Then I would look for BBA blooming, and I strongly suspect I would find it.


----------



## hooha

Freemann said:


> I can only say this. I had a tank for 4 years that was 70 lt under 75w MH no ferts, no CO2 but soil under substrate and this is not the only time. This was 4w/gal, there were about 7 species of easy plants (crypts, anubias e.t.c) doing perfectly well (not surviving) for 4 years, and not a speckle of algae. Still I think that Edward and correct me Edward if I am wrong did not phrase his point well. His point and again correct me if I am wrong is that low CO2 is not the cause of algae in a high light tank, it is a combination of parameters in relation to CO2 that causes the algae.


This is what I deduced from this point as well, but wasn't explicitly stated.

Can plants thrive in a high light, high CO2, high nutrient environment in aquariums? *Anecdotal* evidence has shown so. By anecdotal I mean the plethora of tanks that people have here that do well in that environment. Can tanks do well in in a high light, low CO2, high/low(?) nutrient environment? Maybe. This is one piece of evidence suggesting so.

I think the polarized reaction towards this post is partly on how it was presented, very "Barr-esque" imo.

Whether or not a "myth has been busted" remains to be seen, but I find it very interesting and exciting that it is possible to have a thriving aquarium outside of the current "box" of high light/CO2/nutrients.

There has been calls to more scientific evidence towards the post' claims. I'd like to see actual scientific claims for the current line of thinking. There's tons of people here who do well with the "high everything" setup that does well. But implicitly this goes against what happens in a pond/stream/ditch in our plants' natural environments. How many streams have 30ppm of CO2????

When I've browsed posts asking for evidence for the "high everything" theory, I've only seen "I've done experiments in the 90's" or "Look at the posts in APD from 10 years ago" etc. Never has there been an actual scientific journal article quoted that I could find (which is important to me). If someone actually has articles they can find and post I'd be very interested in reading them. I actually have a theory I'd like to try out, and if I'm basing it on the "high everything" theory going around right now, I'd like to have an actual, *scientifically valid* article to quote rather than having to say "anectdotal evidence from a large number of planted aquariasts have shown that A,B,C are values which promote algae suppression and good plant growth." That's *all* we have towards the high CO2/nutrient/light theory that I can see so far.


----------



## niko

Let's look at this issue from a different perspective:

Why is it that we type 5 pages worth of posts in a matter of a day when someone claims that low CO2 level does not cause algae?

Because we are still lost in the "science" of keeping a planted tank clean. As I've said before - we are still in the "dark ages" of this hobby, fumbling for answers.

Here's something that noone can deny: Both Tom Barr's EI and Edward's PPS do not work 100% of the time, for all people. There is no clear approach to keeping a planted tank clean, guaranteed, every time. 

If EI or PPS worked every single time we'd not have any discussions about problems. One thing is certain - you must watch for trends and make adjustments accordingly. That requires experience and common sense.

Because people seek simple and easy answers and because Tom is so active promoting his method EI has gained popularity. And so are Tom's views on algae issues. One of them is the correlation "a lot of CO2 --> healthy plants --> no algae". It makes sense and I personally agree generally with that particular one. But the truth is - hobbyists started using CO2 in planted tanks in the mid 90's. How on Earth did people keep clean planted tanks before that, without any CO2 injection? "Dutch" tanks with lush plants that completely hide the substrate come to mind...

There are lot of other factors, as someone mentioned, that keep a tank algae free. Maybe because I've talked online with Edward before I think that the post that started this thread as another attempt to bring common sense in the picture.

Edward,
Almost 3 years ago I told you that making PPS popular and getting people to undersand your point of view about this or that issue will take A LOT of effort and A LOT of forum activity. Basically creating an "image". "Image" goes a long way around here 

--Nikolay


----------



## TWood

dennis said:


> BTW, we all know that Tom cannot come back here. He is banned but would not return even if we asked him. Edward knows that and again, blanket statments about "calling people out" are uncalled for and have no basis.


Then it's cowardly to post this here knowing Tom can't rebut. Post this over at Planted Tank, or Barr Report, and let's have an honest debate.


----------



## niko

hooha said:


> ...I think the polarized reaction towards this post is partly on how it was presented, very "Barr-esque" imo...


HAHAH!

That was a truly funny statement! Over the years Tom has changed his style of writing a lot. I personally think that the changes came naturally as a result of zillion of people confronting him about every single thing he says (or they thing he said). My hat is off to the guy for sticking with the hobby.

And it appears that Edward maybe changing his writing style too. This hobby chages people I tell you, hahah 

--Nikolay


----------



## dennis

TWood said:


> Then it's cowardly to post this here knowing Tom can't rebut. Post this over at Planted Tank, or Barr Report, and let's have an honest debate.


That's unfair. I was trying to say that Edward could not be trying to start a war with Tom since Tom cannot be here. Obviously, Edwards post was geared toward helping us or sharing his experience(s) and not in starting a fight. To be honest, I am very short tempered and hot headed but I don't go around trying to start fights. The only people I saw(read) picking fights were other posters

Also, you've seen enough of Tom to know that there is no such thing as a honest debate. It's like trying to argue with my mother-in-law- you'll never be right.

I will also defend or argue one other point. Scientific evidence in this hobby is hard. It requires a lot of time and money on the researchers part. Truly scientific evidence is almost impossible on a hobbyist's time/budget. Scientific evidence often does not apply to the everyday either. Sterile RO/DI water is with UV and no spores is very different than my well water. Science requires complete control to be valid but that is something no one can accomplish at home and if they can, the results may not apply to the other 99% of the hobbyists.

I think niko is spot on when saying there are tons of different ways, results and theories out there. The whole situation of algae is a complex situation with hundreds of variables. A planted aquarium as a comlex ecosystem that is as complicated and varied as a Florida swamp.


----------



## Satirica

It is fairly obvious to me that CO2, or the lack thereof, does not cause algae. What seems to me to be true, from my own anecdotal experience, is that when any parameter required for plant growth gets seriously out of balance algae will grow at a rate that makes it noticeable.

I've been told that BBA is the result of too little CO2, and that the addition of more CO2 will cause it to go away. Yet my BBA outbreak *began* on a ceramic CO2 diffuser and increasing CO2 had absolutely no effect. A new diffuser quickly became home to BBA. I discovered that adding trace such as CSM + B always resulted in a BBA outbreak, even when added in tiny amounts. I am now living in a different location with different tap water. If I don't add trace all plant growth stops and algae begins, and if I do add trace no BBA.

I've done EI for a couple of years. While in one location, with one set of water parameters, everything was great. In my current location, with different water, I have had to make major changes in fertilizing. 

In an aquarium we are gardening below water, and that water is a barrier to getting CO2 to the plants. That is, primarily, what makes growing plants in an aquarium different than growing plants emmersed. Since CO2 is limited I simply add enough for good growth, the same way I add NPK to houseplants. I think of CO2 as just another nutrient, not something that is in its own special category. That readjustment of thinking has helped me to achieve a better balance, and better plant growth.

I think balance is the key, and focusing on any single nutrient is a bit of a lost cause.


----------



## TWood

dennis said:


> Obviously, Edwards post was geared toward helping us or sharing his experience(s) and not in starting a fight.


That's not obvious at all, the very title of this thread is intentionally confrontational. Now post it, in its original form and with that title at a forum where Tom can rebut if he so desires.

You might call it a fight, I call it a disagreement. I think we all agree that working through that is a good thing.


----------



## wiste

My understanding of this thread is that 
1) High light and poor plant growth = unchecked algae.

2) CO2 deficiency results in abnormal plant growth and not algae.

3) If CO2 is available even in low quantities that this would be sufficient to support plant growth. 

4) CO2 from the atmosphere provides sufficient CO2 to support plant growth. If I understand correctly, a very well aerated tank with good water flow from filtration should provide a sufficient level of CO2.

Is this a correct understanding?


----------



## John N.

Dear All,

Please keep this discussion on topic:* CO2 deficiency cause algae Myth Busted

*Tom Barr is not banned from APC. He, as well as anyone else that has an idea about this topic are free to offer their opinions and observations. The fact that he choses not to participate in APC's discussions is entirely up to him. So please cease the "baiting" comments, and "attacking" comments, as the intent of this thread is to explore and challenge the idea that high CO2 levels prevents algae. Let's return our focus to this interesting discussion. 

-John N.


----------



## rrguymon

I guess I never heard that Myth before. I have heard if everything else is in balance and you have BBA it is probaly low CO2. 

From what I understand the EI method is somwhat depended on getting the CO2 around 30 PPM. 30 PPM is also very safe from all I have read for aquarium live stock. I have never killed or even stressed my fish getting the CO2 levels high enough for EI to work. 

People were keeping nice planted tanks before pressurised CO2. So it is no secert that high CO2 levels are required to have an algea free tank. If you have a method, that works with little or no CO2 addition great, please tell all about it. But please don't attack other methods -which I think your post is all about.

Rick


----------



## BryceM

One thing that is interesting is the assumption that many people make that plants in nature derive their carbon only from the atmosphere. It has been demonstrated in many natural bodies of water that CO2 concentrations are well in excess of atmospheric equilibrium. Where does all the carbon come from? Decaying organic material, mostly, which can be present in enormous quantities in nature.

Low CO2 does not cause algae any more than hosting a local plant meeting at your house does (but this has frequently been observed ). Algae grows when and were it can. When conditions are favorable, it grows. When they're not, it doesn't. CO2 is one nutrient in a very large and complex equation. Saying that the addition of CO2 doesn't help combat algae would be a very bold, and IMO incorrect, statement. Saying that a set of circumstances could be created where healthy plants without apparent algae could co-exist in a high-light, low-CO2 environment might be possible. More than likely, only a few people could replicate such a thing. If not, none of us would have ever bothered with this whole CO2 adventure in the first place. Amano describes his discovery of CO2 addition as a "eureka-type" moment. For the majority of people it works great, plants are healthier, look better, and probably as a result algae issues are minimized.


----------



## fish_4_all

Just wanted to add a little thing I went through and see if it helps at all here. 
I recently removed DIY CO2 from a tank and I got Staghorn alage within 2 days and have yet to get rid of it. I changed absolutely nothing else in my tanks and have been dosing EI religiously for a few months. I have BBA algae in a tank that has DIY CO2 and the levels are never stable, they range from 15-65ppm almost daily. The tank that I took the CO2 out of now has green spot algae that I can not get rid of with PO4 like I can in the one with CO2. 

Now for growth, since I took out the CO2 in the one tank, my growth rates have not been affacted at all; they are still fairly fast and almost seem faster. Does constant levels of CO2 make a difference, I would say so in that tank. In the tank with the CO2, fluctuating CO2, my growth rates are dismall at best. Why, maybe because the plants are always going from storing nutrients to using them to storing them to using then and it stresses then out worse than without CO2 at all. 

Does this give any end to the debate, no, it actually adds more fuel to it but with any experiment, there has to be one single limitting factor in order to compare results and in my case it is CO2 as both tanks recieve exactly the same amount of nuitrients on a daily basis. 

Best I can do is try to get my CO2 levels stable and until then I am stuck with BBA algae in my DIY CO2 tank. Removing it might work like it has in my other tank but I am not done with my experiment yet. Will let you know in about a year if I can get anything that means something that I can substantiate. 

For now, let the debate thrive, if we don't debate it then we will never know and will be stuck in the same loop.


----------



## ruki

Sorry, I really don't see very much of a debate here. Just some single-case observations with misleading subject headers. For a debate, you have to include enough data to construct a model of what is going on.

Planted aquariums are complicated and require well designed experiments with appropriate statistical techniques to uncover what is really going on. Sample size one (pictures of in my tank this happens...) is statistically insignificant. Without supporting information of known parameters of importance it isn't even that.

"causing algae" means changing conditions of a planted aquarium to encourage the growth of algae. You need to seed all the tanks with algae and observe that changing the level of dissolved CO2 and how the algae grows. That is a valid way to bust that myth.

The tone of half the posts in this thread seem to be more polical/religious type reasoning. If the true intent was to play games and subject headers and the like it only injects chaos on an internet forum.

Looking forwards to more focused, supported discussions that actually have a chance of advancing the state of the hobby.


----------



## Edward

Hi wiste_


wiste said:



My understanding of this thread is that

Click to expand...

_


wiste said:


> _1) High light and poor plant growth = unchecked algae._


 Poor as unhealthy or slow? 

_*Q. High light and unhealthy plant growth = unchecked algae?*_
Increasing light intensity on already deficient plants will cause problems. We don't send sick people to the Olympic Games. Plants must be healthy to handle the light.

_*Q. High light and slow growth = unchecked algae?*_
I think this theory is incorrect. Plants don't need to grow fast to have clean healthy leaves. Low intensity light and long lighting period can keep plants healthy for years. Very high light and short lighting period seems to be working as well. 

Here is an example, _Cabomba caroliniana_, growing 7" (18 cm) from 10K 250 Watt HQI double end Halide bulb - Aqualine Buske brand. Just 1 inch below surface. The lamp is only 6 inches above water. No CO2 injected.














> 2) CO2 deficiency results in abnormal plant growth and not algae.


(Carbon) Yes, this seems to be correct.


> 3) If CO2 is available even in low quantities that this would be sufficient to support plant growth.


 (Carbon) Yes, the growth rate slows down and speeds up depending on the Carbon availability. It can be in form of CO2, CO3 (KH), etc. About half of plant's mass is made of Carbon therefore insufficient Carbon levels will result in deformity but not algae infestation. 


> 4) CO2 from the atmosphere provides sufficient CO2 to support plant growth. If I understand correctly, a very well aerated tank with good water flow from filtration should provide a sufficient level of CO2.


You are on the right track. If Carbon from the atmospheric CO2 can be implemented to sustain aquatic plant life remains to be seen. For several months I've been using atmospheric Carbon on 6 aquariums. Sizes from 10 to 130 gallon, lighting from low to high and very high. The first observation that CO2 deficiency does not cause algae created debate and also havoc. 

Clearly this idea did not work in the past. We blamed high light intensity and low CO2. In my opinion the real reason were the nutrients. We know today how to fertilize aquatic plants properly so we can afford to play with other variables. 

Thank you
Edward


----------



## defdac

"CO2 deficiency cause algae" <- This is not a myth. Walstad-type of aquariums get's sunlight and no CO2 and does fine. Ugly looking small new growth in certain plants not able to use carb though.

Unstable CO2-levels/rapid changes in CO2-levels often means algae though.


----------



## EDGE

I have to agree with Edward on this. 2 years ago, I couldn't figure out why my plants were growing really small/weak but almost algae free. As my tank matured, the most common algae slowly went away. I was adding no more than 1 bps with 4x 55 watt PC. 

Recently, I went on a trip and had someone with no knowledge of aquariums look after it. I told them not to feed the plants, cut down on feeding the fish to once every 3 days and no water change for 2 weeks. I turned down the co2 to 1 - 2 bps as well to prevent build up for co2. tank was running with 4x 55w PC over 75g. When I came home, the tank was free of algae where as when I was feeding daily, algae bloom was uncontrollable.

I was growing HC submersed in 1 cm of water in a 10" by 20" space. I had part of a 3x 54 watt HO T5 fixture about 10" above the flourite/onyx mixed growing bed. If can blast HO T5 at close range in submersed condition without CO2, in a bed of stale water that must suggest something about CO2 and algae related issues.

Even now in my 75g, I have algae because of the heavy feeding. I cranked up co2 to 8 bps for 2 week and that didn't get rid of bba, green spot or any common algae problem. I am still feeding 9 ppm NO3 and 3 ppm PO4 as per EI method bi-daily and still get algae. 

I have said before, algae is mainly caused by organic waste/nutrients.


----------



## Revan

I think that plants growth rate tell us the speed with which plants uptake nutrients. If plants grow faster they uptake NH4+ ions faster and lower level of NH4+ may help against algae.
I don't think that is much different if we obtain a certain growth rate with more light and less CO2 or with more CO2 and less light..... if we don't lower CO2 or light level under certain levels (the plants can't live if they have not enough light or not enough C)

Read for example this article:
"CO2 and light stimulate the growth"
by Ole Pedersen, Claus Christensen and Troels Andersen
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4


----------

