# Amano and CO2



## jcbyrne (Jan 29, 2006)

In his article in the Tropical Fish Hobbyist that just arrived, Amano says that to monitor CO2, measure the ph just before the light goes on in the morning, and again four to five hours later. If it is higher, the amount of CO2 is insufficient, if it is slightly lower, the amount is adequate. If it is much lower the amount of CO2 is excessive.

So, what do you think? What is "slightly lower", "higher" or "much lower"?


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

It is permitted to disagree even with Amano! So, I do.


----------



## AndyT. (Jun 28, 2006)

Well, think of it this way...

Overnight the plants release CO2 and consume O2... CO2 being acidic, this means that the pH should have dropped over the night.

During the day this reverses, with the plants consuming CO2 and producing O2. If you don't supplement CO2 the normal cycle would be for the morning to be the time with the lowest pH, just before lights come on. The pH should rise throught he day as the CO2 in the aquarium is utilized by the plants.

Back to what Amano says - I think he is indicating that an increase in pH would show that CO2 is being depleted in the aquarium faster than it is being replaced. So any increase would indicate that there is not enough CO2 supplementation (if you assume that the early morning CO2 and pH levels are ideal).

The pH scale is logarithmic and if I recall correctly (always a problem) each 0.1 change represents a 10x change in pH. A change from a pH of 8 to 7 is a 100x change.

So I would go for a decrease in pH of about 0.2 to 0.4 as being okay and anything larger indicating too much CO2 is being added. But that is just my take on it.

The much discussed drop checker is an easy way to use pH to monitor CO2 levels.


----------



## AndyT. (Jun 28, 2006)

Hoppy, why do you disagree with Amano? The only thing I see as problematic is the assumption that the early morning CO2/pH level is a baseline...


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

A change in pH of 1.0 equals a change in ppm of CO2 of 10X, not 100X.
I disagree with Amano, partly for the thrill of doing so, but mostly because I think we get the best results if we try for 30 ppm of CO2 in the water during the time the lights are on. Generally, that means the pH will be higher in the morning, after the CO2 has been lost due to our slight surface turbulence. Then, as we add CO2 while the lights are on the pH will drop until we hit the equilibrium point where we are adding as much as we are losing through the water surface.

I'm not quite ready to challenge Amano on the quality of my plant growing skills, nor on my aquascaping skills, nor on my algae control, nor............


----------



## DWIZUM (Jun 8, 2006)

So hoppy, explain this in plain english - does your method add more or less CO2 than the big guy's?


----------



## essabee (Oct 11, 2006)

Hoppycalif is right and so is Amano.

Andy T got the right point. It is the baseline.

Hoppycalif's baseline is the ph at 30ppm CO2. Amano's baseline is at perhaps that at the light on point.

It is certainly a fact that if the ph is higher 4/5 hours after the light on point, the CO2 supply is not equal to consumption.

Also those who have aerator on at light off point will have to find their own baseline.

I think it is totally subjective what you want to do with your CO2. Personally I have decided not to go for maximum growth, only sustained growth, that means fiddling with supply so that the ph goes slightly up or stays level at the end of the light on period.


----------



## AndyT. (Jun 28, 2006)

hoppycalif said:


> A change in pH of 1.0 equals a change in ppm of CO2 of 10X, not 100X.


  
I guess you can see why I was a liberal arts major...

Thanks for elucidating. Makes perfect sense now.


----------



## Salt (Apr 5, 2005)

Edward and Kekon have posted lots of data showing CO2 levels don't have to be higher than 10 - 20 ppm to achieve fast growth and great looking tanks. Combine that with the countless pictures of tanks by Amano, and there's little questioning it. If you still want to believe you need to have 30 - 100 ppm of CO2 or that you need to turn it up until you see your fish suffering, then go on with your bad self. :heh:


----------



## Wheeler (Feb 8, 2004)

hoppycalif said:


> A change in pH of 1.0 equals a change in ppm of CO2 of 10X, not 100X.
> I disagree with Amano, partly for the thrill of doing so, but mostly because I think we get the best results if we try for 30 ppm of CO2 in the water during the time the lights are on. Generally, that means the pH will be higher in the morning, after the CO2 has been lost due to our slight surface turbulence. Then, as we add CO2 while the lights are on the pH will drop until we hit the equilibrium point where we are adding as much as we are losing through the water surface.
> 
> I'm not quite ready to challenge Amano on the quality of my plant growing skills, nor on my aquascaping skills, nor on my algae control, nor............


This is a problem. The thrill? You think you get "better results", but you don't. I've never seen your tanks, but I KNOW that you don't get better, 100% reapeatable, results than Amano in any sense. Few do...

Amano does it with half the CO2, a small fraction of NO3 and PO4, and easily as much light as any EI tank.... again and again 1000 times over. Right now, Amano is untouchable. I think we'll get him figured out one day, but EI ain't it.


----------



## turtlehead (Nov 27, 2004)

Amano only has CO2 for the photoperiod and he turns it off at night. By lowering it or increasig, he means it depends on your fish and your plants. Each tank has a different demand and limit for CO2, I lower it if my fish are gasping and I increase it if I see bba or deficiencies from my plants. How much to lower or increase depends on you and your plant, kind of like the EI method.


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Wheeler said:


> This is a problem. The thrill? You think you get "better results", but you don't. I've never seen your tanks, but I KNOW that you don't get better, 100% reapeatable, results than Amano in any sense. Few do...
> 
> Amano does it with half the CO2, a small fraction of NO3 and PO4, and easily as much light as any EI tank.... again and again 1000 times over. Right now, Amano is untouchable. I think we'll get him figured out one day, but EI ain't it.


I didn't say I could get better results than Amano, no matter what I try. In fact I will say that it is very unlikely that I will ever approach Amano's results. What I did say is that we neophytes, who don't make a business of this, who are still learning, and who could always do a better maintenance job on our tanks, can get the best results if we try to keep the daytime concentration of CO2 in the range of 20 to 40 ppm, which is as accurate as we are likely to ever know it in any case. My goal is not to find Amano's magic methods, but to find a method that works for me, with my skills, my devotion to the maintenance, and my budget. I think most of us should try various ideas to see which we can make work the best, then use that.


----------



## essabee (Oct 11, 2006)

Trying to get quick results is a heady intoxicant. If we can wait for it, I think we would get better results.


----------



## turtlehead (Nov 27, 2004)

Well you really can't get quick results with CO2 in my opinion 1-2 days is quick and a couple hours is really quick.


----------



## Wheeler (Feb 8, 2004)

hoppycalif said:


> I didn't say I could get better results than Amano, no matter what I try. .


Yes you did...

Hoppycailf said:
"I disagree with Amano, partly for the thrill of doing so, but mostly because I think we get the best results if we try for 30 ppm of CO2 in the water during the time the lights are on."

My mistake. You said you get the BEST results...

No matter what works for you, you should consider the intitial question. How can you say what's best, and then turn around and say the guy you're contradicting is far superior to you in skill. I swear I'm not trying to be combative, but you're trying to help someone wrap their head around Amano vs EI (Basically). Sounds a little biased to me... again, in the interest of discussion.


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Wheeler said:


> Yes you did...
> 
> Hoppycailf said:
> "I disagree with Amano, partly for the thrill of doing so, but mostly because I think we get the best results if we try for 30 ppm of CO2 in the water during the time the lights are on."
> ...


Believe it or not, I said exactly what I meant. If that bothers you I'm sorry.


----------



## Wheeler (Feb 8, 2004)

That's what I wanted to know. So, you can't retort? Yeah, it bothers me a *little*. EI is not the end all be all. 

I won't participate in these forums as you have... for that, thank you so much. However, let me impress upon you, this:

People will listen to you. Folks who have the energy to guide the uninformed will guide the hobby in this country. It's not going well. The pics of average folks' tanks on forums from other countries FAR surpass ours, and, IMO, the main reason is not technology, or substrates, or any of that garbage. It's that fact that they aren't blinded by hype, or blowhard know-it-alls. 

The last AGA contest was heart breaking to me. We're SO far behind... Time to catch up, or submit.


----------



## Burks (May 25, 2006)

Not combative? Hah...that's a laugh.

I didn't know we were in competition to beat other countries. I thought this hobby was for FUN.

If there's such a big problem with the advice given on this forum, maybe you Mr. Wheeler should change that. That is if you can find time to stop picking hoppy's posts apart.


----------



## Wheeler (Feb 8, 2004)

see PM Burks. Your argument is lame. The underdog or overposted will always recieve the favor on these forums. I understand that. 

If this hobby was only for "fun", we'd not have a quarter of the posts that we do. For the MOST part, if you're motivated enough to ask a question or post an answer on the internet, you're interested in more knowledge or advancing the hobby... not "fun".

I'll happily discuss this with anyone. I think my argument is valid and, if you wish, start a new thread or send a PM. I'll find it. 

I really only wanted to spur meaningfull conversation. Guess I did


----------



## erijnal (Apr 5, 2006)

Excuse me, but logic doesn't amount to substance in some situations, and that's what's going on right here.

Foremost, if everything you're doing is in the interest of advancing the hobby, then why do your posts come off as aggressive, regardless of what you say? If you care about the hobby as much as you say you do, then I suggest you take the effort to appear so in how you present yourself.

Second, hoppy is giving his opinion based on experience, and admittedly, all opinions are open to disagreements. Notice, however, how hoppy said that he THINKS the best result can be achieved by so and so. I didn't read anything that said he KNEW how the best results were achieved. How you disagree says a lot about your character, and will also determine if people are going to listen to you. 

Third, if hoppy really is pointing toward EI, then I'd say it's a really good place to start for any newbie. Since you seem to be basing "skill" on plant growth and aquascaping, anyone new to the hobby should first learn how to grow plants before they start dreaming up aquascape layouts. That said, how can you say it's not based on things like substrate or other materials needed in the planted aquarium? Sure, if you get far enough into the hobby (I'm stressing that bit), you can grow things on a lot of different mediums, but if you're just starting out, the only way you're going to have great results along with simplicity will come from having the right equipment. 

Just curious, what are all these other forums you're talking about? If the average-looking tanks in those countries look so great, then why does the demographic distribution of the top 100 ADA contest entries suggest otherwise? I know it might be a long shot to say that every good aquascaper will enter the contest, but nevertheless, it's probably a good indicator. Also, why does it seem like a coincidence to me that Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, which are listed as the top three in terms of appearance in the top 100, are all places where the fish trade is huge, and consumers will inevitably have access to more resources?

I played baseball and continued because it was fun. I played tennis and continued because it was fun. I built models and coninued because it was fun. If something isn't fun initially, what's the motivation in continuing it? Are you seriously saying that I'm only going to ask questions because I want to have more knowledge or advance the hobby? Sorry, this might come off as selfish, but I ask questions because I want my tank to look good, so I could have fun looking at it. If your MAIN motivation for continuing in your hobbies is something other than to have fun, then uh, that's just strange, and you'll ultimately become one of those "blow-hard know-it-alls" that don't enjoy the subject they know so much about.




In any case, Amano's advice seems strange to me because I distinctly remember him listing his nutrient concentrations in his tanks, and I think I remember it saying that the concentration was 0.1 mg/L, which is essentially 0.1 ppm. Does that mean Amano's own advice doesn't apply to himself? Because I'd say it's a safe bet that the presence of 0.1 ppm of CO2 won't do much to change the pH throughout the day, even with a practically nonexistent kH reading. Also, you have to keep in mind that the CO2 levels from the get-go have to be at an adequate level. After all, if you start out with no CO2 at all, and then reach a point where it's 5 ppm, then your pH should be lower, but at the same time, your plants may not be getting enough carbon. I think it's also valuable to mention that the water in Japan is very soft kH-wise.


----------



## Wheeler (Feb 8, 2004)

The VAST majority of the demographic from the ADA contest is Asian, and certainly not of this forum. Why would you bring up ADA? For that matter, 1 USA applicant placed in the AGA contest in any category in any category except paludarium.

This is about growing plants, not aquascaping as you pointed out. I'm trying to keep this on topic. People can listen to me or not. Bottom line is I don't care except to put a wrinkle in the status quo. I'll carry on regardless.

MY point is that EI is NOT a good place to start and certainly NOT the gold standard. No one said anything about equipment except me when I said:
"The pics of average folks' tanks on forums from other countries FAR surpass ours, and, IMO, the main reason is not technology, or substrates, or any of that garbage"

And my point was that they don't feel like they *need* 30 parts CO2 in order not to have algae, or to grow plants best, etc... 

Other forums? AQ and MAC are my main sources. Again, I don't know what you mean about demographics...

Hey, I played baseball... I'm still pretty good at it at this late date. Wanna know, why? Yeah, maybe you don't want to advance the hobby with your questions, but your motivation isn't "fun". I wouldn't call water changes and pruning "fun", nor testing, or leveling gravel, explaining to the significant other where the money went, driving 80 miles to the LFS, etc. We do it because it's stimulating for our brain and easy on our eyes, beautiful for our living room, etc... At least I do. If I'm alone then I'm guilty of being a blowhard. Still... Chasing a ball is "fun". Looking at an aquarium isn't really. There are 1000 other adjectives, but not "fun".

I find Amano's measurements to be pretty consistent. To get back on topic, HAHA... I wonder what *your* sources are because I can't find anywhere that Amano says he has .1mg/l CO2. What is your source? Are you suggesting that Amano's plants don't get enough Carbon?

Further, his water quality certainly doesn't translate to the rest of Japan, nor the world.

I'm really curious what you mean about the ADA contest demographic.


----------



## Salt (Apr 5, 2005)

Wheeler said:


> The pics of average folks' tanks on forums from other countries FAR surpass ours, and, IMO, the main reason is not technology, or substrates, or any of that garbage. It's that fact that they aren't blinded by hype, or blowhard know-it-alls.
> 
> The last AGA contest was heart breaking to me. We're SO far behind... Time to catch up, or submit.


You're so right... the topic definitely warrants discussion. Wheeler is making good points, and he is being courteous about it as well. I see no "aggression" or "combative" attitudes in his posts. Read what he said above again carefully. He's right. And he's trying to discuss it. Why is he being attacked?


----------



## erijnal (Apr 5, 2006)

> I wonder what *your* sources are because I can't find anywhere that Amano says he has .1mg/l CO2. What is your source? Are you suggesting that Amano's plants don't get enough Carbon?


Check some TFH magazines that came out during the summer. Would you say that having less than 1 ppm of NO3 is "normal"? If you don't, then I guess you've been "tainted" by EI because that's what Amano lists as his NO3 concentration. Want to know what his PO4 concentration is? It's listed as 0 mg/L. Having 0.1 ppm of CO2 along with these numbers doesn't sound very far-fetched to me.



> Further, his water quality certainly doesn't translate to the rest of Japan, nor the world.


I brought up that point because of the relationship between pH and kH, something that's relevant to the initial post. Also, some people in the US have had problems with CRS-related products because of the difference in general water parameters, mainly kH if I remember correctly. If CRS-related products are being successfully marketed in Japan (see some posts from users who visited some Japanese LFSs), then I think it's safe to say that Japan as a whole probably has soft water, with exceptions of course.



> I'm really curious what you mean about the ADA contest demographic.


Sorry, but weren't you the one that brought up the AGA contest in the first place? I'm assuming you first brought that up as an indication of the planted tank world in the USA. If that was the case, and it certainly does seem to be, that explains why I brought up the ADA contest. In any case, you answered your own question in the first sentence of your last post lol..



> This is about growing plants, not aquascaping as you pointed out. I'm trying to keep this on topic.


So if this is about growing plants, then why would you mention the AGA contest, which largely judges the layout of the tank? Sure, plant growth is important in judging, but it's pretty much a given that almost every tank will have healthy plants. For that reason, I brought up aquascaping, since you seemed to be going in that direction. This thread was initially about Amano's advice on CO2 levels. You didn't comment on whether or not you agreed with the advice in your posts. All you did was say how great and untouchable Amano was.



> We do it because it's stimulating for our brain and easy on our eyes, beautiful for our living room, etc... At least I do. If I'm alone then I'm guilty of being a blowhard. Still... Chasing a ball is "fun". Looking at an aquarium isn't really. There are 1000 other adjectives, but not "fun".


I really hate to do this to you, but I'm going to have to post a definition of the word "fun".

fun (fŭn) 
n.

1. A source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure.

Gee! That sounds exactly like what you just described!



> And my point was that they don't feel like they *need* 30 parts CO2 in order not to have algae, or to grow plants best, etc...


And yet, many people seem to do very well with 30 ppm of CO2. I don't think people are going around saying it's an absolute necessity, and if they are, they're going on their own experiences, and depending on how they convey that advice, it's perfectly acceptable.



> "The pics of average folks' tanks on forums from other countries FAR surpass ours, and, IMO, the main reason is not technology, or substrates, or any of that garbage"


If the beginner has access to the best resources possible, he's going to have great success and will likely go further in the hobby. In the same light, many people have great success with the EI method of fertilization, and if they're willing to, will be more likely to experiment and see if they can create their own methods. Of course it's not the gold standard, but so far as I know, EI is easy to do (very important), and gives results (also important). The ADA method of fertilizing is just as easy, if not easier, in fact. I think the directions tell you to do a certain number of "squirts". Sounds simple to me. Why start off the hobby in a complicated fashion? Do you teach someone how tag a runner before they know how to catch a ball?

Anyway, I hope you don't mind bro, but I'm not going to reply to anything else you might have to say in this thread.


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

Take a deep breath everyone... please!  

I never really understand why people get so worked up about one method of growing aquatic plants over another method.

Admit it folks: people have success using various different methods. Some people do great with the ADA "system", others using PPS, others EI, others using the Dennerle "system", others even without a specific method, just using their eyes and "instinct" to judge their dosing needs.

There are way too many variables that differ from tank to tank to be able to say that because one method worked (or didn't work) "for me" that means that this is the only viable method (or in the opposite case, that the method is no good)!

People will naturally defend what worked for them... this doesn't mean that any other method is wrong. Whether it's a method promoted by a blowhard or not .

Ok, people, another deep breath...


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

What was this dicussion about again? Oh yeah...



jcbyrne said:


> In his article in the Tropical Fish Hobbyist that just arrived, Amano says that to monitor CO2, measure the ph just before the light goes on in the morning, and again four to five hours later. If it is higher, the amount of CO2 is insufficient, if it is slightly lower, the amount is adequate. If it is much lower the amount of CO2 is excessive.
> 
> So, what do you think? What is "slightly lower", "higher" or "much lower"?


Focusing on this question and on this alone- Amano seems to base his articles and recommendations on his experience. This experience is largely now based on the ADA system of substrates and fertilizers. This comes into play in a couple of ways.

First, we need to consider the CO2/kH/pH relationship. When kH is very low, ie ~1degree or less, the addition of CO2 can translate into a large shift in pH. This is one of the reasons why pH controllers are not used with tanks using Aqua Soil. Aqua Soil has the effect of removing a lot of the kH buffer from the water, especially in newer setups. The buffering effect of the carbonates (measured in kH) dictates the start end end pH given a certain CO2 concentration in the water. It is pretty complicated chemistry and I won't try to explain it here, but basically adding CO2 to low kH water means low pH. Low pH can be fine in a planted aquarium but only within reason. Crank the CO into an Aquasoil tank and you could see pH values in the low to mid 5's. That is a bit acid and dangerous to play with as far as fish and plants are concerned.

In general, because of many factors involved with AquaSoil and ADA fertilized setups, adding 30mg/l would give a super low pH, which is bad. In addition, because of the ways in which nutrients are available based on pH (among other things) a pH in the low to mid 6's is generally ideal for the plants and fish.

So, the first part of Amano's comment is obvious. If the pH raises during the photoperiod, the plants are consuming the CO2 faster then you are injecting it so you need to increase your rate of CO2 injection. If the pH has a small shift then you will be in what ADA consideres "optimal pH" and if your adding a lot of CO2, the pH will be very low.

Now, obviously this method works for these particular setups. There is no question about that. The crux to this though is that this technique may not work on other types of setups, say with Eco-Complete substrates that actually add buffers to the water.

The biggest thing to remember, IMO, is that we spend a lot of time trying to force _part_ of a system to work in our particular setup. Amano says to only add a little CO2 and since it works for him why does it not work for me. Well, are you using the system? (rhetorical you here, no one in particular). I completely agree that EI is not the be-all end-all for how to grow plants, Neither is ADA, Dupla, Seachem, PPS, etc. If you want an easy, no though-no hassle way to grow plants that removes all the scary science, then go for a full ADA system; at least in regards to the substrate and fertilizers. This system seems to have the most room for error and the _system_ is pretty user friendly.

EI and PPS are actually good methods also. Both have their pluses and minuses, their parts I agree with and part I modify for my own use. They are also more similar than many realize. I also know that neither developer of each respective system is very good at conveying the subtle parts or benefits of each. The math behind both is almost genius but it is up to the user to understand and apply it to their particular situation.

For me, the science is fun and I can even enjoy a water change. I like testing and playing with nutrients. I realize I got way off topic here and I apologize. I guess my response to the original poster is that Amano's advice is suitable if you consider the situation behind the advice. Super soft water, Aqua Soil, ADA ferts and lots of patience and cleanliness is the ADA way and his advice works beautifully for that. One system or method or combination if methods do not give the ultimate answers to growing plants. The ultimate answers is to give the plants the nutrients they require for the particular setup and be neat and clean.


----------



## jeff5614 (Feb 15, 2006)

Dennis' post just leads me to ask something I've been wondering about lately. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong and I'm not bashing anyone's methods, just curious. Amano's tank parameters are < 1ppm NO3 and PO4 and he says sufficient NO3 and PO4 are generated in a planted tank. The ADA ferts seem to be geared towards adding K and traces back which, in his view, are depleted in a planted tank. His lighting also seems to be a bit over 2 wpg on his tanks. So I guess what I'm wondering is #1- is EI geared toward higher light setups, #2- are NO3 levels of 10-20 ppm necessary, # 3 - what role if any does KH play in any of this?

I've been using EI very successfully for the last year but after reading some posts regarding lower NO3 levels and noticing Amano's levels it has me wondering. We have very soft water, KH and GH are both <1 out of the tap. I plan on beginning a gradual decrease in the amount of NO3 and PO4 I'm dosing while continuing with K, Mg, Ca and traces at current levels and see where it goes.


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

You can grow plants using several methods, including the EI fertilizing method. EI is meant for those using 2 watts per gallon and more, lots of CO2, weekly water changes, and who want vigorous plant growth. If you want something else, you can find methods that are more compatible with that. Using the EI method means keeping more than enough fertilizers in the water at all times, so none will ever be short, but using a weekly big water change to get rid of any excess that builds up. Other methods may not require such big water changes, but big water changes generally are beneficial for both plants and fish anyway.

Amano uses his method extremely successfully. If I were wanting to try his method I would have to buy all of the ingredients he uses, and follow his directions on how to use them. Then, assuming he hasn't left out something in describing how he is so successful, I might be able to be equally successful. I can use EI with far less expense, with extreme simplicity, and get results that please me, which is my goal. Others who have different goals will follow different paths.


----------



## turtlehead (Nov 27, 2004)

Ok, here let me break this down.... I have used both methods and I am currently using the ADA method.

EI:
When I first started planted tanks, I used this method with all the Seachem products. The plants grew great, it was high tech setup. Everything was much more controlable, such as more N with out having to worry about also adding in too much P.

ADA:
After I got a job I switched over to ADA and followed their recommended doses to the finest detail with most of their fertilizers. It's working out great. It has worked great with a low tech and high tech setup. It's macros come packaged together so you can't control them separately, but there should be no need to since it should be the amount that your plants are needing anyway. AKA the ratios are set for you with ADA. You just need to add right number pushes each day. You can also combine EI method with this ADA method because tank conditions alway vary from tank to tank. It is recommended that I push step 2 twice a day, but due to my plants need I push three instead.

So you see, one does not have to follow ADA strictly, the user ends up deciding how much to dose the tank.


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

jcbyrne said:


> In his article in the Tropical Fish Hobbyist that just arrived, Amano says that to monitor CO2, measure the ph just before the light goes on in the morning, and again four to five hours later. If it is higher, the amount of CO2 is insufficient, if it is slightly lower, the amount is adequate. If it is much lower the amount of CO2 is excessive.
> 
> So, what do you think? What is "slightly lower", "higher" or "much lower"?


 Agree, this is hard to understand. In my opinion the statement was simplified to fit the wide range of KH buffering in aquariums. 

Personally, I would recommend using bubbles per minute as a linear regulator of plant growth for each aquarium. Plant growth will slow down to stall at no CO2 addition. With very high CO2 addition plants may accelerate growth beyond ability to grow properly and fish may become stressed. So it is up to the grower what the amount is going to be.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

The best advice I ever got was from an organic chemistry lab instructor:

_"There are many right ways to do a thing. Pick one that works for you and use it."_

All of this posturing and chest-pounding about one's particular fertilizing technique is pretty funny (and pointless) if you ask me.

With regards to the original intent of this thread, it is quite essential to understand the context of the statement. If one runs an airstone at night, it changes things. If one runs the CO2 full-time, that also changes things. If the CO2 comes on an hour before the lights, it different from a setup where it comes on with the lights. Obviously, Amano is describing a technique that works in the context of his setups.

The "best" CO2 level is also an empty idea. Best for what? The best CO2 level for the sake of simplicity is atmospheric. There are plenty of nice tanks that aren't CO2 injected. The "best" for algae control might be a little bit lower than toxic levels for the fish. The "best" for plant growth is probably "enough" so that something else is the limitting growth factor.

It all comes down to what your goal is. To win an ADA contest? To find a quiet, relaxing hobby? To make a better environment for your fish? To enhance the look of your house? To sell books, photographs, and a line of aquarium products?

It would be foolish to think identical techniques would be ideal for each of the above situations.


----------



## wiste (Feb 10, 2006)

> What is "slightly lower", "higher" or "much lower"?


In an earlier article in TFH there was more specific guidance on CO2. 
Amano indicates assuming an original PH of 7.0 if water becomes slightly acidic 6.8 to 6.6 with CO2 injection while plants are vigorously photosynthesizing you can consider the CO2 level is adequate. If CO2 is depleted then the PH will rise and CO2 is inadequate.

In the Nature Aquarium, it is indicated that fertilization should be adjusted based on plant volume.
Also, N and P are not dosed but if there are signs of deficiency that they should be dosed.
This system assumes that you are 'in tune' with your aquarium.


----------



## longhornxtreme (Feb 20, 2007)

I'm quite partial to the look of ADA's style tanks and will eventually run an open top rimless tank at some point. On the other hand, the difficulty of finding out what are in the bottles and the soil irks me. My biology background won't be satisfied without knowing 'why' ADA's super lean water columns with magic substrate grow fantastic plants. Some day I'll break the bank and try the ADA plan of attack, but for now, my fert regime kind of mimics PPS-Classic with a little less testing. 

I.e. I test for phosphate levels, test for nitrate levels, and adjust accordingly with dry ferts mixed in DI water. Micros come from fluorish or CSM-B, depending on whether I'm up to fighting the mold in CSM that month  I keep a bottle of Fluorish Iron around in case I need to increase my iron dosage and I dose Excel every few days for a little algae prevention. I see much better results with a water column that mimics the recommended values in the fertilator, or the recommended levels by Tom Barr. Granted, my substrate is pretty much nutritionless ecocomplete. Yet, I grow fabulous crypts, and suffer only GDA and occasional GSA if I don't dose enough. 

I guess the point I'm trying to make in support of Hoppy, is that I 'understand' why my method is working for me. I 'understand' when I need to change something or I at least know where to start tweaking. I understand that for the price of my eco, I could very well have bought Aquasoil, but I was scared of hitting fish with ammonia and I also didn't like the idea of the substrate breaking down over time. If something went wrong fert wise with the ADA products, I'd have no objective idea of what to do. I think of testing my water as dentist taking an x-ray, sure he can see a cavity, but how deep does it go? 

I'm not intending ANY of this as flamebait, just trying to show why some people would choose their own method of growing plants for their personal enjoyment.


----------



## gotcheaprice (Sep 4, 2007)

I'm sure wheeler has a decent argument behind him, but he comes off as waaaayyy to aggressive. He also believes Amano is a god o_o

He's one of those uptight people who don't do stuff for fun, but for self improvement, as he said so himself. IMO, if I water changed constantly, not for myself, it wouldn't be fun. If it was for me, I'd have fun, since I just like taking care of animals in general(though my mom hates another other animals!).

And woo, year old topic


----------



## longhornxtreme (Feb 20, 2007)

I always wonder if Amano has taken the allelochemical approach (to reduce algae) combined with nutritious soil that maintains macro equilibrium with water at very low mg/L concentrations. 

I FULLY understand the benefit of it leeching ammonia in the beginning, it lets you start a brand new tank outright and get it cycling, while provide the best nitrogen source for your new scape. 

What we need is someone to send a chem grad student, with access to a GC/MS machine, samples of the ADA fert line, so we can understand if it's more the ferts or more the soil.


----------



## Squawkbert (Jan 3, 2007)

Didn't read all, but here's my initial reaction to the OP & questions about what constitutes "a little" higher/lower etc.

1) Method mentioned assumes that a solenoid is in use or that tank is heavily planted enough that O2 from plant respiration will displace CO2 in the water column.

2) Change in pH due to a fixed amount of CO2 being in the water will be a function of the water's buffering capacity. If GH is high, expect a modest to trivial change in pH. If GH is low, you *might* see a difference in pH (depending on KH level). This explains the lack of answers as to what "a little" is.

3) If you're adding CO2 during the photoperiod and pH actually goes up, your combination of gas exchange (due to surface agitation) and plant usage *is* exceeding the amount of CO2 you're adding (or something else happened to introduce something basic to the water).

IMHO - a drop checker is a better way to do it.


----------

