# Do you really need CO2 injection?



## Michael

An interesting point of view from The Skeptical Aquarist: http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/supplementing-co2


----------



## Silvering

I like how "the current fashion" is almost twenty years old now, if it really did start in the mid-1990s.  

How often do serious pH swings occur when injecting CO2? My crypts didn't melt when I added CO2, but perhaps my water is hard enough that buffering isn't an issue. I'd've liked to see some kind of specs for the hard vs soft water benefits rather than a vague handwaving about bicarbonates. Show me the data!


----------



## Michael

Agreed, it's not a technical article.

The reason I posted it in the beginner's section is that it makes the point that you can be quite successful without 600 PAR lights and presurized CO2. In fact it is easier to learn the planted tank balancing act without them.

It's not a good idea to buy a Ferrari while you still have your learner's permit.


----------



## BruceF

I couldn't agree with him more.


----------



## Silvering

Michael said:


> In fact it is easier to learn the planted tank balancing act without them.
> 
> It's not a good idea to buy a Ferrari while you still have your learner's permit.


QFT

I'll contribute my non-technical opinion by saying I think it's better to ramp up slowly on the lighting, as well, simply based on my experience using plain sand substrate and extremely low levels of ferts and only a few hardy plants. The tank needed time to mature before I started to seriously fiddle around with its stats. I didn't have any problems with algae while the tank matured that way. (And my own trimmings let me fill in rather than having to buy lots of plants at once!)

Is it any different if you start out with a soil or other nutrient-rich substrate? With all three variables (light, nutrients, CO2) starting at or near zero, it makes sense to go slow at first. But with soil you start with very high levels of nutrients, right? Wouldn't having high light and CO2 supplementation make things easier in that case? Or maybe soil tanks are the Ferraris in the metaphor.


----------



## Bert H

You don't have to have CO2 to successfully grow plants, but it will sure be easier with it than without it, IMO. CO2 is always going to be beneficial, and you don't have to be a 'techie' to handle it. I think too many folks just want to pump out 30+ppm of CO2, then put on enough light to light a city block. You don't need that! Start with a moderate amount of light, and pump in 10-15ppm of CO2, and I'm sure the plants will be better and you really don't have to worry about 'problems'. Once your tank stabilizes, and you get to know what you're doing, then start tweaking numbers. My 2 cents.


----------



## Michael

Actually, I think starting with high nutrient levels in soil can also be a route to problems for beginners. Soil is great, just not the "hot" stuff until you know what you are doing.

As Bert points out, moderation is the key.


----------



## Cavan Allen

Bert H said:


> You don't have to have CO2 to successfully grow plants, but it will sure be easier with it than without it, IMO. CO2 is always going to be beneficial, and you don't have to be a 'techie' to handle it. I think too many folks just want to pump out 30+ppm of CO2, then put on enough light to light a city block. You don't need that! Start with a moderate amount of light, and pump in 10-15ppm of CO2, and I'm sure the plants will be better and you really don't have to worry about 'problems'. Once your tank stabilizes, and you get to know what you're doing, then start tweaking numbers. My 2 cents.


That's good advice. Moderate light and moderate co2 won't let you grow everything, but as you learn, it's probably the best way.


----------



## Yo-han

I think for certain plants, you really need co2, because in low light they won't grow and high light without co2 equals algae. I can still setup beautiful non co2 tanks but it has restrictions. Not too much light and plants that don't need much light. Also a little more fish can help to add extra co2 the natural way as well. But like Bert said, every tank will benefit from a little extra co2. Plants just look more 'vibrant'!


----------



## BruceF

When I first started keeping plants in water I never had the cash to spend on things like fancy substrates. So I used cheap old play sand. When I got a little better at it I couldn’t afford all those high end lights so I just kept using shop lights with gro bulbs. Once I tried adding a little diy co2 but I really didn’t see all than many benefits. The biggest advance I made really had to do with adding richer substrates and nutrients. 
I have no real objection to people using co2. I am about to set up a tank and I think I am going to use some in it. I just seriously object to the tendency of people to insist that you can’t run a tank without it. What starts out as about a $40 10g ends up costing hundreds of dollars and co2 becomes the panacea for all your ills. It’s like we are running an experiment in raised co2 levels in anticipation of atmospheric changes or something.


----------



## Silvering

BruceF said:


> It's like we are running an experiment in raised co2 levels in anticipation of atmospheric changes or something.


ROFL The results indicate that plants grow faster! 

I think one advantage that CO2 has over supercharging light or nutrients is that excess amounts of it are going to do what, disperse into the air? Provided you're not gassing livestock, there's no "excess CO2 will cause such-and-such problems" the way excess light/nutrients can cause serious algae issues that last for months. On that front, I think CO2 supplementation is actually the simplest of the three components. Set and forget! It's the most newbie-friendly aspect, even though it's not cheap. (Talking pressurized, not DIY yeast, which is definitely not set-and-forget.) Unless, as per the original article, you're dealing with extremely soft water that suffers drastic pH swings. I'd still like to know under what exact conditions that warning applies.

Which is definitely not to say that one needs added CO2 the way you have to have deliberately planned light and nutrient sources. But I suspect that if the hobby is going to take off, it's going to be because of high-tech competition aquascapes, which, correct me if I'm wrong, pretty much all have CO2 supplementation and the more-difficult plants that require it to thrive. While starting out simply is no doubt the best way to learn, I don't know that it's going to attract terribly many new converts*, so to speak. Personally, I'm very interested to learn more about the European traditions, I understand that they've been aquascaping for decades with no CO2 supplementation. It would be nice to see Dutch-style as popular as ADA style! 

*I'm a weird person and a nerd, so the fact that I started out that way is probably not a good marketing angle to take. :lol:


----------



## BruceF

Supplemental co2 has been going on for like two decades it isn’t anything new. In fact I think in the early part of this century people were even more insistent about its necessity. 
I simply started out putting plants in tanks and seeing what grew. Right now for about $500 (is that low?) you can buy the whole package from sources like ada and within a month have a successful ada tank. Then when you ask how to combat the bba the answer will be turn up the co2!

Don’t get me wrong. No one has added more to the planted tank than Amano in the last 30 years. I have nothing but the highest respect for what he has done.


----------



## Michael

"While starting out simply is no doubt the best way to learn, I don't know that it's going to attract terribly many new converts. . ."

This goes back to an old thread called "Money and the hobby", which became an interesting discussion about the growth of the planted tank hobby and how to encourage it.

My interest in Skeptical Aquarist's comments comes from what I often hear from beginning hobbyists who want an uncomplicated way to have attractive planted aquaria. Yes, they are inspired by the aquascaping contest photos, but they want tanks they can enjoy with reasonable effort and expense. (This applies to me too, in case anyone wondered.)

A case in point; I set up a 90 gallon Walstad demo tank at my LFS. It was easy, and got many favorable comments from customers, who then bought plants. (All was well, until the owner decided to put discus in it, cranked the temp up to 86 F, and melted many of the plants.)

A number of these people I talked to had wanted a planted tank for a long time, but thought it required expensive and complicated equipment. They were happy to learn otherwise, and several of them went on to become active members of our local club. They became successful with moderate effort and cash outlay. Most of them will probably stay at that level (along with me), but some may decide that they want the Ferrari. And that is great, as long as they let me look at it ocasionally.


----------



## Yo-han

In the Netherlands everybody is very scared for this pH swing/drop and recommends a KH of at least 4. I've never experienced it with tanks with a KH of 1. Maybe with 0 carbonates but then you are using fish that are capable of surviving these hardnesses and are used to pH of 4. pH is almost never the problem in our tanks IMO, it usual is the KH or co2 that goes with it

About the crypts, I've grown wendtii, willisi, moehlmani, balansae, legroi, flamingo and a few others in low KH, high co2 and never had a crypt melt. Don't know what should cause it, neither have I witnessed it, maybe itis not due the co2 but more, for example, the higher demand it lays on nutrients or a more difficult crypt...


----------



## BruceF

I have seen a number of lists of plants for low light but I have never seen a list of plants for non co2 enhanced tanks. I’d love to have a good plant reference for this. For a long time I was under the impression that if a plant was red I wouldn’t be able to grow it without high light and co2 but I have found that not to be true.


----------



## K Randall

There are some red plants that do fine without supplemental CO2, though I've never seen one that didn't grow BETTER with it. You also have to look at sources of CO2 other than injection... I substrate ith a lot of humus that will decompose will supply more CO2 than you'd think, at least for a while.

Of the top of my head, some of the plants that will stay the most red are some Crypts, Some Echinodorus and, probably most red of all, the "red tiger lotus", Nymphaea sp. 'Zenkeri'


----------



## BruceF

Thanks for the ideas. I wonder what you consider to be the best sourse of humus?


----------



## Michael

BruceF said:


> Thanks for the ideas. I wonder what you consider to be the best sourse of humus?


We are talking about that right now at http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/84918-suitable-soils-walstad-method.html


----------



## chrislewistx

I agree, that CO2 is not necessary for a planted aquarium. There are many examples online that support that statement. For instance, shrimp specific tanks with plants, or what are termed "Low Tech" or lower light tanks. Walstad or El natural style tanks are another example. In addition, I have read several beginner guides that refer to starting out slowly. With starting out slowly being loosely defined as; slower growing, lower light requiring plants, small fish load, basic plant substrates, no CO2, and minimal nutrient addition. Also, there is a guide to low tech tanks without CO2, or with the addition of Excel, posted at http://www.sudeepmandal.com/hobbies/planted-aquarium/ I have seen this guide recommend many times.

However, with all that being said I think the success is based on making sure you choose the right plants, and light configuration to complement NOT using CO2. The common factor between the success stories mentioned above seems to be slower growing plants that require less light, or what is considered the more hardy species. Or in the case of Walstad tanks a "natural" source of carbon.

I think all this goes a long way towards *being realistic* *in your setup, and* *knowing what you want to achieve*. Then matching your setup to the plants and fish you want to keep. Going back to the Ferrari example, you would not buy a Ferrari. Then put off-road tires on it, and drive to the mountains camping. Likewise, you wouldn't want to setup a five gallon tank to grow large Amazon swords. However, you often see people setting up an aquarium with lower light, inert gravel, low end filtration, and a bottle of Flourish. Then they expect to grow a full carpet of HC, or difficult plants, such as Cuphea Anagalloidea. They aren't being realistic, but they see pictures online of all the wonderful tanks. They expect the same results, and they expect them instantly. Sorry, I was starting to get off track there.:tape2:

As a side note, I listened to a podcast with Claus Christensen. They asked him, if he was to add one thing to a tank to improve the plants what would it be. For example more light, more nutrients, CO2, etc. His answer was CO2, that it gives the plants a boost. From what I have read online lately, this seems to be a common theme. However, it doesn't seem like the experts are saying it's necessary, just that it will help. Obviously, there are higher demand plants that will require CO2, same they might require higher light, or another specific nutrient.

Getting back to starting out "slowly" or low cost etc, I think that is a great idea, but actually not as easy as it sounds. Most of the beginner guides throw general information at the newbie. Then they end with "go do your research, and decide what approach is best for you". I think this is like giving someone driving directions, and saying you will come to a road that will fork in four directions. All will get you to your destination. You can decide which is best for you. You won't know which is best for you until you try them all. As it will probably require different routes if you need to get there as fast as possible, as opposed to if you like a scenic drive. The planted tank hobby is the same. In that the amount of information available overwhelms. Also, I have found there to be more examples of high light, pressurized CO2, higher end plant tanks, then the basic model.

I think a valuable addition to beginner guides would be SPECIFIC suggested setups for beginners to start with. The newbie does NEED the general beginner document that explains KH, lights, nutrients, filtration etc. However, what the newbie WANTS is for someone to give them a step by step outline of what to do.

For example a beginner guide would say if you like to work with your tank a lot during the week try "high tech". The suggested setup would include information pertaining to high light specs, substrate, filtration, CO2, some nutrient dosing routine, and a list of higher end plants. Or if you want a "set it and forget it" then it would describe a "low tech" setup, lower light, basic substrate, minimal nutrients, and easier plants. There could be others that described other methods to keeping planted tanks. Sorry I guess I am getting off track again.[smilie=l:


----------



## Michael

Silvering said:


> I think one advantage that CO2 has over supercharging light or nutrients is that excess amounts of it are going to do what, disperse into the air? Provided you're not gassing livestock, there's no "excess CO2 will cause such-and-such problems" the way excess light/nutrients can cause serious algae issues that last for months. On that front, I think CO2 supplementation is actually the simplest of the three components. Set and forget! It's the most newbie-friendly aspect, even though it's not cheap.


I've been thinking a lot about this, and what Chris said about the technology offered/recommended to beginners.


----------

