# Transition from CO2 to non-CO2 set up



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

In the future I'm considering going even lower maintenance in my 125 l. (33 gal.)



It is 1wpg ( 2 x 18w T8 ), planted with crypts, Java fern and Anubias. Substrate is Tropica stuff and gravel and I'm dosing 2ml TMG daily, 1/2 water change per week. CO2 is via mist @ 30ppm.

Although it's only 1wpg, I see good pearling after a couple of hours.

The tanks recieves minimal natural light.

Fish load is 10 pentazona barbs, 12 glowlight danios.

How would you go about making the switch to non-CO2 exactly? Gradually lower the CO2 over a few weeks, or just switch it off?

No more water changes?

How about fert dosing? I'm currently using the new Tropica liquid with NP.

I'm convinced I'm going to see algae take over.....

It's a bold step for a CO2 addict....


----------



## ed seeley (Dec 1, 2006)

At the moment George my main tank is non-CO2 as the canister ran out about 5 weeks ago and things have been so mad I haven't got another yet!
The only change I've noticed in my tank is the growth rate of some stem plants has well almost stopped, but that may be because I've stopped dosing too! I've reduced the lighting down to just over 1WPG and everything's fine. Crypts, Nuphar, swords and Java Fern are still growing slowly.
The only algae is BBA, that was there before on all the hardscape, and that is actually REDUCING!

It flies in the face of everything and the only was I can explain it is that as I'm fertilising less, I'm feeding less (Once a day in this tank) and therefore there's less nutrients that can encourage algae. As it's the summer holidays now I'm going to get a new canister and then try to actually scape this tank, rather than just grow plants and then I'm expecting to be plagued with a terrible algae filled morass!!!


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

Hi Ed,

Great to hear from you!

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I guess 5 weeks is enough time to tell whether algae will take hold or plants will suffer.

So you don't dose at all?

What's the fish load, feeding regime, tap etc. like? Substrate?


----------



## ed seeley (Dec 1, 2006)

Hi George,
Good to hear from you too mate. Been rather hectic for me, but at least I haven't been moving house too....

At the moment the tank is really in a holding pattern. I'm going to give it a good sort out now the holiday's started.

It's 36"x18"x18", 40 UK gallons. The filter's an Ehiem 2128. A very old Flourite substrate covered in sand. Fish load is high. I've got a pair of Congochromis (formerly Nanochromis) sabinae, two Ancistrus sp.3, 3 SAEs, 1 old Diamond tetra and 43 cardinal tetras! At the miute they're getting baby brine shrimp that's left over from feeding baby killis and dry flake and granules. I've not fed frozen food for ages.
I dose occasionally with a home made trace element and K2SO4 solution made from AE dry ferts, but it's rather irregular while I've been so busy. No macros at all (but I have some to try EI, or something similar this summer while I have time!).
Lighting is a mix of T8s and T5s, 96W altogether, all Interpet Daylight plus.
Water is pure RO, remineralised with Seachem Equilibrium now. 0dKH, 3-4dGH, pH around 6. I haven't tested for a while, but that's where they always are with this regime. When i did test Nitrate was less than 12.5 (as low as the kit goes really) and phosphate was really low too. I'll take new tests before I start messing with it tomorrow.

Hope that helps mate, but it's far too random to really pin down what's going right IMO.


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

Thanks for the info mate. 

The RO with no buffering is interesting, I guess your fish love the low pH. Do you ever experience pH crash? Or would you know? I understand it actually triggers spawning for some species...

I will be going RO and HMA for my 150 gal. discus set up planned for later this year. I may well buy the RO unit soon for my 33 gal. and gradually lower my hardness, as I'm sure my crypts and fish would prefer it. ATM my GH is around 15 and I'm still seeing the odd wendtii leaf melt. I'm wondering if softer water would help?

Anyway, off topic enough there for one post....


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

ed seeley said:


> The only algae is BBA, that was there before on all the hardscape, and that is actually REDUCING!
> 
> It flies in the face of everything and the only was I can explain it is that as I'm fertilising less, I'm feeding less (Once a day in this tank) and therefore there's less nutrients that can encourage algae.


Isn't the reason for the declining BBA the reduction in light intensity? Light is what drives the growth of algae as well as plants. Which is why a black out can kill some algae.

When I reduced my light from 110 watts to 72 watts on my 45 gallon tank, the plant growth continued, but much slower, and algae also continued slower. It is now easier to keep the algae under control. I kept using EI dosing, and still do. The thought has occurred to me that 72 watts produced by a 30 inch long fluorescent tube would be much less light than if produced by a 12 inch tube. With the shorter tube the light intensity would remain high, but only immediately under the tube. I have been wondering about this for some time, and I wonder if reducing light intensity has to be done relatively uniformly over the whole tank surface to be a real reduction. So, a low light, no CO2 tank would react differently if the light is from a small bulb, than from if the light is a much larger bulb. Just a thought.


----------



## flagg (Nov 29, 2004)

George, I'm wondering, as you cut down on dosing ferts and decreasing CO2, do you have any plans to add soil to your tank? Could do a lot to help get needed nutrients to your plants if you're not dosing or dosing less.

-ricardo


----------



## essabee (Oct 11, 2006)

hoppycalif said:


> SNIP
> When I reduced my light from 110 watts to 72 watts on my 45 gallon tank, the plant growth continued, but much slower, and algae also continued slower. It is now easier to keep the algae under control. I kept using EI dosing, and still do. The thought has occurred to me that 72 watts produced by a 30 inch long fluorescent tube would be much less light than if produced by a 12 inch tube. With the shorter tube the light intensity would remain high, but only immediately under the tube. I have been wondering about this for some time, and I wonder if reducing light intensity has to be done relatively uniformly over the whole tank surface to be a real reduction. So, a low light, no CO2 tank would react differently if the light is from a small bulb, than from if the light is a much larger bulb. Just a thought.


Thats a thought and might start a new type of variable light aquarium. Spots in the aquarium under high light and other portions under low lights with mid-range seperating them and different plant types in those areas according to light requirement. With proper landscaping .....................  ........................:rapture:


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Logic tells me that unless the light is relatively uniform over the top of the tank, such as from a pendant light that has a lot of spill over, there have to be wide variations in light intensity at the bottom of the tank. I'm still not sure if there is a way to use this information, but your idea of tiny spot lights to get high light only where needed is interesting. Maybe this would be a way to use LED lights.

I know this is off topic, so I apologize for hijacking the thread.


----------



## gf225 (Mar 26, 2005)

hoppycalif said:


> I know this is off topic, so I apologize for hijacking the thread.


No worries, Hoppy. It's all good.


----------

