Easycarbo: Yes or No

[seangee]

About 3 weeks ago I noticed what I thought was a carbon deficiency in the nano. So I have been dosing with this at around 75% of the recommended dosage since then - and doing similar in the community tank.

My assumption was correct and the plants have dramatically improved in both tanks. But I have seen so many conflicting reports on whether this is good for fish (or at least not bad) I thought I'd seek some opinions here. The reason I have not posted in the planted section is that I firmly believe the health of the fish takes precedence over the appearance of the plants - but of course balance is required. I already know the stuff works - but would like to know if there are any harmful long term effects on the fish and shrimp.

I have had previous success with heavily planted, high tech tanks and CO2 injection, but I really want these to be low maintenance with minimal intervention

 

[Byron]

The first question is, what exactly is in this product? The Easy-Life website does not say...and immediately that sends up red flags. They do however have this warning:

Avoid direct contact with skin, eyes and clothing, as well as direct contact with animals or aquatic plants. We recommend the use of protective gear (goggles, gloves). Use at your own risk! We do not assume any responsibility for damages that may result from this treatment.​

This leads me to think the ingredient may be glutaraldehyde, which is the ingredient (along with water) in Seachem's Excel and API's CO2 Booster, both "claiming" to be carbon supplement liquids. I do know something about glutaraldehyde as I have researched it extensively. It is dangerous to all fish and plants, and bacteria. It is used in hospitals to sterilize surgical instruments, in ship ballasts to kill bacteria, in anti-freeze, and in embalming fluid to kill bacteria.

The fact that the manufacturers (all three) claim algae can be killed, and Easy-Carbo even says cyanobacteria, is serious. Any additive that will kill bacteria and plants does not belong in an aquarium with fish unless it is essential to kill something affecting the fish.

Some plants can be killed at recommended doses of Excel and CO2 Booster (mosses, Vallisneria are particularly risky) and brush algae.

I know others will say they use/have used this with "no harm" to fish, but only a biologist can make such a claim, and to my knowledge none ever have. Fish do not have to be killed to be detrimentally affected by additives, and everything added to the water does get inside the fish, so this should be every aquarist's concern.

There is plenty of natural CO2 being produced in a balanced aquarium to supply many plants. High-tech method tanks need more, and diffused CO2 is the way to go. But given that recent studies have suggested CO2 diffusion does also negatively impact fish, it is best to keep fish out of such high-tech systems.

 

[seangee]

The first question is, what exactly is in this product? The Easy-Life website does not say...and immediately that sends up red flags.

The reason for my question (and avoiding the planted forums) ...
The label also doesn't say what is in it and I suspect you are right on the glutaraldehyde. The smell is reminiscent of formaldehyde and I have found plenty of forum posts comparing the product to Seachem Excel.

Ironically the vals are flourishing. One of the clues to a carbon deficiency was "limescale" on their leaves which suggested they were using the CACO3 in my very hard water as a carbon source.

 

[Byron]

Ironically the vals are flourishing. One of the clues to a carbon deficiency was "limescale" on their leaves which suggested they were using the CACO3 in my very hard water as a carbon source.

While logical to think so, I wouldn't draw the inference that CO2 deficiency was the reason the Vallisneria was using CACO3. All species in this genus readily assimilate carbon from bicarbonates (as opposed to carbon dioxide) and thus do exceptionally well in harder water; some can even tolerate brackish water that is not too high in salt. According to Kasselmann (2003) all habitats of Vallisneria species are notable for consistently high pH values, and the water is comparatively hard for tropical biotopes. Vallisneria species thrive in Lake Malawi, one of the African rift lakes, which contain the hardest freshwater with very few exceptions.

Walstad (2003) notes that while most plants naturally occurring in hardwater habitats can use bicarbonates as an alternate carbon source, some appear to actually need bicarbonates in the water for more than just photosynthetic carbon. Even when fertilized heavily with diffused CO2, Vallisneria americana grew 40% better when the nutrient media contained bicarbonates than when it did not.

It would seem likely that when bicarbonates are readily available in the aquarium, Vallisneria will make considerable use of them, irrespective of CO2 levels. The couple of times I have tried species of this genus, I have never seen the limescale, obviously because my water is very soft (zero GH and KH) and the pH acidic. The plants never do remarkably well either, naturally, just managing with regular and substantial nutrient supplementation exceeding that provided for my other plants.

 

[AbbeysDad]

Also ironically, Glut is most often very hard on Jungle Val unless only dosed very lightly or introduced very slowly.

 

[seangee]

Thinking about it logically carbon may have been an incorrect assumption as I do see regular pearling. However something is not right as this pic shows. Many of my plants in both tanks end up this way. New growth starts lovely and green, then starts going yellow and later brown before falling into holes. Worst affected are the Ceratopteris Thalicroides and Echinodorus (I have several species). I have experimented quite extensively with lighting, both intensity and duration, as well as nutrient levels. So I assume something is either lacking or in over supply.

Any suggestions on where to start?

 

[Byron]

That is not a carbon deficiency. If carbon is insufficient, photosynthesis simply slows and then stops. This is why those of us who do not add carbon (in any form) but rely on CO2 occurring naturally have to find the light/nutrient balance that will make use of the available CO2 without going beyond. CO2 is usually considered the nutrient that will first become inadequate, since all of the others are easily added, and the light is the factor that determines how fast the CO2 is utilized. Everything really comes down to light. If you do go beyond the available CO2, photosynthesis will slow and may even cease, and algae then takes the advantage of the light. Much the same can occur with any nutrient deficiency. But some nutrients if deficient will also show up as here.

And just to add to the difficulty, an excess of some nutrients can cause plants to literally shut down assimilation of certain other nutrients. So what may seem a deficiency of "x" may actually be due to an excess of "y". Plants will store nutrients, but this has limits, and once the storage capacity is reached, the nutrient becomes toxic to the plant. Different plants have different capacities for storing nutrients.

I have never bothered much with trying to pin down this or that nutrient deficiency because so many have similar if not identical symptoms. I have thought it better to start with minimal or sometimes no additives, then add a comprehensive supplement in stages, observing the result as you go.

The plant in the photo is Ceratopteris. I have seen it do this in my tanks too, a while back, and I believe I pinned it down to excess iron, but it was a while ago. Micronutrient deficiency can also cause this. I now only add Flourish Comprehensive Supplement as liquid; Flourish Tabs for the larger swords. GH is also important as this may be a primary source of calcium in particular. And light that is not too bright since this drives photosynthesis.

What supplements are you using, if any? And what is the GH? And the light? This may have been looked at previously, I cannot remember, I post in so many threads I cannot keep the issues separate without reminding!

 

[seangee]

I'll post 2 sets of parameters as they are a bit different - same symptoms though.

Fluval Flex 15G
pH: 7.8
GH: 16dh
KH: 20dh
NO3: <10 ppm
Lights: Stock LEDs @ 9 hrs per day (tank is in a darkened room)
Input water filtered for nitrates (anionic exchange)
Input water filtered through active carbon block*
Seachem flourish comprehensive at recommended dosage once per week
Surface coverage is approx 50% (water sprite, duckweed and grown over vals)

Aquaone Aquavogue 170
pH: 7.2
GH: 12dh
KH: 16dh
NO3: <10 ppm
Lights: Stock LEDs @ 7 hrs per day (tank is in a living room and also receives indrect daylight)
Input water filtered for nitrates (anionic exchange)
Input water filtered through active carbon block*
50% of input water filtered filtered through cationic exchange resin to reduce GH
Seachem flourish comprehensive at half recommended dosage once per week
Surface coverage is approx 50% (frogbit)

* I have only been using the activated carbon for about a month as an alternative to dechlorinator. Since I filter my water anyway the extra stage takes no extra time. Has not caused any observable difference.

 

[Byron]

Can you find any data about the LED lighting? Most basic LED is high in blue but very little red, and plants cannot photosynthesize well without red. I found this to be an issue with all five units I tried, that went back. The GH is not a problem, and the Flourish Comp should be sufficient.

 

[cowgirluntamed]

Just a little side note for you....I was using seachem flourish comprehensive and switched to aquarium co-co-op easy green. Other than dosage is easier...I have noticed quite a few improvements with my plants!

 

[seangee]

I found this on the Fluval site and they are indeed on the blue side
LED Watts: 10.8 W
LUX: 2450
Number of LEDs: 48 + 6 RGB
Colour Temperature: 7500 K

Not managed to find any info on the Aqua One lights. In all fairness the tanks don't look terrible. I may actually stop using the Flourish as I originally started using it in an attempt to solve this very problem, which it hasn't - and my plants have not really shown any significant difference. Guess I'll have to either live with them or stick to plants that do cope.

@Byron - is there any chance it could be an iron deficiency? Obviously I can't remove a surplus. Reason for the question is that my sagittaria subulata has similar symptoms. It does grow upwards but has not really spread at all. Googling this suggests an iron deficiency. I did not mention these earlier to avoid clouding the issue as it is possible that there is simply not enough light for them at the bottom of the flex.

 

[Byron]

Can you post photos of the Sagittaria subulata? I tried this plant once, and had no luck due (I assume) to insufficient light. My pygmy chain swords by contrast grow like weeds. So, I stay with these--that is thee way to do it too, stay with plants that work in your set-up, as not all will for various reasons. I've even had the same plant species thrive in one tank and melt in another, repeatedly, yet the light is identical, water and ferts the same, etc.

Iron deficiency is not as common as some articles might suggest. You certainly have sufficient iron in Flourish Comprehensive for Ceratopteris as I grow this well and I have zero minerals in my source water so the Flourish is it. It did begin to melt in my 90g when I was dosing iron (thought this might help the red-leaf Tiger Lotus, but only made it worse). I cannot grow Ceratopteris planted in the substrate though, only floating; presumably the light is not sufficient as being a fast growing plant it needs more intensity.

Those light specs are not as far off as I might have thought, though red is in short supply and that is important.

 

[Byron]

Just a little side note for you....I was using seachem flourish comprehensive and switched to aquarium co-co-op easy green. Other than dosage is easier...I have noticed quite a few improvements with my plants!

I had a look at the ingredients, and comparing the percentages given on the site with those for Flourish Comp, this product has more of the nutrients with a couple exceptions. One being iron, so there is actually less iron in this than in Flourish Comp. But otherwise, there is a higher % of the others than in Flourish Comp. So that means you are adding more, and the volume suggested seems more than what I would use of Flourish Comp. Aside from the levels, both have much the same ingredients nutrient-wise.

 

[seangee]

Hmm - I really do want a carpet in the nano and I am inclined to give up on the sags. These have been in for around 3 months

One tank to another - here is my lotus

 

[seangee]

I cannot grow Ceratopteris planted in the substrate though, only floating; presumably the light is not sufficient as being a fast growing plant it needs more intensity.

I missed that sentence which appears to be the answer I needed. The amazon swords have actually improved since I thinned the surface in an attempt to get more light to the water sprite in the community tank. Conversely in the nano the planted water sprite has deteriorated since I thinned them and let the pruned bits float on the surface (which reduced the light)