Gravel for shrimp

[finfayce]

Aquarium plants do not need added CO2 in any form most of the time. It may help with "carpet" plants, but this is because the mega light needed to grow substrate-level plants has to be balanced by all 17 nutrients of which carbon is one, or algae will be problematic.

Second point, the majority of natural CO2 in an aquarium does not occur from fish, but from the decomposition of organics in the substrate. Fish, plants and some species of bacteria respirate 24/7, taking in oxygen and giving off CO2. The CO2 given off by these organisms is not all that much, certainly not sufficient to provide enough carbon for plants long-term. The bulk of CO2 comes from the decomposition. At night, this together will produce a fair bit of CO2 which accumulates in the aquarium. This can affect fish, I saw it in my cory tank some years ago. Increasing the surface disturbance solved the issue. But the point is that quite a lot of CO2 occurs naturally. During sufficient daylight--the intensity has to be sufficient to drive photosynthesis, and different plant species have differing levels depending upon their growth habit--the plants take up more CO2 than is produced by the respiration(which continues day and night) and the organic decomposition (which is also occurring day and night). The CO2 may become depleted, which is where we work out the balance involving the needs of the various plants and the fish load/decomposition. I had my tanks worked out to requiring seven hours of tank light each 24 hour period, and this balance ran for years with thriving plant growth and without adding any CO2.

Which brings me to the third point--any form of CO2/carbon added to the aquarium will affect fish. There was an article on this in Practical Fishkeeping a couple of years ago, citing evidence that diffused CO2 was detrimental to fish. This should surprise no one, just look at what the increase in atmospheric COP2 is doing to life on this planet.

So-called liquid CO2 is glutaraldehyde, and if you want this in a fish tank, the mind boggles. Some very reputable members will say this is safe. I do not agree, no toxic substance is "safe," and I no longer argue the point. General principle. It's like the suggestion made a couple of years back that if people injected disinfectant into their bloodstream it would kill Covid. Go figure.

Last comment on floating plants and CO2. Floating plants have what is termed the aerial advantage. With leaves on the surface, they can assimilate CO2 from the air, and this process is about four times faster than aquatic plants submerged which have to rely on CO2 dissolved in the water. So floaters grow faster because thy are closer to the light, have more than sufficient CO2 from the air, and thus take up all the ammonia they can grab.

Final though, moss does not need any form of CO2 added. Too much risk for no benefit.

I agree- i am very wary to add any chemicals to my shrimp tank , other than removing chlorine and i add API Quick Start.
My tank doesn't have a hood light. I hang a gro bulb on the wall, not directly over the whole top. I remember maybe, shrimp prefer non- neon lighting

 

[finfayce]

Yes, I was just doing a little reading and you are correct in that floating plants get CO2 from ambient air, not really from the water column.

Here's another site I found that explains it better and which plants actually need extra CO2, aside from what your fish produce. I'm still learning about plants and CO2 myself so this is good info for me. I've only used the liquid CO2 booster from API so far. I'm not sure if something like API CO2 booster would even be enough for the plants they list that need an actual CO2 system in the tank.

Here they state plants on the site marked at medium or advanced require extra CO2. I'm thinking those are the kind that require the CO2 systems.

Fertiliser and CO2 for your aquarium. - Tropica Aquarium Plants

Fertiliser and CO2 for your aquarium.

tropica.com

thanks much.

 

[finfayce]

I read the article previously but have forgotten details as I have one major exception...CO2 and liquid carbon both affect or have the likelihood to affect fish, detrimentally. Adding either creates a very different playing field.

But the contention that liquid "carbon" indirectly promotes plant growth by killing algae has to be carefully understood. Plants grow if the light is of sufficient intensity for the plant species, and if the red, blue and green wavelengths (spectrum) are present and strong, and if there are 17 necessary nutrients available in the water or substrate. Algae will always be present if the biological system is healthy, but it will be common algae (which is usually invisible to us) and not "problem" algae. And you control this by the balance of light and nutrients, not be dumping some toxic disinfectant in the tank.

CO2 diffusion can feed problem algae, I have seen this from members. So can excess of many of the necessary nutrients, or too bright a light, or too weak a light, or too long a photoperiod. Use nature to achieve the balance, not chemicals.

 

[finfayce]

I read the article previously but have forgotten details as I have one major exception...CO2 and liquid carbon both affect or have the likelihood to affect fish, detrimentally. Adding either creates a very different playing field.

But the contention that liquid "carbon" indirectly promotes plant growth by killing algae has to be carefully understood. Plants grow if the light is of sufficient intensity for the plant species, and if the red, blue and green wavelengths (spectrum) are present and strong, and if there are 17 necessary nutrients available in the water or substrate. Algae will always be present if the biological system is healthy, but it will be common algae (which is usually invisible to us) and not "problem" algae. And you control this by the balance of light and nutrients, not be dumping some toxic disinfectant in the tank.

CO2 diffusion can feed problem algae, I have seen this from members. So can excess of many of the necessary nutrients, or too bright a light, or too weak a light, or too long a photoperiod. Use nature to achieve the balance, not chemicals.

So c02 is a bad thing for aquariums? the article I thought, was saying add C02. ?
What's your opinion on adding an additional small sponge filter?
Thank you.

 

[finfayce]

Yes, I was just doing a little reading and you are correct in that floating plants get CO2 from ambient air, not really from the water column.

Here's another site I found that explains it better and which plants actually need extra CO2, aside from what your fish produce. I'm still learning about plants and CO2 myself so this is good info for me. I've only used the liquid CO2 booster from API so far. I'm not sure if something like API CO2 booster would even be enough for the plants they list that need an actual CO2 system in the tank.

Here they state plants on the site marked at medium or advanced require extra CO2. I'm thinking those are the kind that require the CO2 systems.

Fertiliser and CO2 for your aquarium. - Tropica Aquarium Plants

Fertiliser and CO2 for your aquarium.

tropica.com

Yes, I was just doing a little reading and you are correct in that floating plants get CO2 from ambient air, not really from the water column.

Here's another site I found that explains it better and which plants actually need extra CO2, aside from what your fish produce. I'm still learning about plants and CO2 myself so this is good info for me. I've only used the liquid CO2 booster from API so far. I'm not sure if something like API CO2 booster would even be enough for the plants they list that need an actual CO2 system in the tank.

Here they state plants on the site marked at medium or advanced require extra CO2. I'm thinking those are the kind that require the CO2 systems.

Fertiliser and CO2 for your aquarium. - Tropica Aquarium Plants

Fertiliser and CO2 for your aquarium.

tropica.com

My typo- SB air stone not air stop

 

[finfayce]

Sorry. No idea. I've had Java, flame, and Christmas mosses and they grew nicely for me.

Ok thanks

 

[finfayce]

I read the article previously but have forgotten details as I have one major exception...CO2 and liquid carbon both affect or have the likelihood to affect fish, detrimentally. Adding either creates a very different playing field.

But the contention that liquid "carbon" indirectly promotes plant growth by killing algae has to be carefully understood. Plants grow if the light is of sufficient intensity for the plant species, and if the red, blue and green wavelengths (spectrum) are present and strong, and if there are 17 necessary nutrients available in the water or substrate. Algae will always be present if the biological system is healthy, but it will be common algae (which is usually invisible to us) and not "problem" algae. And you control this by the balance of light and nutrients, not be dumping some toxic disinfectant in the tank.

CO2 diffusion can feed problem algae, I have seen this from members. So can excess of many of the necessary nutrients, or too bright a light, or too weak a light, or too long a photoperiod. Use nature to achieve the balance, not chemicals.

I think I will hold off on adding C02- after all it's a green house gas which can

A good substrate for shrimp that I would personally use would be fluval shrimp and plant substrate. It also works really well for plants because it has nutrients that your live plants need to do well in your tank.

 

[finfayce]

I think I will hold off on adding C02- after all it's a green house gas which can add to air pollution. when in doubt- leave it out

 

[Byron]

So c02 is a bad thing for aquariums? the article I thought, was saying add C02. ?
What's your opinion on adding an additional small sponge filter?
Thank you.

This hobby is full of varying and different opinions, and there is nothing wrong with this provided the "opinions" do not contradict fact (scientific or other). Obviously many high-tech planted tanks have diffused CO@. If you read the threads on some of the planted tank forums, it is obvious that some of these aquarists do not have fish, just aquatic gardens. Others do, but their focus is primarily on the plants. I had an eminent authority on planted tanks once tell me in a private conversation that water changes in low-tech tanks were bad for the plants because it creates a fluctuating level of CO2. Tap water often has a lot of dissolved CO2--the bubbles on every thing after a water change are usually CO2 outgassing. I pointed out that the fish in my tanks benefited from the regular water change, and he countered that the plants would be better without so don't do them. Obviously a very different viewpoint to aquaria--I consider the fish the priority, and the plants (which do grow very well, if limited species) secondary; he (and many others) do not.

I can't find the article from PFK but I recall it clearly mentioned new evidence on the detrimental effect of CO2 on freshwater fish. People who want CO2 added will try to tell you it is "safe," but what exactly do they mean by "safe?" True, the fish are not likely to gasp at the surface and jump out of the tank in desperation from CO2 (unless it is overdosed, then they will), but that does not make it "safe." The level of naturally-occurring CO2 in most hobbyist tanks is more than sufficient for the plants. Maybe not the shiny red leaf plants, but many other plants will grow very well without any additional carbon/CO2. There is also today a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, and this does get absorbed into the water at the surface.

My approach for the past decade-plus has been not to add additives/substances/medications/treatments to the water fish are forced to live in unless the fish absolutely need it. I do use plant fertilizers, but so minimally I doubt any gets inside the fish, and in any case I have zero GH/KH water so some would argue the miniscule amount would be beneficial anyway. Whatever, thee fish have been healthy so far as I can tell, and many of the species I've kept have lived way past the normal life expectancy for the species. Clean water, not chemical soups, will always be better, no matter what any evidence on how "safe" something is.

I like sponge filters. My 10g, 20g, 29g (two), 33 and 40g tanks had a dual sponge filter for years. The fish were all small, soft water, from quiet watercourses, so they were right at home. I only used the sponge filters for water clarity, these are excellent at catching microscopic particulate matter so the water is crystal clear. "Clean" and "clear" are not the same thing, and my plants provided the majority of the "clean" aspect. There are fish that need water current; I used a internal corner filter in my cory tank. The build-up of natural CO2 during darkness did affect them, but increased surface disturbance took care of this. Another illustration of how much natural CO2 can be in an aquarium.

 

[finfayce]

This hobby is full of varying and different opinions, and there is nothing wrong with this provided the "opinions" do not contradict fact (scientific or other). Obviously many high-tech planted tanks have diffused CO@. If you read the threads on some of the planted tank forums, it is obvious that some of these aquarists do not have fish, just aquatic gardens. Others do, but their focus is primarily on the plants. I had an eminent authority on planted tanks once tell me in a private conversation that water changes in low-tech tanks were bad for the plants because it creates a fluctuating level of CO2. Tap water often has a lot of dissolved CO2--the bubbles on every thing after a water change are usually CO2 outgassing. I pointed out that the fish in my tanks benefited from the regular water change, and he countered that the plants would be better without so don't do them. Obviously a very different viewpoint to aquaria--I consider the fish the priority, and the plants (which do grow very well, if limited species) secondary; he (and many others) do not.

I can't find the article from PFK but I recall it clearly mentioned new evidence on the detrimental effect of CO2 on freshwater fish. People who want CO2 added will try to tell you it is "safe," but what exactly do they mean by "safe?" True, the fish are not likely to gasp at the surface and jump out of the tank in desperation from CO2 (unless it is overdosed, then they will), but that does not make it "safe." The level of naturally-occurring CO2 in most hobbyist tanks is more than sufficient for the plants. Maybe not the shiny red leaf plants, but many other plants will grow very well without any additional carbon/CO2. There is also today a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, and this does get absorbed into the water at the surface.

My approach for the past decade-plus has been not to add additives/substances/medications/treatments to the water fish are forced to live in unless the fish absolutely need it. I do use plant fertilizers, but so minimally I doubt any gets inside the fish, and in any case I have zero GH/KH water so some would argue the miniscule amount would be beneficial anyway. Whatever, thee fish have been healthy so far as I can tell, and many of the species I've kept have lived way past the normal life expectancy for the species. Clean water, not chemical soups, will always be better, no matter what any evidence on how "safe" something is.

I like sponge filters. My 10g, 20g, 29g (two), 33 and 40g tanks had a dual sponge filter for years. The fish were all small, soft water, from quiet watercourses, so they were right at home. I only used the sponge filters for water clarity, these are excellent at catching microscopic particulate matter so the water is crystal clear. "Clean" and "clear" are not the same thing, and my plants provided the majority of the "clean" aspect. There are fish that need water current; I used an internal corner filter in my cory tank. The build-up of natural CO2 during darkness did affect them, but increased surface disturbance took care of this. Another illustration of how much natural CO2 can be in an aquarium.

Wow-you are an expert- thanks much. I definitely agree that adding chemicals, especially for my little shrimp, is not the way to go.
Not related to fish- a next door neighbor still put RoundUp on his yard. despite studies showing RoundUp being a carcinogen, some people still use too many chemicals. ( luckily they moved)