Can I grow HC without co2?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

hrvat31

Aquarium Advice Activist
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
103
In my 2.5 gallon tank I have HC and parts of it is turning brown. Any tips? Please help
 
It can be grown without CO2 but you have to at least use liquid carbon, like Flourish Excel. Plus it needs ferts. But most important it needs high light. What type lighting and bulbs are on the tank?
 
With high light and the proper amount of liquid carbon it grows just as thick and quickly. I have no issues growing it, just keeping it down while it's establishing with yo-yo loaches in the tank.
 
With high light and the proper amount of liquid carbon it grows just as thick and quickly. I have no issues growing it, just keeping it down while it's establishing with yo-yo loaches in the tank.

That might be your personal experience, but its in contrast to the experiences of the rest of the planted tank community, as well as Seachems's description of their own product. The vast majority of the nice lawns that people associate with HC are grown with co2. If anything high light will make the difference even more stark.
 
That might be your personal experience, but its in contrast to the experiences of the rest of the planted tank community, as well as Seachems's description of their own product. The vast majority of the nice lawns that people associate with HC are grown with co2. If anything high light will make the difference even more stark.

Yes it's my expierence, which shows it can be grown without CO2 under the proper conditions and even you have stated that HC is one of the most tolerant of all carpeting plants when it comes to using liquid carbon. I also don't use Excel and have no idea what Seachems description of their product has to do with growing HC. I seriously doubt I am the only person in the rest of planted community here, in the states, in the world, who doesn't use CO2 and grows HC without issue. Just because many or even the majority people do do things one way doesn't mean it is the only way it can be done sucessfully. JMHO
 
I have a full spectrum 6500k compact fluorescent.
 
Yes it's my expierence, which shows it can be grown without CO2 under the proper conditions and even you have stated that HC is one of the most tolerant of all carpeting plants when it comes to using liquid carbon. I also don't use Excel and have no idea what Seachems description of their product has to do with growing HC. I seriously doubt I am the only person in the rest of planted community here, in the states, in the world, who doesn't use CO2 and grows HC without issue. Just because many or even the majority people do do things one way doesn't mean it is the only way it can be done sucessfully. JMHO


Don't confuse my skepticism with dismissal. HC is one of only a handful of foregrounds that respond to glut well enough to grow, but it should not be mistaken as a substitute for CO2 in medium light and higher. That's not to say that I haven't seen tanks that grew foregrounds nicely with Glut, or that tanks with HC and CO2 always do well, but the risk of failure is higher and the potential rewards lower when using Excel.
 
Still don't really agree that Liquid Carbon isn't a good substitution for CO2 in medium and higher light tanks. You may not get pearling from your plants but you can get excellent growth that can rival that of what is gotten with CO2 IMO but dosing the proper ferts and have good enough light is also required.
 
To throw another wrench in the mix, most HC is propagated (at least commercially) above water, so yeah. But I do have to agree, while excel and similar have their place, they don't work nearly as well as pressurized co2 has the potential to. If they did, then people wouldn't be dumping 200-300 on co2 equipment if they could get equivalent results by dropping a capful of glutaraldehyde in with their daily dosing. I think that calling it liquid co2 kinda takes us down the path where people end up equating the two.

In my experience with HC in particular, which is limited I will admit, it grows in nearly any light above the threshold level needed to grow plants, but in lower light setups it tends to grow upward.
 
I still agree to disagree Jetta. Honestly I really can't see what more it could add to my tank for example. Other than possibly making me have to trim even more. I believe that there isn't enough info available on how much individual tanks need when it comes to dosing liquid carbon. Aqua was right on when he posted that one size doesn't fit all when this subject was brought up in another thread (we were discussing the lack of directions). Liquid carbon, which I wish wouldn't be called Liquid CO2, has to be dosed to the tanks needs and on the Excel bottle it even states "higher doses may be required in high production tanks" yet gives no directions. I think if there was alot more information available on liquid carbon, what affects it, and how much different types of tanks need, people would in fact see better results in their tanks when using it instead of CO2 as I have had in my 220g.
 
I still agree to disagree Jetta. Honestly I really can't see what more it could add to my tank for example. Other than possibly making me have to trim even more.
You've said it yourself here, having to trim more means you have more growth. It's not always someone's main goal of course, but it's clearly shown and accepted that pressurized co2 outperforms glutaraldehyde, which is what I was implying.

I believe that there isn't enough info available on how much individual tanks need when it comes to dosing liquid carbon. Aqua was right on when he posted that one size doesn't fit all when this subject was brought up in another thread (we were discussing the lack of directions). Liquid carbon, which I wish wouldn't be called Liquid CO2, has to be dosed to the tanks needs and on the Excel bottle it even states "higher doses may be required in high production tanks" yet gives no directions. I think if there was alot more information available on liquid carbon, what affects it, and how much different types of tanks need, people would in fact see better results in their tanks when using it instead of CO2 as I have had in my 220g.
Calling it liquid carbon is as much of a misnomer IMO. That term implies that it is an equal substitute to co2 injection and it just simply is not. Even seachem makes this clear in their PDF on excel. This takes people down a road thinking they can have a high light tank without pressurized co2, and while it can be done, as evidenced, it's not easy nor is it the norm. 9/10 high light setups that begin like this are disaster stories as I'm sure you've seen.

The other downsides to glut dosing in place of pressurized co2 would be that some plants are sensitive to it, and as you said there isn't a good way to measure how much is in the system at any given time, so it's kind of a crap shoot both in figuring out how much to dose and how to maintain that level so that plants have carbon available as-needed.

That said, I like glutaraldehyde, I even have a gallon of metricide 14 that should be delivered tomorrow morning. It makes an extremely effective algaecide with the side benefit of more carbon for plants.

I can't really comment much more on the HC thing, if it works for you that's awesome, I'd like to see more HC and other ground covers in lower tech tanks honestly.


Re: hrvat31, a cheap 5lb co2 tank and full size regulator is going to cost you around $200 depending on where you source it. Paintball co2 can be had for 1/3 of the price but I've no experience with it at all.


Oh on a side note, here's a current thread on glut that looks to have a lot of potential in giving us some more hard data on these basic questions.
http://www.barrreport.com/showthrea...esidual-decay-rates-in-real-planted-aquariums
 
I'm sure this wasn't intended to create a debate, but as I'm learning more about how to operate a planted tank, I have developed this simple opinion. Pressurized CO2 is more common because its easier. Using liquid carbon instead is more difficult to "get right."

I've seen the pics of Rivercats tanks on here, a I don't know how anybody could want more. While that approach may be the exception, it seems clear that it can be just as successful.
 
I'm sure this wasn't intended to create a debate, but as I'm learning more about how to operate a planted tank, I have developed this simple opinion. Pressurized CO2 is more common because its easier. Using liquid carbon instead is more difficult to "get right."

I've seen the pics of Rivercats tanks on here, a I don't know how anybody could want more. While that approach may be the exception, it seems clear that it can be just as successful.

Pressurized co2 is way more complicated and costly up front. Believe me, 2 out of 3 people that I know with planted tanks go with excel first and then go to pressurized co2. It's not easy measuring exact amounts needed by different setups, but it's not rocket science either, and there is a lot of wiggle room. The answer is simply that pressurized co2 setups outperform the ones dosed by excel alone, we all have our opinions on it but the proof is in the pudding. This is agreed upon by nearly everyone in the hobby as well as the people who market glutaraldehyde as a co2 supplement.

There is not some big secret about glut that other's don't know, we've been using it in the hobby for many years already.

It doesn't mean you can't have a successful and beautiful tank without pressurized co2, rivercats tank is a great example of that. And I know several people including myself who have done extensive and lovely aquascapes using very little tech. But that's completely off the point.

I didn't intend for this to be a debate either, but I really strive to flesh things out when there is disagreement in fundamentals. This is important because other people read these threads and posts and go repeat them to others, and it starts a big chain of believers that repeat something they've read that someone else said that someone else said. I see it all the time on various forums, they all have their mantras and the origins of them are often long gone.
 
Back
Top Bottom