Does "Liquid CO2" Really Work? | Side-By-Side Aquarium Experiment |

[@AQUAPROS]

Like this video? Check out my other experiment videos: Aquarium Experiments ► geni.us/RJ9BY FREE HOLOGRAPHIC DUCKWEEK STICKER THIS WEEKEND ONLY W/Any Order Placed! (1/16-1/17 2021) ✅ Fish Stickers/Magnets/Clings ► geni.us/fishstickers

[@walterbrook6087]

amazing video................ but after 18:00 most of the things went over my head XD

[@woodworkerroyer8497]

What is your fert regimen in the two test tanks? Are you ei dosing? I ask because even if you're going from a point of both tanks having the same low dose of fertilizer, if the pressurized co2 grows more, then that tank is using more of all the ferts. So my logic (which may well be faulty) is that I would ei dose at least as much as is recommended, and then you have unlimited light (I assume, since you have a top-of-the-line tank, with co2, that the light is good), and unlimited nutrients (based on the principle of the ei method), that the ONLY limitation would be co2 availability (which is the point of the entire test). By seeing a phosphate deficiency, we know that there is not enough of it in whatever dosing you used. If you got to that after 9:18, I haven't gotten that far on the video. I just wanted to get this down before I forgot it lol

[@AQUAPROS]

@@woodworkerroyer8497 No added ferts in either tank.

[@woodworkerroyer8497]

@@AQUAPROS Oh. Again, sorry if I missed that. Pretty amazing that it grew so much without ferts (at least according to the stuff I read, it seems like the internet thinks no ferts=miniscule, if any, growth. Certainly nothing like enough to work in a co2 dosed tank)

[@AQUAPROS]

@@woodworkerroyer8497 Ya, i still need to to a proper comparison of 2 tanks w co2, 1 with ei dosimg and the other with nothing added. I tried that for the first exp. But it did not really work out if youre curious, check out the first vid in the playlist.

[@dpowers2005]

I appreciate this comparison but an actual "control" tank would have been so much more helpful. I know pressurized co2 makes a huge difference, I'm just wondering what the difference between no liquid carbon and the addition of liquid carbon to a tank. Liquid carbon isn't carbon dioxide, it's just a carbon product so it's never going to compare to pressurized co2.

[@AQUAPROS]

Ya totally, I clarify all that later in the vid 👍

[@sitha4441]

Using pressurized CO2 is the standard when attempting to introduce CO2 into a aquarium system, so they actually do have a Control (pressurized CO2) to compare to the Experimental (liquid CO2).

[@aeon90q1]

@@sitha4441 yeah a real control would be a tank that is untouched, left as it is. This experiment had the intention of testing the effect of 2 different carbon sources, the liquid supplement and the injected CO² in gas form. the control would be a tank without a external carbon source. Its fine, it does not have to be real science. And having a control tank would double the time for this exeriment. (Phase 1: control vs. liquid carbon; Phase 2: control vs gaseous carbon) Best regrads;)

[@rallywagon261]

@@aeon90q1 it would only take three tanks, all done at the same time. Why would you need to do gaseous separate from liquid. Just three tanks all done at once. No need to double the time.

[@sot8343]

@@sitha4441 his point is that this outcome was already expected. No co2 vs liquid co2 is the unknown comparison.

[@gavinpowell8538]

You really need to do the same test using liquid carbon and using nothing

[@BattlefieldRoBin]

i think if he were to run this test again i would like to see nothing, air stone, liquid carbon, and pressurized Co2

[@DP-ym8zf]

Yes. We all know that nothing beats actual CO2. The big question is whether/how much better is liquid carbon compared to addinbh absolutely nothing.

[@PinkBlue_Spood]

Liquid Co2 is pretty much just an algae inhibitor. It’s not likely to positively impact any plant growth. Dosing is limited anyways, as it can be toxic and easily overdosed.

[@kenfused]

yes, this experiment was pretty obvious before it started. I think we all knew where this was headed.

[@jorgegalvana.7413]

His experiment was very interesting and it was possible to demonstrate with certain veracity what CO2 does as a gas and the famous "liquid CO2", the experiment with a third aquarium as a "witness" would have been great, to really see if liquid CO2 works or just it's marketing. Excellent, good job👌

[@petervandieren]

I would have loved to see a third tank without any 'liquid' and pressurised CO2. Perhaps even a fourth tank using both 'liquid' and pressurised CO2. Love these real world experiments!

[@pushpaomre6359]

Are you videshi

[@PSsquadron]

Make it again with 3 fish tanks. 1 tank with co2. 2 tank with liquid Co2. 3 tank without any co2. Then we will see if co2 in liquid works.

[@doesnotexist6524]

I say 4 tanks, with the 4th getting co2 + liquid co2.

[@imranpatel4612]

Please do Liquid CO2 v No CO2 to see if I'm wasting my money on the liquid

[@Sagarrrr436]

Yes pls

[@fishgirlforlife937]

Liquid c02 actually isn’t good for our aquatic critters at all

[@anthonyruth5606]

It’s a poison ☠️

[@carter865]

You are wasting your money

[@danpham4829]

trust me you're wasting money.

[@SerpaDesign]

Looking fresh with the goatee 🌿

[@AQUAPROS]

😉🤪

[@medusasworldofstone]

I love you Serpa❣❣❣

[@seizedcarcass8440]

Who knew I would see tanner here!!!

[@mtgtomescourer]

There's less algae in the Excel tank because it's literally an algecide 🤣

[@alonsow8053]

My favorite part of having an aquarium is the biology and science that make everything work. Keep doing these videos I love them

[@candymancody]

“Censored for my safety.” Clearly visible in the reflection on the tank 😂 good one man

[@Discitus]

From everything I've read on hobby forums, the only effective option for getting CO2 is straight up injecting it, from a pressurized tank or a DIY generator. I've been using yeast generators for my low/medium light tanks for years. The setup and running cost is so low there's really nothing to lose. There's also the citric acid system, but I haven't tried it or done a cost analysis.

[@minciNashu]

Does it affect cherry shrimp? I've read it softens the water too much for shrimp.

[@BuurmanHans]

@@minciNashu no as long as you keep doing your weekly water changes there's nothing to worry about

[@StevenHeinrichs]

The real question is: Liquid CO2 vs Nothing. Does liquid CO2 actually do anything?

[@arthurheine5631]

One thing everyone agrees is that it kills algae

[@Raithed]

I actually love these experiments, thanks Mike.

[@-Mikkel]

Awesome experiment! I use pressurized Co2. Sometimes I add liquid carbon for insane extra growth. I think this could be a nice experiment as well to see how the two combine.

[@AungTH1]

“Censored for my safety lol” and you forgot to censor the reflection!

[@walterbrook6087]

omg

[@AQUAPROS]

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@medusasworldofstone]

I was halfway thru the video when I saw this comment... I went back to see the reflection 😈

[@waqqaas]

I thought I was the only one who saw the reflection! Me and my overconfidence and ego eh? lol

[@UKFishCam]

When I see a lab coat I know it’s going to be an amazing video !

[@daniels.6322]

From personal experience, I believe "liquid carbon" is intended to be used as a supplement for hi or low tech tanks and act as a preventative algae defense. It does not add co2, but rather keeps algae from out competing any plants for existing co2, nutrients, and light in the tank, allowing them to thrive with more consistent results than if you were not using any supplements. This should also be used with appropriate fertilizer, and yes it is technically toxic in higher volumes so proceed with caution. That being said, it seems not to bother livestock at all if used in proper increments, and it keeps my plants healthy and happy.

[@AQUAPROS]

Ya totally, I just think most beginners dont know that, maybe im wrong, but I was curious to see how well it worked

[@Origmist]

@@AQUAPROS when I was a noobie I thought it was a replacement for co2 so this will definitely help new comers understand the differences

[@davidelliott7435]

Liquid carbon is actually an algae inhibitor, not any kind of substitute for CO2.

[@rioriatti]

The difference between no supplements and adding Excel in my tanks is night and day. Obviously, not as a good as injected CO2 but way more robust plant growth.

[@andystokes8702]

The most notable difference between the tanks on just about every photo was the colour of the drop checker fluid. In every shot the indicator in the liquid carbon tank was blue and in the pressurised CO2 tank it was yellow/green. I'm sure you must have noticed it, I'm surprised you did not mention it. Quite clearly the liquid carbon was not affecting the water in the same way as the pressurised CO2 system.

[@wellingtononlybest]

😮

[@mr_e_mc2]

Love the experiment but would have loved to see a third control tank of filtration only, to see if there was any notable difference for the "no liquid co2 tank" to a "baseline tank", with no change to additives

[@19801emmanuel]

“I’m not gonna name names” leaves the bottle in the background lmao

[@TazawaTanks]

I always find these scientific videos to be fascinating. Great work Mike!

[@AQUAPROS]

Thanks T 😎😎😎

[@wmarian5027]

I think is interesting is the difference in plant response to CO2....knowing which plants won't benefit from co2 so much...for a low tech tank. Thank you Mike-very good stuff.

[@rafaelfreitas9634]

Congrats for this experiment mate. I believe no one have ever done something similar to it. But, I think that the second tank, the one with pressurized CO2, should be replaced by a tank with no CO2 at all. In this way would be possible to see if liquid carbon has any effect on plants.

[@lulupan1341]

I have low tech planted fish tanks. Will the liquid carbon products at least help a bit?

[@rotor7135]

I feel like it would’ve been more appropriate to do one tank with excel and one with none as opposed to one with excel and one with co2. We know pressurised co2 is more effective than liquid, but not how much better liquid is than none at all

[@austindunford]

You did it! Thanks for liking my comment regarding this on the last experiment video and the executing it so quickly!

[@rickeyanderson5168]

I bought the Fluval CO2 kit and used it before I added my fish, loaches, and snails. By the way, does it affect loaches and snails differently from fish? I now have liquid CO2 from API I haven't cracked the seal just yet. I definitely saw the dramatic difference in my red plants. Once I stopped using it, I got Ich in my aquarium from a fish I introduced. I shut down the entire system stripped the tank and placed all the fish into a Hospital tub some survived others perished. I built the whole substrate all over the red plants just melted and never returned. I have a couple of weeks before I upgrade to a 30-gallon so if I can get the floating cut stems to tank root and my Vallisneria doesn't melt back in low dosages it would be AWESOME !!😁Thank you for another great video.

[@Andreas-gh6is]

Co2 is used for photosynthesis, which is a means of energy production, but also to produce plant matter. The Co2 ends up as carbohydrates in the plant structures.

[@Andreas-gh6is]

I wonder if dosing liquid co2 based on water volume is precise enough or if you should take into account how many plants there are. Also how often it is dosed....

[@ilivefortropicalfish6837]

I think these videos give good information to beginners that dont know much about aquariums. Keep it up!

[@1816pinaki]

Lovely video as usual .... 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗 I am pro pressurized co2 person as well ...... but this liquid co2 addition along with pressurized co2 helps me a ton in having algae under check .... specially at the very beginning of planted tank cycle

[@cristiaolson7327]

The "mermaid plant" is neither ludwigia nor hygrophila. It's proserpinaca. It's one of my favorite aquarium plants because the leaf shape is really feathery and delicate.

[@rallywagon261]

Sadly, without the control, the answer to the title can't be answered. Should be titled. "Is Liquid CO2 As Good As Gas."

[@Jake-nl1jm]

Liquid CO2 (using the most common {REDACTED} brand name for the concentrations) is mostly just a disinfectant, it makes no sense as a carbon source if you do a mass balance. Liquid Carbon is a 1.5% glutaraldehyde solution, so it contains 15 g of glutaraldehyde per liter. Glutaraldehyde is 60% carbon by weight (from C5H8O2), so that ends up with 9 g of eventual CO2. Looking at just the first day after you add it (assuming you add it when the lights come on); it has a half life 12 hours, I'll assume you're crazy and have a 12 hour photoperiod in your low tech tank, so that would give you 4.5 g of carbon in your tank from 1 L of Liquid Carbon. You don't add a full liter though, only 5 mL per 10 gallons, since those numbers are easy I'll assume you have a 10 gallon tank and dose 5 mL of Liquid Carbon every morning. That means you dose .0225 g of carbon through Liquid Carbon, the equivalent of 0.056 g of sugar or ~1.5% of a teaspoon of sugar Atmospheric air is ~0.04% CO2; CO2 is ~27% carbon by weight so atmospheric air is ~0.0001 carbon by weight fraction. That means 225 g of air contains the same amount of carbon as that 5 mL of Liquid Carbon. That's equivalent to the CO2 from 0.1875 L of air at sea level. Lets assume you have an airstone in your tank, and you have pretty poor mass transfer but CO2 is very soluble so I'll ballpark that only 1% of the CO2 in the air gets transferred into the water (would likely be higher from my rough guesses, CO2 is more soluble in water than O2 and an airlift reactor will have an O2 kLa of ~.01 with a low superficial gas velocity which is far less soluble in water than CO2). So with those (very) rough estimates, you'll have to pump in 18.75 L of air to get the same amount of CO2 into the water as your 5 mL of Liquid Carbon. A small air pump for a 10 gallon tank will have about 0.5 L/min, so you'll pump that amount of CO2 into your water every 37.5 minutes with an airstone, and that completely ignores the transfer at the surface of the water which would add even more. The math just doesn't add up that Liquid Carbon adds any appreciable amount of carbon to a tank and does anything besides act as a disinfectant.

[@annalee8570]

He looks so cute with his ginger goatee☺

[@rachaelmaass1924]

I totally agree!

[@mikalmos369]

ditto

[@kelleyforeman]

Carbon gets fixed in the Calvin cycle, not the Krebs cycle😉. Thanks for the video! I’ve often suspected liquid CO2 is a worthless product. I’d like to see a comparison with an untreated tank before I make that conclusion, however.

[@christopherfassett9973]

Love the video. Personally I never thought glutaraldehyde/polycoclyglutaracetal would be comparable to CO², I'm far more interested in liquid carbon vs no CO² or liquid carbon *and* CO² vs just CO². It's worth noting that we do know these products at least contain glut (or an isomer of glut [polycycloglutaracetal] in Excel's case) because it's on the ingredients list and the MSDS for all of these products. It could be a red herring to distract from either a different isomer or other ingredients that are actually more important of course, but we do at least know that as a baseline, they do contain some form of glut. I know there's a study (I read it at one point) that demonstrates utilization of glut as an alternate carbon source, but I believe the study said it took an additional step for it to be made bioavailable versus straight CO², making it less efficient for the plant. I know there's also speculation that the concentrations necessary to replace CO² would be toxic to fauna and to some flora and also that plants require an adjustment period where it has to make some metabolic adaptations before it can utilize glut properly. I haven't seen reputable sources for those details though. Seachem seems to have research on the subject based on responses on their website but they're not publishing i, haha.. Still a great video, love it

[@BlueStreakActual]

"In order to avoid corporate assassination I will not be naming any brands in this video" *API-hired sniper through the window slowly takes their finger off the trigger*

[@speedbumps8373]

FBI scoped in on the reflection in the glass at 4:08

[@Gabesafish]

The difference between tanks regarding the green spot algae probably has less to do with phosphate, as it does to “liquid CO2’s” active ingredient (glutaraldehyde) being a biocide. In the recommended doses, it is not harmful to most plants, but it can be effective as a spot treatment for algae, and dosing a tank regularly can also inhibit algae growth in general.

[@AQUAPROS]

Good point!

[@DukesAquaristikexperimente]

Thanks for the Test. Liquid CO2 is antialgea stuff. Thats why you have less algea in this tank. If you combine Liquid CO2 with pressuriced CO2 you get an algea fre tank with great growth

[@yannickbroos5283]

You might want to censor the reflection on the glass of the tank the next time, just to make sure you are safe!

[@AQUAPROS]

👀👀👀🤯

[@prabhdeol8098]

@@AQUAPROS yeah we all know it’s ******* ******** *****

[@mattysfishtanks4843]

You know you are in for a good vid when the lab coat comes out. Thanks Mike 👍

[@dantanigawa5072]

I'd be more interested to see liquid c02 be nothing, I'd figure pressurized would be better than liquid... but lemme watch the video now 🤣

[@sitha4441]

Using pressurized CO2 is the standard when attempting to introduce CO2 into a aquarium system, so you actually do have a Control to compare the Experimental (liquid CO2).

[@manditory2095]

I think the "better" comparison would have been a tank with NO CO2 versus a tank with just LIQUID CO2. We already know a tank with pressurized CO2 is going to grow plants very well - it's why people install that setup in the first place. But from someone who doesn't have any high-tech setups, I would have been more interested to see how a liquid CO2 supplement would have compared to a tank without that supplementation, just to get an idea of the possible benefits and potential drawbacks to beginning a liquid CO2 regimen. The cost involved with setting up pressurized CO2 - even on a small tank - is expensive, so I am hesitant to make that move. If there was enough of a difference between a "No CO2" tank and a "liquid CO2" tank, that might be a more realistic option for low-tech tank owners. Would it make that much of a difference in growth? Cause terrible algae problems? Create a deficiency for fish? I don't know, but it would be nice to find out. Maybe an idea for another experiment? 😉🤞 Great content as always, Mike!

[@kingneptune8120]

Might be a foolish question but I will give it a go. Is it safe to assume that glass tops on a planted tank will limit the efficiency of lighting needed for proper plant growth?

[@majorbruster5916]

Glass does affect the light reaching the plants. A small percentage is reflected up and may be lost if it is not intercepted by a reflector above the light. Depending on the density, color and thickness of the glass, another small percentage (2 - 10 %) is absorbed by the glass itself and may be transmitted laterally out of the sheet. The surface of the water also reflects some of the light where it bounces back up to the glass cover where a similar process happens. This reflected light is lost in aquaria without cover glasses. Water, as we know, absorbs light (UV, red) pretty quickly, and depending on the amount of dissolved pigments (e.g. tannins) absorbs more. Therefore, not all the light reaches the plants at the bottom of the aquarium. However, despite these losses, aquarium plants do grow pretty much OK under a decent aquarium light.

[@budakPancing]

I prefer the Liquid carbon tank. I'm dosing both in my tank using a dosing pump for liquid carbon and pressurize co2. Growth is crazy until trimming becomes a hassle. I don't mind slower growth as long as it's growing. Less trimming is a plus for me.

[@fenixangelzamo]

4:08 seachem excel XD

[@raizinhell1]

The man himself Tom Barr said that "liquid c02" does help in low tech tanks get their carbon.

[@thenaturecreater8906]

Ohh it would be cool to see this test with a tank with liquid co2 and one tank with zero co2. If in fact it does somthing. I Just use liquid co2 to spray on bba algea. Works great

[@ECitta]

@4:08 Video: "Censored for my Safety lol" Me: *reads bottle on glass reflection"

[@marcuswhitmore6622]

It would have been an even more interesting experiment if there was a third aquarium with no treatment at all.

[@jakeMcPooppants]

Liquid carbon definitly can't replace pressurized co2, however I think dosing some liquid carbon in addition to using pressurized co2 is effective for the algaecide benefits

[@Nighthawk9955]

You can see the reflection of the excell on the glass Love the vid!!!!

[@SlickNick3]

Great experiment! I already knew this would be the outcome but still cool to see it!!

[@burgienl]

So I've been using liquid carbon for two years in different tanks. Yes, in my opinion it does trigger plants to grow, but the results do seem to differ from one tank to another. And after seeing this video it's definitely time for me to start experimenting with CO2 ;-)

[@sayurasem]

I use liquid co2 and it works! It just has to be bottled in a canister with 900psi and let it out slowly lol.

[@NORIaquaCh]

Great work Mike. Loved your livestream with George the other night :) Also, 2 bottles of Excel would cost the same as a small bottle of CO2.

[@AngusAnthonyRodriguez]

i love that you blurred the product but can really be seen on the reflection of the tank lmao

[@o00user00o]

can we have an experiment of a (no co2, no liquid co2, no fertz) vs (Liquid co2, no co2, no fertz) just to see what difference can liquid co2 make to planted tanks just on its own.

[@natillano]

We really need a control tank vs 'liquid co2' to see if it "really" works or are we just wasting money. Great experiment tho 👍

[@simonbegin5763]

Awsome concept, great experiment and good knowledge demonstrated by your use of methodology. A bit long, yet truely enjoyable. I feel like you can be more concise and still be you (if you're into positive critique, but consider it just an opinion). You're bringing something new to the "aquatic scene" from my point of view, great work :)

[@AquariumAesthetics]

The question that we have now on LC is not that whether it can work as well as pressurized system. But it is more to whether it even works or not. An experiment to compare tanks with LC and another one without anything would be more beneficial. A bit dissapointed, 😔

[@haitch04]

I know some call it 'liquid CO2" but its more accurately liquid carbon. Lighting levels are also important. I use strong lighting in my CO2 tank but moderate lighting in my 50litre Nano where the plants grow lush and strong at a slower rate than those under CO2 injection. I get 'pearling' in both set ups but obviously a lot more with injected CO2. I've been pleasantly surprised at the "CO2 in a bottle" results.

[@raygiannamore]

Mike. Good video. Not sure if it's the camera angle or not, but the liquid tank looks like CO2 is less than 30ppm.

[@drassx615]

Did you do one with CO2 tabs I've been seeing a lot of those in my local store and wondering if there's any difference between those and the pressurized CO2.

[@swarvan4995]

I think the tabs do really give co2 to the tank, but you can't controll them, and it's kinda hit or miss situation, some brand give no effects at all when they check it with co2 tester kit, but also some brand overdose the tank with co2 even when following the recommended dosage.

[@andrewlonero8003]

Great comparison! I am really starting to get into aquarium science, and I love this.

[@fengcarlos]

do you use any fertilizer for your plants?

[@sokinecola9361]

Also I prefer Amquel plus and novaqua plus water conditioner more than Prime. Prime didn’t really remove harmful Ammomium ( NH3+) , while Amquel plus and Novaqua plus combined truly removed ALL of Ammonium within few mins !!

[@zeus749]

Not sure if you have this video or not, but a good experiment would be passive co2 vs injected co2. Theirs not a lot of info out there that I can fined at least, love the videos keep up the great work

[@pantalonious3984]

The pressurized tank started out more full and thick with plants to my eye. So the end result would of course no matter what be more speaking because it started from a better place. . . Still a good video just wish you had a comparison between liquid co2 and nothing added at all

[@DP-ym8zf]

Yes Mike! Back to the big questions!

[@JaKeMaRtiN-lh3xr]

awesome video mike, just kinda getting into co2 for my bucephalandra things seem to be going good so far, any tips?

[@forforever4980]

It would be interesting to see if the liquid CO2 grows faster than no CO2. Maybe that could be a future experiment? I love these experiment videos!

[@aljanecko]

You need to go into the liquid co2 witness protection...lol Great video.

[@IMaqua]

Suggestion for next experiment, NO CO2 vs Liquid carbon. That would be very interesting.

[@RexClair]

One thing I didn’t hear mentioned: what happens if you quit a liquid CO2 treatment cold turkey? What would be the effect be on the plants if the intermediary is no longer available? Is there a withdrawal period?

[@seanharlington576]

yo i had to clean this guys tanks in college =] hes always loved his tanks

[@aishanirmala4835]

should i use liquid fertilizer too when i use liquid carbon? cos my plants are just anubias ..

[@addictedtofishchick6279]

Loved the video it's a no brainer C02 is the best! Will you ever do another comparison with liquid C02tank to a tank without it?

[@thalaquatics8712]

Doesn't co2 get released as a kh buffer is consumed? Meaning if I have a soft water tank could I add a kh buffer once in a while to keep up co2? Or maybe just a combination of alkaline and acid buffers that negate each others ph change adding minerals and co2 as they react?

[@MasterBlek]

You were adding liquid co2 in the water every single day right?

[@jasonisbell7181]

Liquid co2 adds very little carbon to the system. It is not meant to be a replacement for co2. It is actually an algaecide (gluteraldahyde). That is why you had less algae.

[@chrisdelafuente8489]

This is awesome. If you did an experiment with a control compared to just a liquid CO2 tank, that would be soo good!

[@deenugent473]

Thanks for the comparison!

[@DebBan]

If I'm not wrong liquid fertilisers are good for epiphytes and gives stem plants very slow growth with root tabs. Where as the pressurised co2 has the power to boost all flora life forms which is magical. Please feel free to share your opinions. Sorry I'm new to this hobby. Its been 9 months since global lockdown started.

[@aquaneko14]

Thanks for doing a comparison for us, looks like another case of marketing before actual effectiveness for the 'CO2 substitute' 👍

[@lordpepe2927]

liquid carbon is supposed to help against algae, pressurized co2 helps plants grow faster.

[@igormysen4296]

The CO2 drop checker in the Liquid CO2 tank is always blue. So it looks like that tank never had enough CO2 to begin with. Wheres as you mentioned you have adjusted the Pressurized CO2 tank so that the drop checker would stay green. I'm wondering why you guys didn't put more liquid co2 in the tank? I guess you'd be putting more than the instruction says to but if your checker shows blue that should mean you have very little of co2 in the tank anyways so it's should be safe to poor some more? I'm going through a similar experiment so interested to hear why everybody thinks :)

[@marlonallansupetran7120]

With Phosphate, just know how much you are dosing. It will be hard to detect that from the tank water as it binds with the soil...

[@Dan-TylerMusic]

the drop checker shows the difference, co2 was green liquid carbon was blue. that tells me its imposible to dose equally and correctly with liquid carbon

[@angeldejesus3818]

Thanks for making this i really needed this cause im using the leaf zone and co2 booster by api

[@Sean131234]

Awesome video! Now I know and knowing is half the battle

[@cdream8917]

Lol, you censored the liquid Co2 you used but we can see the reflection. I do love that product, but only for algae control. 😃

[@bradleygonzalez2962]

I dosed that once and all my plants started to melt back. Why does that happen?

[@mayronsting5627]

Unlucky. I've dosed 5ml of excel daily for my 20G and plants started growing like crazy! All fish are OK

[@bradleygonzalez2962]

@@mayronsting5627 i dosed api co2 booster and my plants started dying i havent tried exel atm though. Would it be too much to dose it with fertz aswell? im dosing easy green currently

[@mayronsting5627]

@@bradleygonzalez2962 I used to dose 5ml daily until I stopped seeing algae in my tank, while I dosed excel i also dosed 5ml of flourish twice per week. Now I only dose 5ml of both twice per week and plants are doing good

[@bradleygonzalez2962]

@@mayronsting5627 that gets rid of algea? Ive been using otocinclus to get rid of brown algea. How does that work?

[@mayronsting5627]

@@bradleygonzalez2962 it did get rid of algae, both brown and black beard

[@johnsonboy62]

so for folks having algae issue better to stick with lower tech non-co2 (/only liquid co2 added) tank? cause we all struggle with algae

[@damionmarkham9835]

Right on the lab coat is back ! Now put up the periodic table of the elements poster again 😂

[@polliehollie]

How about the co2 tablets?

[@professorm4171]

The liquid carbon is an algaecide as well. That's why you don't see much algae in that part of the tank.

[@dudley0826]

Flourish Excel, while not as good as a co2 system is still an excellent product. You can still have a great planted tank using it. I have used it for years. Much superior to running a low-tech tank without it.