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

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.

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

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

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!

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.

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

Looking fresh with the goatee 🌿

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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....

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.

I actually love these experiments, thanks Mike.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

4:08 seachem excel XD

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

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.

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.

"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*

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

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

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

Curious if using same parameters (food, fish load, etc) with a combo of liquid carbon with CO2, see there is a combined advantage vs control

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

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

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

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

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 :)

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

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.

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?

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.

Can you do two tanks with co2 and add liquid carbon into one? I've always been curious if I'm wasting my time adding this to my tank that already has co2 anyway lol

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

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?

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

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

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

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

Mike why are u keeping cutting off when your talking about the liquid co2

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

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 🤣

What would you say about a Co2 generator system?

Nice goatee! Great video!

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, 😔

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

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!

I needed this information thanks.

How’d u get the rotala so red man?? Been trying but mines just go slightly brown

Why Did you censored Gluteraldehide ? Is that liquid forbidden in there ?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

When you read the reflection in the glass to see what liquid fert he used 😂😂

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

Yes Mike! Back to the big questions!

Stickers still not available to EU shipping? :/

He looks so cute with his ginger goatee☺

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

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.

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

I know nothing, so pardon my ignorance. Would adding carbonated water do anything?

Thanks for the comparison!

Ok. So Gas CO2 setup is better than Liquid CO2. Is there any comparison between Liquid CO2 and no CO2 at all somewhere?

Pretty sure I saw the top of a flourish excel bottle in the beginning. It would be nice if we knew what you were using.

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

Nice job Mike!

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.

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

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.

15:04 what is the name of this beautiful plant?

Thanks for the efforts

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.

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

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

thanks for this informative video, I hope for more experiment

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 ;-)

Love your video :-) Have you done an experiment comparing RGB light and white light?

Can u do a comparation of air pump n pressured co2. Cuz there r some co2 in the room , then b delivered to the tank by air pump.

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 :)

That wasn't even dwarf sagitteria, looks like swords! 👌

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).

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

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

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

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!