Myth busters - the real truth on CO2 in indoor grows

OMG!!! I was enjoying this thread until two or three posters went to war....

Lots of myth in here but where is the busting?

EDIT!!!!

I read all of this thread, lots of good info, lots of bullshit, lots of agruing, nothing really impacted me as concrete facts. Maybe i missed it because this thread became so long winded and lame but where is all the proof that backs up anyone's logic here?

This entire thread could have been one post that said "Co2 is good for our plants" and it wouyld have been just as informative...

Thanks to EVERYONE who posted here with acurate facts but with the internet being MOSTLY MISINFORMED BULLSHIT why should anyone listen to you? There is a lot of common knowledge here that any seasoned grower knows, where is all the real myth busting!??!?!???!???? Don't just run your mouth, show me/us whats up!

great thread until page 20 lol, what a psycho

RanTyr said:

Myth one: I personally would think it a bit obvious that a mostly sealed environment (relative to the outdoors) with a bunch of entities exhaling co2 all day would have elevated co2 levels. Just saying.

Click to expand...

BAM! I think this poster just shot him/her self in the foot - right off the bat. How's that a myth?

Anyway, I've been reading this thread and I have to say SUPER desertrat!

desertrat said:

Andyour points:


1. Please site your sources indicating 1200 ppm co2 as a ceiling.
2. Please site your sources indicating the problems with a 50 ppm variation in co2 concentration.


I would be More than happy to modify my advice with well-sourced and tested information. Otherwise, go away and haunt someone else.

Click to expand...

OOH-OOH-OOOOH (in Horshack voice), I'm raising my hand!

View attachment 2161042

On the CO2 growth chart (from Hydrofarm no less) it may appear to “peak” at 1,200 ppm. If you look closer (and it doesn't look like a true
computer generated graph), it's basically flat out to 1,400 ppm. So 1,500 ppm would be dialed in perfectly w/minor room leaks. Still it's not a
"bit for bit" graph and By-Tor ahem RanTyr seems to be in it just for the rant. 10-1 poster got it from there.

I can't give an answer to #2, but after RanTyr shot him/her self in the foot from the get-go, it's grain of salt time. Check mate, adios gringo,
see ya later, auf wiedersehen, guten nacht, sayonara, 10-4 Elsinore, YOU CAN'T SEE ME, yada yada yada... Well, off my soapbox and put it
back into my vertical grow room...


Edit: Oh, that chart I posted is also accompanied by looks like a lot of useful info, here's the link: ​Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Methods
About 3/4ths down the page there's a chapter called 4. FERMENTATION METHOD OF CO2 ENRICHMENT: Enjoy!

Ohhh I'm gettin' bad! I'll make it up to RanTyr with this? Sorry I had to post this as I just came across this right after posting.

LOL sorry RanTyr it's all in good fun.

WOW, major pissing contest guys . . .
I thought this was supposed to be a place to get useful information, not watch a couple of rutting rams butting heads

CO2 works well and stabilizes high heat environments

desertrat said:

Thanks for the detail and quote. So 5% = 5000 ppm is a problem but if you overshoot 1500 ppm and end up in the two thousands it's not going to hurt you much.

Click to expand...

everything seemed great until this. here is the proper conversion 10,000 ppm=1% so to all of you 5%=5,000 ppm work on your decimal place movement. 50,000 is 5%
You can find the source of this back on page 7.

Step away from the bowl ladies n gents
take it eazy

Could dry ice in a cooler with a couple of small holes in the top?? I mea. Dry ice sublimates directly from a solid to gas.

Edit****

Also a better yeast to use I think would be distillers yeast.

It will make a better yeast because it can ferment up to a higher alcohol percentage and will ferment at a faster rate which provides more co2.

homebrewer said:

Nice experiment! It's no question that fermentation produces CO2, my argument was; is it worth the time, effort and cost? Subbed for your results.

Click to expand...

It's cheap you should have all the basics in home I made two separate diy
co2's all I needed was yeast

Yeast, 1/4 inch hose, big bottle ,small bottle, warm water, sugar, glue/sealant

homebrewer said:

Nice experiment! It's no question that fermentation produces CO2, my argument was; is it worth the time, effort and cost? Subbed for your results.

Click to expand...

So I made two
My carbon dioxide bubble is going very fast is this good or bad?
The second chamber is going like a small bubble a second I used small 6 oz bottle to increase the rate at which the gas moves through the chambers.

Plus does it matter if my room is sealed or not what's the effects of a standard closet

A

The Potologist said:

AMEN!! I found the same thing to be very true. I measured Co2 all over my house, took it for a two mile walk, and then came by indoors. Nowhere outdoors did the Co2 compare to the levels indoors. The highest I found, sadly, was near a school, which came in at 441ppm. Indoors, the lower end of the spectrum still came in at 650. Down in my basement I reached levels as high as 900ppm.

Also, I only turn on my Co2 generators when the conditions are perfect. Otherwise its just a utter waste. I have done a great deal of testing and found that unless your temps are AT LEAST 87F, Co2 consumption is not going to increase. Moreso, I noticed that as my temps rise in my indoor grows, so does Co2ppm....weird eh? However, once my temps do reach at least 87F I turn on Co2 and the growth is really rampant. Typically it will also aid in elevating the temps as well.

Just my two cents. Hope I was some help to someone. BTW, Co2 generators are stupidly expensive. Luckly, I have a great construction connect and picked up four of them for about the same price of one...But I still say it was a bad investment, especially considering I never gave a single thought to fabricate my own homemade Co2.
Peace, Love and Happiness

Click to expand...

thanks man I was wondering what temp the co2 becomes applicable

Murfy said:

whne conditions are prime co2 benefits far outweigh the cost

Click to expand...

What are prime conditions
That's like saying nutes only work when the res is prime.
I am new to this co2 deal and have it running as we speak and wondering all the questions.

This thread is almost 6 years old dude!
You all need to start a new one!
@serhgroer
To run Co2 effectively you need to raise the temps and the RH in combination with as much light "intensity" as you can get.
If you attempt to do 1500 ppm with any less then a 1k and temps of 86 - 90 F along with an RH of 80% - You will NOT see the results you intend!

Here's more in depth.

"Co2 UPTAKE WITH NO LIMITING FACTORS: As the intensity of the light increases, the plant requires higher temperature and higher concentration of Co2." From Ed Rosenthal's book Marijuana growers handbook.

From darkness. The rate of photosynthesis has the greatest increase as the Co2 level climbs from 0 - 200ppm. Under low light conditions (150mols or 1150fc [12,330lux]), the rate of photosynthesis increases as Co2 levels rise to 400ppm. Increasing the Co2 concentration beyond that without increasing the light intensity does not result in a higher rate of photosynthesis. The plant cannot take advantage of higher Co2 levels until the light intensity increases.

At a light intensity of 600mol (4600fc / 49,310lux) the photosynthesis increases more as Co2 concentrations are increased to that 400ppm. The rate of increase declines a bit after that, but the photosynthesis rate continues to climb as Co2 levels reach 600ppm. Above 600ppm, the photosynthesis rate continues to climb but at an even slower rate, until the rate levels of at about 1200ppm.

By increasing light intensity, you encourage you plants to absorb even more Co2 which increases growth and yield. When the plants receive between 4500 - 5500fc (48,240lux) of light, they can utilize between 1200 - 1300ppm of Co2. While very few gardens are supplied with more then 7500fc (80,400lux) of light, at that intensity the plants can utilize up to 1500ppm of Co2.

Increasing the ppm levels above 1500 is a waste of Co2 and thus money, in so much as the plant has hit the wall so to speak (the photosynthesis increases over 1500ppm Co2, even with an increase in light intensity is at a rate that makes the use versus cost ratio ineffective) on the available lighting intensity versus effective utilization of available Co2!

Now read this paper to confirm the temp increase needs...
http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/content/filerepository/CMP/00/001/068/Rate of photosynthesis limiting factors.pdf


See what I mean?

Get it BRIGHT, get it HOT, get it DAMP or the plant don't get it!

serhgroer said:

It's cheap you should have all the basics in home I made two separate diy
co2's all I needed was yeast

Yeast, 1/4 inch hose, big bottle ,small bottle, warm water, sugar, glue/sealant

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of what's needed here, I just think it's a total waste of time.

In a non vented room and tent within room ,would a set up like this work with co2?

Really not understanding how it could be a myth when this past weeks Nebula Haze is saying it is true. http://www.growweedeasy.com/co2#intro

(Don't blame me, I am just the messenger.)

I sure hope everyone making mash is turning it into fantastic moonshine as I am! Wild yeast can only live to 6% abv, bakers yeast to 14%, and distillers yeast to 22-25% but it takes coaxing to reach above 22%. Temps will also affect rate of fermentation. Ideal is 72f-76f. Amount of yeast will also affect speed of fermentation. Too much yeast and it will be done in 3-5 days. Correct amounts of sugar and yeast and you can get fermentations 2-4 weeks. Just plain water, yeast, and sugar however would be useless for liquor unless used for vodka. If you do plant to drink it use a reflector to keep the light from penetrating the mash or it wont be worth a damn! Ive made shine for years but it wasnt til I started growing indoors I realized both can go hand in hand. Now my shine is basically a bi-product of my canbabis production. I dont keep track of ppm of co2 so I don't really know if my usage is optimal but there is a noticable difference. Not intense but noticable. My tent is '4x4'x6.5', 1000w mh/hps, dwc bubblebuckets, and 6"x8"x20" carbon filter.

desertrat said:

1225 ppm at 7 pm, 50 hours above 1000 ppm. Looks like 2 1/2 days may be the limit. Any ideas on how to extend the time? Homebrewer or ninja??

Click to expand...

I know its been awhile since you posted what I have quoted, but from a brewer/distillers point of view you will want to be a little more specific with your yeast strain, the yeast cell count, the temperature at which you ferment and what available nutrients are there for the yeast. So in summary to push out your desired CO2 levels to a longer duration lets start with yeast strain:

Bakers yeast has a high alcohol tolerance, but not to sure on its attenuation, I would assume it probably sitting in the mid 70% range, just don't quote me on that. I would be more inclined to use a EC-1118 or a Montrachet strain, where the Alcohol Tolerance is rather high(~11-19%), attenuation and flocculation is also high (attenuation = % of sugars consumed, Flocculation = when a single yeast cell clumps with many cells and quits eating sugar and settles to the bottom, low floc = quits early, high floc = powers on till the end), when a yeast flocculates early it usually means the wort is under attenuated. Sounded like your yeast flocculated before all the sugar was consumed.

Which brings me to yeast cell count, you need approx 300-400 billion yeast cells per 5 gallons of wort at 1.050 to 1.055 SG , this increases your attenuation dramatically, and lessens the stress on the yeast. If you have a low yeast cell count, the yeast have to do 2 things at once, eat and multiply, and yeast DO NOT like to multi task. Stressing yeast is a big recipe for incomplete fermentation (ie low attenuation). The best way to get cell counts up is via a yeast starter vs adding more dry yeast.

am going to jump the gun here and mention that for a healthy yeast colony you need more than sugar, water and the correct temps, you need some form of nutient. To get technical you need a Nitrogen producing nutrient like DAP or di-ammonium phosphate. Feeding nutrients to your yeast lessens the stress on your yeast, making them work to their full capability. For the budget minded, one can use tomato paste and get sufficient nutrient requirements needed for a good yeast colony.

Now the last thing is temperature, yes yeast has a pretty large fermentation range, and I apologize now for using the C scale rather than the F scale. Most ale and wine yeast can handle temps between 15-25 deg C (lager yeast strains are different again, fermenting in the 4 deg C range), and our grow rooms tend to sit on the upper level of that range, some rooms going even beyond, so this contradicts the temperature that growers require supplementing CO2 to their gardens. The basic rule being the more heat, the more plants want to eat and need supplementing, meaning more CO2 required. Yes our indoor CO2 saturation is higher than outdoors, thanks to the confines of our walls and other boundaries, but still need to strive to get the ~1500ppm range to be of any benefit to our grow at temps above 25 deg C. The levels you achieved were more than satisfactory, but you only went for 2 1/2 days, which from a brewers point of view, you stressed the fuck out of the yeast and they flocced out of solution causing your attenuation to be piss poor.

To remedy this you might want to find a used bar fridge, a $20 STC-1000 temp controller, and reptile heating cord or similar....wire the STC-1000 up with 2x power points (I think you yanks call them sockets). One will be wired to the cold side of the STC and the other will be wired to the heat side of the STC. Add a mains plug to the STC as per the wiring diagram then drill small hole to fit the heating cord into the fridge with plug obviously on the outside, and another medium hole, ~1 inch (some where on the fridge that is clear of all electrical and cooling coils) for a blow off tube.

Now that's the setup, time to control your fermentation. Make up your yeast starter (tons of "how-to's" on the web), make your mock beer/wine/neutral solution to a SG above 1.040+ or 10%+brix, put a lid on your fermenter with your ~1 inch blow off tube thru the lid and out the hole you made in the fridge and into a jar or water. Tape a cloth over the thermostat sensor of the STC to the side of your fermenter. Now place a fan behind the jar of water (that is on the outside of the fridge), this will evenly distribute the CO2 over the canopy before it settles. Set your STC temp set point to roughly about 18 to 19 deg C and this should give you 7-10 days of active/steady fermentation you can bump the temps up at the end to finalize all sugar consumption.

Finally, buy a reflux/column still and when you solution has finished fermenting, run it through the still for either drinking vodka (will need to carbon scrub it tho as it will be harsh), or a great sanitation wipe for pots, tubs, scissors and reservoirs .

Thanks desertrat. I was having a hard time believing claims on other sites/threads that respiration, composting, ect are worthless and the only way to add CO2 effectively is a generator or tank. Having grown a garden outdoors for 8 years prior to this excursion into indoor gardening, I couldn't believe the vigorous growth I've witnessed in my indoor winter garden compared to outdoors. Then I was doing the math on what human respiration generates using figures from Rosenthal's book and scratching my head on why so many folks claim that what seems like a significant amount of CO2 generation is not effective for raising CO2 ppm. For those who are interested, an average (150 pound) human is estimated to produce about 2 lbs, or 17 cubic feet of CO2 per day. We have from 2 to 4 people in the house 24/7, along with 80 pounds of dog/cat. I estimate our average occupancy is 3 people, that's over 50 cubic feet of C02 added every 24 hours, not to mention the 100 pounds of super soil composting in bins at the bottom of the tent, a few gallons of kombucha brewing in the kitchen, propane central heat, in a reasonably tight 9,000 ft3 home... glad someone who spent the dough on a meter has confirmed my suspicions. It seems that unless you're running something significantly bigger than a personal grow in a space that's uninhabited most of time and has over 600 watts/meter of light and temps in the mid to high 80's, CO2 is a waste of money. Even then I'm skeptical that the increased photosynthesis from raising CO2 above 600 ppm is worth the dough. Increases in photosynthesis decline considerably and exponentially above 600ppm: the biggest bump for increases beyond natural outdoor levels happens between 400-600ppm. All stats in this post are from Rosenthal's Grower's Handbook, 2010 edition.