Why does co2 hurt my plants!?

Red1966

Well-Known Member
As explained Stagnant air is air that's just that stagnant. It is too high in one make up or another the co2 can be too high the O2 can be too low. The heat from the lights can react to the tent lining rooms paint, sealants, tape adhesive nutrient fumes a ton of things. As mention it is similar to after winter you cant wait to open windows and screen doors the air exchanged in general makes you feel better and happier which is the same low level life of a plant does the same.......Joe the big article you post pretty much backed what i was saying..It mention you can pay little attention and get some benefits but it does express the use of precise environmental control. When you vent your co2 levels only drop for a few minutes before the co2 kicks back in and brings the designated co2 set point back online ie the prime ppm level is the 1200 to 1500 ppm level...Some said they are running 2200 ppm which is way to high. It is wasteful and if not ever vented can become toxic to plants and humans as you smoother the plant. Its similar to in a non sealed room where you need to exchange the air also. fresh air and air movement make huge differences. With correct co2 usage you should see up to an 80% total yield increase and a week or more shaved off flower times... I have seen some add co2 in the veg state but I have never seen it really add much to the difference from just added during flowering time... I have seen some rooms run co2 in negative pressure grow rooms and not vent but that's a different monster.. Commercial greenhouses do run co2 and they almost all vent in and hot as that's also for temp control or they have had a/c units in them which does the same thing as an ac will suck the warm air from the room exhaust it out which outside air is sucked in over the condenser coil and cooled before being forced back into the room but in grow situations dampers will close off the vents when not running again sealing the area....If you have the time try setting 2 identical grows up. Keep one with co2 and zero air exchange and in the other set your co2 up and dampers with in an outtake fans so air gets replaced a few times even if just 2 times right right before lights on and right as lights go off. Compare the yields and the flower density it will be different. I first started playing with co2 about 15 years or so ago. I have worked in a commercial greenhouse which is where I learned most of the basics then over the years being friends with many indoor growers and medical grow op folks notes have been shared and lessons taught.. Some use tanks, some burn propane, some Natural gas, some use bacteria and yeast for small enrichment but the best and most attentive growers control the entire environment like hawks.. Again you can run just co2 no exchanges but your not going to run on all 8 cylinders just 5 of them meaning it can be much better. For me it was just learning when I wanted the exchanges then taking the time to watch time and cordinate the timers on fans, setting auto close/open damper and good ppm monitoring and control setup...To each grower their own I just am sharing my decades of use and teachings given to me so it's just out there for those who understand and use it I hope you enjoy it. Those who disagree that's also fine best of luck in your methods and I hope its all good and if your happy with it then your fine. P.S On the sulphur topic it is a common practice to use sulphur burners to prevent and control mold it does not change the taste or even the natural aroma of the product. the fumes kill mold spores and the heat help control moisture so not sure why the one user was trying to say something bad about that as that's a very very long used technique.
I had forgotten about the toxic grow tents!
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
I'm with you Red generally when you see glaring inaccuracies it speaks volumes of the source OOOOOPS........ From WWW.CO2info.com
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Liquid Carbon Dioxide [/FONT] [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Liquid CO[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]2[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] is produced by compressing and cooling CO[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]2[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] gas. This liquid is a clear transparent fluid. Liquid CO[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]2[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] cannot exsist as a liquid at atmospheric pressure. It must be pressurized above 60.4 psi to remain as a liquid. At this pressure, [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Triple Point[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif], CO[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]2[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] can exsist as liquid, gas and solid. Below this pressure it will flash to a gas and solid. CO[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]2[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] above a temperature of 87.9 dF [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Critical Point[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] cannot exsist as a liquid. [/FONT]​
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Normally liquid CO[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]2[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] is delivered and maintaned at 0 dF and 300 psi.[/FONT]
Well, I stand corrected.
 

a mongo frog

Well-Known Member
The reasoning behind venting the room just prior to your CO2 turning on is fairly straightforward. Please keep in mind that vigorous air movement is also beneficial to remove the freshly produced O2 from around the leaves. Venting is done to completely REMOVE the air that has been used in the growing space and REPLACE it with atmospheric air which is about 380 PPM CO2. This base level can then be supplemented with additional CO2 to bring levels up to achieve maximum absorption depending on the conditions. I have used supplemental CO2 for many years and I would say that the realistic increase in yield you can expect under optimum conditions is a maximum of 30%.
I'm having a hard time understanding this. and i really want to. can u explain a little different. if not ill keep reading it and try to come up with something.
 

joe macclennan

Well-Known Member
I'm afraid I can't put any faith in that article at all. The author talks of liquid co2 in a bottle. There is no liquid phase of co2. co2 can only exist as a gas or a solid. Generally, when you see one glaring inaccuracy is an article, the rest of the article becomes suspect. I believe venting a sealed co2 enriched room is just wasting co2. I can agree that venting during lights off, assuming the co2 is also off, may be helpful. The plant itself produces oxygen during lights on, more than exchanging air does. I suspect the OP has overlooked some other problem that just happened to coincide with enriching the co2. Pathogens attacking the roots, pH problems, root zone temps, or something. I have never heard of anyone else having this problem, tho that doesn't prove it has never happened. It could just be that I'm a mushroom.
I saw someone posted about liquid co2 already....we are all wrong from time to time. No biggie. It's those people who can't admit they have ever been wrong wrong that irk me.
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of scientific literature on the subject, just experienced laymen. I assume that is because legitimate scientists aren't going to admit in writing to committing a felony. Now that growing is legal in some areas, I expect that to change.
there are quite a few accredited studies on marijuana on springer link. None directly relating to this subject that I have found so far. Several that are close though...but i've only read the introductions to a few so far.
Even a crappy grower can make a good profit, so the size of an operation doesn't mean they know what they are doing. I planted some plants that I took no care of at all and they got over 12 ft tall, so even lack of care at all can still produce really good results. That was an outdoor grow, tho. Indoor growing does require some skill and knowledge.
kinda what I was saying before....just trying to be a little more tactful red. Try to tone it back a little please buddy? Before this thread erupts into chaos again. LOL

This isn't politics man :)
The reasoning behind venting the room just prior to your CO2 turning on is fairly straightforward. Please keep in mind that vigorous air movement is also beneficial to remove the freshly produced O2 from around the leaves. Venting is done to completely REMOVE the air that has been used in the growing space and REPLACE it with atmospheric air which is about 380 PPM CO2. This base level can then be supplemented with additional CO2 to bring levels up to achieve maximum absorption depending on the conditions. I have used supplemental CO2 for many years and I would say that the realistic increase in yield you can expect under optimum conditions is a maximum of 30%.
I don't think I would agree with this scenario though CD. I mean if you already have ample air circulation which keeps the newly produced o2 pushed out from under the canopy, and have a co2 controller keeping the levels in the room constant, reintroducing outside air would only drop the co2 levels. Having to build up the level from the 380 ppm that is already present.
I'm having a hard time understanding this. and i really want to. can u explain a little different. if not ill keep reading it and try to come up with something.
me too.
 

joe macclennan

Well-Known Member
what kind of dehue you running to keep the humidity from stunting growth? My dehue went out on a sealed room run @1200ppm and temps stayed consistent so didn't bother to fix / replace immediately but I noticed crazy drops in yield from just added humidity?
that would depend on how big your room is and how much foliage. also room temp is a very important factor when sizing.

45pint/day will work for 2-3k pretty well. imo.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
I saw someone posted about liquid co2 already....we are all wrong from time to time. No biggie. It's those people who can't admit they have ever been wrong wrong that irk me. there are quite a few accredited studies on marijuana on springer link. None directly relating to this subject that I have found so far. Several that are close though...but i've only read the introductions to a few so far. kinda what I was saying before....just trying to be a little more tactful red. Try to tone it back a little please buddy? Before this thread erupts into chaos again. LOL This isn't politics man :) I don't think I would agree with this scenario though CD. I mean if you already have ample air circulation which keeps the newly produced o2 pushed out from under the canopy, and have a co2 controller keeping the levels in the room constant, reintroducing outside air would only drop the co2 levels. Having to build up the level from the 380 ppm that is already present. me too.
??????????????????????????????????
 

joe macclennan

Well-Known Member
so here is the abstract to one article I found. It's not about venting co2 but a pertinent topic I think. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00317118



We examined how independent and interactive effects of CO2 concentrations, water supply and wind speed affect growth rates, biomass partitioning, water use efficiency, diffusive conductance and stomatal density of plants. To test the prediction that wind stress will be ameliorated by increased CO2 and/or by unrestricted water supply we grew Sinapis alba L. plants in controlled chambers under combinations of two levels of CO2 (350 ppmv, 700 ppmv), two water regimes and two wind speeds (0.3 ms−1, 3.7 ms−1). We harvested at ten different dates over a period of 60 days. A growth analysis was carried out to evaluate treatment effects on plant responses. Plants grown both in increased CO2 and in low wind conditions had significantly greater stem length, leaf area and dry weights of plant parts. Water supply significantly affected stem diameter, root weight and leaf area. CO2 enrichment significantly increased the rate of biomass accumulation and the relative ratio of biomass increase to leaf area expansion. High wind speed significantly reduced plant growth rates and the rate of leaf area expansion was reduced more than the rate of biomass accumulation. Regression analysis showed significant CO2 effects on the proportion of leaf and stem dry weight to total dry weight. A marked plant-age effect was dependent on water supply, wind speed and CO2concentration. A reduced water supply significantly decreased the stomatal conductance, and water use efficiency significantly increased with a limited water supply, low wind and increased CO2. We found significant CO2 x wind effects for water diffusion resistance, adaxial number of stomata and water use efficiencies and significant wind x water effect for water use efficiency. In conclusion, wind stress was ameliorated by growing in unrestricted water but not by growing in increased CO2.
 

joe macclennan

Well-Known Member
and another... http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00009958

not trying to spam here. Just thought you all may be interested.

If anyone wants me to stop putting up related studies on co2 effects please tell me.


[h=2]Abstract[/h]A thorough assessment of how plants and ecosystems will respond to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 requires that the responses of root systems and associated belowground processes be understood. Static measures of root-to-shoot ratio have not been satisfactory for describing the integrated responses of plants to CO2-enriched atmospheres, but research with a process orientation has suggested that elevated CO2 can stimulate root growth or root activity and provide a positive feedback on plant growth. There are, however, critical questions concerning the relevance of root data from short-term studies with potted plants when scaling to questions about plants in the field. Data on root responses to CO2 enrichment in the field are fragmentary, but they allow us to more clearly define research questions for further investigation. Three perspectives for analyzing the significance of root responses as a component of the overall response of the terrestrial biosphere to increasing atmospheric CO2 are suggested: (1) roots as a platform for nutrient acquisition and a mediator of whole-plant response to CO2; (2) carbon storage in roots as a component of whole-plant carbon storage; and (3) effects of CO2 enrichment on root turnover and the implications for carbon storage as soil organic matter. The relative importance of these different perspectives will vary depending on the ecosystem of interest and the larger-scale issues being considered.






 

joe macclennan

Well-Known Member
I too high to understand any of that

LOL some of them are very hard to read..This is tedious shit sifting through these studies.


I'll see if I can enlarge the text size. It is a bit small for me.

edit: damn, it won't let me edit the text.

I'll see if I can enlarge it before I post another.
 

joe macclennan

Well-Known Member
here is a good one I think. the highlighted portion piqued my interest. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00048146

[h=1]Interspecific variation in the growth response of plants to an elevated ambient CO2 concentration[/h]

[h=2]Abstract[/h]The effect of a doubling in the atmospheric CO2 concentration on the growth of vegetative whole plants was investigated. In a compilation of literature sources, the growth stimulation of 156 plant species was found to be on average 37%. This enhancement is small compared to what could be expected on the basis of CO2-response curves of photosynthesis. The causes for this stimulation being so modest were investigated, partly on the basis of an experiment with 10 wild plant species. Both the source-sink relationship and size constraints on growth can cause the growth-stimulating effect to be transient.
Data on the 156 plant species were used to explore interspecific variation in the response of plants to high CO2. The growth stimulation was larger for C3 species than for C4 plants. However the difference in growth stimulation is not as large as expected as C4 plants also significantly increased in weight (41% for C3 vs. 22% for C4). The few investigated CAM species were stimulated less in growth (15%) than the average C4 species. Within the group of C3 species, herbaceous crop plants responded more strongly than herbaceous wild species (58%vs. 35%) and potentially fast-growing wild species increased more in weight than slow-growing species (54%vs. 23%). C3 species capable of symbiosis with N2-fixing organisms had higher growth stimulations compared to other C3 species. A common denominator in these 3 groups of more responsive C3 plants might be their large sink strength. Finally, there was some tendency for herbaceous dicots to show a larger response than monocots. Thus, on the basis of this literature compilation, it is concluded that also within the group of C3 species differences exist in the growth response to high CO2
 

Sticky760

Well-Known Member
Co2 stops root growth if you don't know that already so if your using high levels of co2 in veg it's unnecessary. 600-700 ppm is ok for veg below 250 will stop plant growth. Reason why they bump it so high in flower is you figure you don't want your plants root to stretch causing root bound in flowering which isn't good so stunting root growth making for constant root generation makes for constant flower growth cause its soil is never bound. Hope that makes sense. My plants never loved high levels in veg roots were always tiny, you have to do it by periods. First 2 weeks of flower 1000 ppm to help with stretch, week 3-7 1500 ppm of co2 to pack weight and last 2 weeks you'd drop it to 800-900 to build higher thc levels and to finish properly
 

joe macclennan

Well-Known Member
Ok, I this is the best one yet. I don't think it covers hydroponically grown plants though. But not sure.

All I can view is the abstract without buying it...sucks :(

Either way It looks like a very interesting read. and for fourty bucks...why not right? I mean I spend twenty on a good hardback novel.

what really sucks is i'm only on the fourth page of my search on springerlink....out of 400 pages! lol.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00048164

[h=1]CO2 and plants: revisited[/h][h=2]Abstract[/h]The decade-long USA research program on the direct effects of CO2 enrichment on vegetation has achieved important milestones and has produced a number of interesting and exciting findings. Research beginning in 1980 focused on field experiments to determine whether phenomena observed in the laboratory indeed occurred in natural environments. The answer is yes. Data obtained from numerous field studies show mixed response of crop and native species to CO2 enrichment however. Nearly all experiments demonstrate that plants exhibit positive gain when grown at elevated CO2; although the magnitude varies greatly. Most crop responses range from 30 to 50 % increase in yield. Results from long-term experiments with woody species and ecosystems are even more variable. Huge growth responses (100 to nearly 300 % increase relative to controls) are reported from several tree experiments and the salt-marsh ecosystem experiment. Other results from experiments with woody species and the tundra ecosystem suggest little no effect of CO2 on physiology, growth or productivity. Numerous studies of the physiology of the CO2 effect are continuing in attempts to understand controlling mechanisms and to explain the variable growth responses. Particular emphasis needs to be given to physiological measures of interactions involving the CO2 effect and other environmental influences, and to the wide-ranging observations of photosynthesis acclimation to CO2. Prospects for future research are identified.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
First I ever heard that co2 stunts roots. Not saying you're wrong, just never heard that before. I know some enrich during veg only and seem to have good results.
 
Top