CO2-Is it worth it?
- Thread starter sublingual
- Start date
Astro1
Active member
It really depends. CO2 certainly helps if the limiting factor is space...so it's a maximizing what you have tool, but the effort required to supplement with CO2 correctly and consistently, near sealed room (to do it right), controller, gas generator (best) or tanks (way more effort to refill + cost) etc is often not worth it if you can add additional canopy area with the money instead. So if you're absolutely limited on space and can't expand the size of your cannopy and you've done everything else and there is no other improvement to your grow with everything perfectly dialed...then yeah it's worth it, but personally having done it I don't think it's worth it in situations where additional canopy area can be added instead. Personally if I wasn't yielding enough...I'd just spend the money on a couple of extra plants and save myself the headache of the complexity. This is not to say thats it's not fun to do, sort of unique and interesting as a hobby and you can tell and show your buddies...but in practical financial and effort terms I'd say that no it's not worth it.
Last edited:
Im sorry I just couldnt disagree more. Respectfully, its NEVER about the number of plants when it comes to increasing yield. You can get an equal amount out of one trained plant vs 100 under a single light. Its about canopy space and the density of your canopy. Furthermore, if you expand you canopy, you need adequate lighting, you cant just keep expanding canopy hoping to increase yield. Co2 is a cardinal parameter for growth. When increased it supercharges photosynthesis in a way that is absurd to not utilize for the time/expense. A 30% increase in yield to carry a few tanks around and pay like 15$ for refills. Sending some perforated tubing around a room attached to a regulator is also fairly inexpensive and quick to install. At the end of the day co2 drives photosynthesis second in line to lighting itself. Boosting it is important at all times. It has nothing to do with any given space or limitations. This is why nearly all commercial facilities run by true science increase co2 to 1200ppm or often higher.
Chuck Jägerschnitzel
Active member
They like it when you ash out your bowl onto their soil too
Most of the evolutionary history of plants took place in environments with CO2 far in excess of modern day ambient CO2 levels
Last edited:
Brother Nature
Well-known member
I live in a very agricultural focused country. I've worked with and in every kind of legal glasshouse, from cut flowers, to veggies, to exotic plants. I have always seen the most financially lucrative operations using co2, even at a great expense, so there is clearly a benefit to it. I only grow for personal use, but it's something I've been thinking about adding to my tent for a little bit, this thread and the fact were coming into our hotter season has renewed my interest. Tanks to the OP for posting as well as the sagely advice, that's what this whole place is about. 
Astro1
Active member
Please re-read what I wrote…I said “canopy area” so when I say more plants that’s what I mean. I said IF you are limited by space run CO2…if you’re not limited by space throw up another light if you need and add some plants if inclined. That is way easier…than having to run a sealed room, having to make CO2 runs to refill a tank (that’s a PITA literally) and paying for the extra CO2 + gear is an expense you have to account for. Including your time if you value it. I’d rather keep it simple vs having additional toys to play with. If you do run CO2 get a gas generator so you’re not running and filling tanks over and over unless you have all the time in the world to do that. Also you’re not getting 30% more. That’s what you “think” you’re getting because that’s what’s advertised. I doubt it’s even 10%. Been there done that. If it’s not enough it’s almost always easier to just add more canopy area. Moreover unless you have everything buttoned up…it’s harder to run a sealed room. You then need an AC as well and all the added complexity, noise and controllers. More likely running CO2 simply allows you to run fewer larger plants because you’re still limited by canopy area and as you correctly point out that’s your biggest limiting factor.
If you have a 100 square feet of canopy 10x10 and instead you simply run 11.5x11.5 by adding 9 extra inches on either side that’s 132.2 square feet. There’s your 30%. No CO2 no problem no extra trinkets to deal with.
Last edited:
Ca++
Well-known member
Training will bring you much more benefit than co2, even in the 30% dream scenario. Efficient use of space is everything. Look at Bugbee, he is working commercially, where intensive care isn't given. So he is using 1200ppm to get yields you can do without it.
You can cram so much bud in a space without it, that there isn't really room for any more. Big buds need individual buds cutting out their sides, to get air in. Or they just rot. They can only get so big. Making individual christmas tree's in the 80s a poor analogue of what we are doing.
Astro1
Active member
Exactly CO2 will mostly simply let you run fewer plants to cover the same canopy area as they will grow larger but you’re unlikely to pull significantly more weight off it as you correctly point out you’re still limited primarily by surface area. Now expand that area by 30% and I guarantee you you will pull extra weight. When they market 30% bigger yield to consumers from co2 enrichment they assume you’re growing one plant in a 10x10 room that winds up yielding 30% more because it’s 30% larger by harvest and doesn’t run up against canopy area limit, but if you fill the room edge to edge with plant canopy you’ve hit a limit and additional CO2 is not going to have near the impact people assume it will in that scenario though it will still have some.
sublingual
Well-known member
That is bad advice. If I am there in the proximity, then I am making CO2. smoking is bad for plants, you don't want any of it in a grow room.
sublingual
Well-known member
Thanks for your reply.
sublingual
Well-known member
One way I like to think about it is elemental inputs. CO2 provides the carbon which all life is composed. I run salt-based ferts in coco so my soil is not organic. I doubt if much carbon is coming from the coco, so it needs to come from CO2.
Overcramming the grow space can lead to problems as well. It all needs to be balanced to my situation and my time. Some parameters are fixed and so is my time. For my balance of time and money I will seek other CO2 inputs than running a controller and tanks. I got great lights and will have to manage them for optimum production.
Really good discussion on the pros and cons of CO2. Keep it up and we can all maybe benefit.
Overcramming the grow space can lead to problems as well. It all needs to be balanced to my situation and my time. Some parameters are fixed and so is my time. For my balance of time and money I will seek other CO2 inputs than running a controller and tanks. I got great lights and will have to manage them for optimum production.
Really good discussion on the pros and cons of CO2. Keep it up and we can all maybe benefit.
Hiddenjems
Well-known member
The main driver of plant metabolism is light. As you raise light intensity you need to increase nutrient uptake. After a certain point co2 becomes the limiting factor.
In its most basic explanation plants through a quantum mechanical process use photons to turn water and co2 into sugar. As a byproduct oxygen is created. In fact before animal life developed, plant based life increased oxygen levels so high they were toxic.
In its most basic explanation plants through a quantum mechanical process use photons to turn water and co2 into sugar. As a byproduct oxygen is created. In fact before animal life developed, plant based life increased oxygen levels so high they were toxic.
sublingual
Well-known member
yes, photosynthesis and limiting factors. I probably over-fertilized a bit and got brown leaf margins all under fairly intense light. So the plants had the light and nutes really too much. If I would have had CO2 earlier, would the leaves not have burned?
Right now the CO2 was limited theoretically, and mitigated as practically as I could. If I can't use all the lights, I'm going to turn them down until I can has to be the way to go. No sense burning electricity for nothing.
So I will monitor how much the plants respond to this adjustment of CO2 by seeing their water/nute uptake (if it's more). Also, how they respond morphologically by lifting leaves, appearance, and bulk.
I see a mentioning of training and plant count and canopy size. At the end of the day, co2 is essential for optimal growth. Do all the fancy training, plant count, light intensity and any other trick you want to try. All of those are great and they all would benefit from co2 enrichment. This science has been proven with many crops and the rule of thumb is 20-30%. And its not what I “think” im getting. I didnt always run co2 and ive seen the yield increase. We take data on every run and the numbers are obvious. This is rather common knowledge in the agriculture world. You also do not need to run a sealed room or greenhouse. Co2 doesnt move out that way, people co2 enrich ventilated greenhouses all over the place for this reason. I run co2 and my room is not a sealed room.
Astro1
Active member
The money you spent on CO2 refills per year alone could have been spent on adding extra lights and expanding your canopy permanently increasing your production. Which again brings up the fact that unless you're limited by space it's always better to just add a light. The time and hassle swapping tanks and running them to get refilled...well you'll never get that back. In fact I bet you could have added a few lights for the cost of CO2 refills alone and again without the added complexity or CO2 equipment. In 20 years of growing I've always been fascinated by what people think is "worth it"whether is was Cannabis Specific nutrients over generics, sealed glass hoods, fancy controllers....nah bro...exposed vertically hung bulbs with winged reflectors and plenty of airflow is all you ever needed and if what that produced wasn't enough...you just drop another bulb down. As with most grow gear its usually the hydro shop owner that benefits while the grower tries to justify the expense.
Last edited:
sublingual
Well-known member
Yes, but your theory ignores those who are maxed out light-wise. I'm running very efficient Vipar's latest arrays 2x 500watts and the plants are limited by CO2.
Ca++
Well-known member
I
I don't understand how the light is wasted without co2. If you can use more light, and more co2, is yield not the gain? I just see you would be wasting more light and also co2, because the space isn't being used properly. There are big gaps there, with no buds in them. That is the waste of light I see. There is no point chasing a mystical 30%, using more power and planet killing co2, when there is 30% more space available, which is already lit.
A good grower is doing 100g per meter, per week, all year long. No co2 required. If your not doing that, figure out why. There is no point turning to co2 to cover a lack of growing ability, until you can at least fill the space properly. It's that whole run before you walk thing. From what I'm seeing and hearing, co2 is going to cause you problems. It's like an additive for advanced users, who can keep up with it. It not to fix issues. It brings it's own issues, to add to what you have.
Personally I like to get to 600ppm which being indoors supplies through daily activities. I do notice 400 to 600 as a good benefit. One that's not causing the plant to close it's pores to the stuff, much. Some unemployed gamers in the house are great. You should get some of those if you can.
If you really want 30% more, without changing your ways, then do a bigger grow if you have the light for it.
I find the whole prospect of co2 use quite distasteful. I'm active on threads where someone is thinking about the stuff, but have very little to say on threads where people use it. It's just not cricket.
I don't think I have any more to odd. Essentially, this grow needs training to get better. I'm concerned co2 is going to highlight other problems, and would like to see the bad leaves to settle this idea in my mind.
It would be interesting to see these leaves. Burnt margins doesn't suggest over feed, as much as it suggests K problems. K problems that co2 will increase, as more co2 doesn't lead to more water use, it decreases water use. In turn, you must increase feed or run harder into deficiencies. Ones regarding water movement like K and Ca quite immediately.
I don't understand how the light is wasted without co2. If you can use more light, and more co2, is yield not the gain? I just see you would be wasting more light and also co2, because the space isn't being used properly. There are big gaps there, with no buds in them. That is the waste of light I see. There is no point chasing a mystical 30%, using more power and planet killing co2, when there is 30% more space available, which is already lit.
A good grower is doing 100g per meter, per week, all year long. No co2 required. If your not doing that, figure out why. There is no point turning to co2 to cover a lack of growing ability, until you can at least fill the space properly. It's that whole run before you walk thing. From what I'm seeing and hearing, co2 is going to cause you problems. It's like an additive for advanced users, who can keep up with it. It not to fix issues. It brings it's own issues, to add to what you have.
Personally I like to get to 600ppm which being indoors supplies through daily activities. I do notice 400 to 600 as a good benefit. One that's not causing the plant to close it's pores to the stuff, much. Some unemployed gamers in the house are great. You should get some of those if you can.
If you really want 30% more, without changing your ways, then do a bigger grow if you have the light for it.
I find the whole prospect of co2 use quite distasteful. I'm active on threads where someone is thinking about the stuff, but have very little to say on threads where people use it. It's just not cricket.
I don't think I have any more to odd. Essentially, this grow needs training to get better. I'm concerned co2 is going to highlight other problems, and would like to see the bad leaves to settle this idea in my mind.
sublingual
Well-known member
Day 1 progress report on the Exhale CO2. The plants seem happier, they are drinking more and have perked up. These two factors will help my yield since they are metabolizing more. I'm convinced this alternative fits my bill better than controllers and tanks. I want to study more about other methods of Co2 production while this bag runs its course (they're only designed for 6 months and have expiration dates on the bags).
sublingual
Well-known member
This is a natural kind of thing with these mycelium bags, and therefore, somewhat different. Also, you are not seeing the whole grow in that picture as I was just fitting the bag in a central area and moving things around. I also grow sativas as that works for my several medical conditions and those are not the same as running quick clones repeatedly. I believe I found an elegant solution with the bags, but only time will tell.
Ca++
Well-known member
Is there such a thing as co2 deficiency?
You are suggesting you have seen it. Some leaf issue you think would go away.
If you have a 500 over a 4x4 it's 650umol (I don't know your grow size, but guess a 4x8)
