Myth busters - the real truth on CO2 in indoor grows

cowboylogic

Well-Known Member
There seems to be a lot of misinformation about how much co2 (carbon dioxide) is available to indoor plants, and how to think about whether and how much co2 to add if you decide to enhance co2. I took my calibrated co2 meter on a hunt for the truth.

As an aside for newbies, don't confuse carbon dioxide (CO2) that your plant uses with carbon monoxide (CO) which is a poisonous by-product of burning fossil fuels.

First myth - you should add CO2 indoors because there is less co2 in a closed indoor environment than what an outdoor plant gets. This is just not true. A normal indoor situation of an inhabited structure with central heating/cooling has as much as twice the amount of co2 indoors compared to outdoors. You do not have to add co2 to equal outdoor conditions. For example, in my case the outdoor co2 is at 400 ppm (national average is 390 ppm, thank you climate change) and indoors it's 650 ppm.

Second myth - adding co2 will improve your grow. This is only true under special conditions. The reason experienced growers add co2 is that if all other environmental conditions are optimized (water, nutes, light, temperature, humidity, medium, container, ph, insects, etc.) then and only then will increased levels of co2 (typical target is 1,500 parts per million) be used by cannabis plants to grow faster. Adding co2 without dialing in your grow will not change anything. if you are just starting out then don't worry about co2 for your first few grows.

Third myth - a couple of plants in a closed closet will exhaust available co2, requiring action on the grower's part to compensate by (a) actively ventilating to bring in fresh air or (b) by adding co2. In the vast majority of cases this is not true either. Home construction of internal walls is just not that airtight. An easy experiment to test your grow room - close off any inputs you've created and turn on the exhaust - the fan will run and air will continue to be forced out of the room indefinitely. If you have a tight room you can lower the air pressure (ie create negative pressure) but you won't be able to pull a vacuum because air will leak into the room from thousands of tiny cracks. The rule of thumb for an un-vented room is a complete air exchange every two hours. That new air will have more co2 than outdoors. In addition, the higher partial pressure of co2 outside your grow room will cause co2 to migrate into your room faster than other components of air. I have checked repeatedly and the co2 concentrations in my grow room are always within 100 ppm of the rest of the house, and considerably higher than outdoors, even without noticeable negative pressure and with a closet full of plants. Unless you're growing in a refrigerator or tent or similar (or you are growing dozens of plants) you don't have to do anything to get enough co2 for your plants.

Fourth myth - carbon filters emit co2. no, they don't. Carbon filters remove smelly compounds from the air, they have nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Thanks to mydixiecrat for helping to point this out.

Fifth myth - you need expensive co2 generating and monitoring equipment to maintain the proper levels of co2 if you choose to enhance. Okay, I bought into this myth and I believed it enough to get a $400 co2 monitor and a $450 gas generator. So, I thought I'd get a little extra back from my investment. I have the gas generator running in my flowering room but nothing for my veg room. I'm going to use my monitor from the flowering room to test whether it's really possible to build a ghetto sugar/yeast co2 system that produces a steady and predictable concentration of co2. I'll keep updating this thread with results - maybe the next person can save the $850 plus propane costs with a couple of kitchen supplies. Results so far show that a sugar/yeast system is quite good at providing a relatively steady, predictable and meaningful amount of carbon dioxide.

:-?
Rock on Rat. You all pay attention. This man spends time to know what he knows.
 

homebrewer

Well-Known Member
2Q's: how's the safale yeast working?
Homebrewer: do you know where to buy it in bulk? My rooms would require about 120g each.
Thanks
Fred
You can buy it in bulk here but it's not really necessary as you can always repitch yeast: http://crosby-baker.com/resources/fermentis/
An online brewstore will have it cheap by the pack: http://www.northernbrewer.com/default/safale-us-05-american.html

Also, if you need that much yeast then that means you'll be fermenting 50 gallons at a time, I can tell you that it's not going to be cost effective to maintain that. That's a lot of sugar, yeast and water :shock:.
 

Stoneshield

Active Member
if ur vent is at the top of the room and co2 is heavy, how much could that really affect ur levels? nice thread des. where ya taking ur readings at? floor lvl or med/high plant intake range. goodtimez
 

RanTyr

Active Member
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.

Myth two: My biggest gripe here is that you failed to mention the most important part about co2 and plants. The levels need to be consistant. After that my gripes are that you have the target amount wrong (usually 1200ppm since the other factors have to be dialed in so precisely that it's an impossible threshold without uber serious money) and that you suggest providing a constant supply of co2 to plants isnt beneficial unless you have everything else dialed in. This "dialing in" of the other factors becomes proportionally more important as you reach higher co2 concentrations, and the reverse is true as well. Ensuring that your grow maintains a nice 800ppm concentration of co2 will always improve your grow unless you are completely inept or incredibly lazy.

Myth three: This is just basic common sense.

Myth four: Activated carbon is merely a process of changing contaminants from a gaseous phase to a solid phase, when aggravated or disturbed contaminants can be regenerated in indoor air sources. Just saying that it removes smelly stuff does little. I've never even heard this one before ad I've been dealing with plants for quite a while now.

Myth five: This ties back into myth one. Of course the need for the more refined equipment also has a direct correlation to the co2 concentrations desired for the grow, and thus is linked back into how dialed in you have the other factors. The larger the average ppm you are going for (and thus the more precise your nutrient count, lumens/ft^2, ph, etc is for the particular strain you are growing) the more difficult it is to reach and maintain said levels. To even begin to intone that home-made contraptions of the base nature you reference as experiment worthy (which it should be apparent that it isn't) can compare to the long term control and ease of use of technology is absurd. In only two hours you had a down swing of 50ppm which was just the start of the trend. try maintaining that day after day, week after week, month after month, and tell me technology isn't necessary. Sure you could do it, but why fucking bother? Without a sealed environment it's pointless anyway.


Just another underwhelming exhibition of improperly researched and poorly put together information.
 

cowboylogic

Well-Known Member
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.

Myth two: My biggest gripe here is that you failed to mention the most important part about co2 and plants. The levels need to be consistant. After that my gripes are that you have the target amount wrong (usually 1200ppm since the other factors have to be dialed in so precisely that it's an impossible threshold without uber serious money) and that you suggest providing a constant supply of co2 to plants isnt beneficial unless you have everything else dialed in. This "dialing in" of the other factors becomes proportionally more important as you reach higher co2 concentrations, and the reverse is true as well. Ensuring that your grow maintains a nice 800ppm concentration of co2 will always improve your grow unless you are completely inept or incredibly lazy.

Myth three: This is just basic common sense.

Myth four: Activated carbon is merely a process of changing contaminants from a gaseous phase to a solid phase, when aggravated or disturbed contaminants can be regenerated in indoor air sources. Just saying that it removes smelly stuff does little. I've never even heard this one before ad I've been dealing with plants for quite a while now.

Myth five: This ties back into myth one. Of course the need for the more refined equipment also has a direct correlation to the co2 concentrations desired for the grow, and thus is linked back into how dialed in you have the other factors. The larger the average ppm you are going for (and thus the more precise your nutrient count, lumens/ft^2, ph, etc is for the particular strain you are growing) the more difficult it is to reach and maintain said levels. To even begin to intone that home-made contraptions of the base nature you reference as experiment worthy (which it should be apparent that it isn't) can compare to the long term control and ease of use of technology is absurd. In only two hours you had a down swing of 50ppm which was just the start of the trend. try maintaining that day after day, week after week, month after month, and tell me technology isn't necessary. Sure you could do it, but why fucking bother? Without a sealed environment it's pointless anyway.


Just another underwhelming exhibition of improperly researched and poorly put together information.
And your post is another fine example of non-constructive BS.
 

desertrat

Well-Known Member
Just another underwhelming exhibition of improperly researched and poorly put together information.
hey, it's the spirit of UB back to haunt my threads. Why don't you just let the people who are actually trying to help people do their thing and you can get your ego stroked some other way? Your points are baseless, as usual, and don't take into account real world indoor growing conditions and the knowledge of the average new grower. You have devolved into a troll.
 

desertrat

Well-Known Member
if ur vent is at the top of the room and co2 is heavy, how much could that really affect ur levels? nice thread des. where ya taking ur readings at? floor lvl or med/high plant intake range. goodtimez
if you vent continuously, even at the ceiling, it will draw out too much co2 to make enhancement useful. I've seen about a 200 ppm co2 differential between floor and ceiling in a room with three circulating fans.
 

desertrat

Well-Known Member
2Q's: how's the safale yeast working?
Homebrewer: do you know where to buy it in bulk? My rooms would require about 120g each.
Thanks
Fred
haven't started using safeale yet, life's been kinda busy lately. Note that you use a lot less safe ale compared to bakers yeast.
 

legalizeitcanada

Well-Known Member
So where's your research o mighty god of whats right and wrong? This is an experiement with posted results...how can that be improper.......dude u need to start your own thread for others NOT to read!

D-rat thanks again for your hard work and postings......i have gain much valuable knowledge from you.....don't let douchbags like that riun your day or how you conduct your experiments!! One Love Bro!!
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.

Myth two: My biggest gripe here is that you failed to mention the most important part about co2 and plants. The levels need to be consistant. After that my gripes are that you have the target amount wrong (usually 1200ppm since the other factors have to be dialed in so precisely that it's an impossible threshold without uber serious money) and that you suggest providing a constant supply of co2 to plants isnt beneficial unless you have everything else dialed in. This "dialing in" of the other factors becomes proportionally more important as you reach higher co2 concentrations, and the reverse is true as well. Ensuring that your grow maintains a nice 800ppm concentration of co2 will always improve your grow unless you are completely inept or incredibly lazy.

Myth three: This is just basic common sense.

Myth four: Activated carbon is merely a process of changing contaminants from a gaseous phase to a solid phase, when aggravated or disturbed contaminants can be regenerated in indoor air sources. Just saying that it removes smelly stuff does little. I've never even heard this one before ad I've been dealing with plants for quite a while now.

Myth five: This ties back into myth one. Of course the need for the more refined equipment also has a direct correlation to the co2 concentrations desired for the grow, and thus is linked back into how dialed in you have the other factors. The larger the average ppm you are going for (and thus the more precise your nutrient count, lumens/ft^2, ph, etc is for the particular strain you are growing) the more difficult it is to reach and maintain said levels. To even begin to intone that home-made contraptions of the base nature you reference as experiment worthy (which it should be apparent that it isn't) can compare to the long term control and ease of use of technology is absurd. In only two hours you had a down swing of 50ppm which was just the start of the trend. try maintaining that day after day, week after week, month after month, and tell me technology isn't necessary. Sure you could do it, but why fucking bother? Without a sealed environment it's pointless anyway.


Just another underwhelming exhibition of improperly researched and poorly put together information.
 

RanTyr

Active Member
And your post is another fine example of non-constructive BS.
Please tell me you are joking? How is my post not constructive? Albeit parts of it are nothing more than dickishness it is definitely accurate and arguably more useful than rat's.

Your post contributed exactly zero to the thread. Hypocrite.
 

RanTyr

Active Member
hey, it's the spirit of UB back to haunt my threads.
Can you explain this line? UB?

Why don't you just let the people who are actually trying to help people do their thing and you can get your ego stroked some other way? Your points are baseless, as usual, and don't take into account real world indoor growing conditions and the knowledge of the average new grower. You have devolved into a troll.
I am actually trying to help. Hence the reason for the exacting response with a flair for the dramatic. What does my ego have to do with correcting your mistakes that were being lauded by someone who can't even form a proper sentence?

As for this "as usual" thing I don't see how you can make that statement considering we've never had a conversation before.

How are my points, which are mired in actual science, baseless? Basless would be me calling you fat. I can't possibly derive your weight from how you post on a board. One can most certain ascertain how much co2 a particular strain of cannibus can absorb when all of the other factors are similarly accounted for. How does such an obviously correct statements not take into account real world indoor environments? Is there even such a thing as a real world man made environment? Is there such a thing as a "fake" man made environment?!? Do you even make sense?

I will concede that I expect a modicum of intellect and basic knowledge from people but, as a pointed out already, no more is necessary than remembering your high school level earth science classes.

Explain how I am a troll aside from me being admittedly dickish. Explain how my completely rational and logical points based on actual science conducted by actual scientists, that has been recreated time and time again by various other scientists, is baseless?

Do you just read other people use big words and get a basic idea of what the words means through context and then regurgitate it to make your argument sound somehow less thin? blarg if anyone is a troll it is you.

If you are I tip my hat to you for playing me like a violin.
 

RanTyr

Active Member
Same syntax, same person, different user name. Boring game.
I don't know who you think I am but I assure you I have never interacted with you before on the interweb. Also, you can't deduce someone's identity via syntax. The language may allow for some variation but for fucks sake not that much variation as to allow one to use it as a sort of linguistic thumbprint. You should know this.

Also pretending like you are important enough to have haters following you around is arrogant to say the least. Perhaps you would prefer to portray yourself in a more flattering light.
 

RanTyr

Active Member
So where's your research o mighty god of whats right and wrong? This is an experiement with posted results...how can that be improper.......dude u need to start your own thread for others NOT to read!

D-rat thanks again for your hard work and postings......i have gain much valuable knowledge from you.....don't let douchbags like that riun your day or how you conduct your experiments!! One Love Bro!!
This is a proper experiment? They wouldn't allow this set up in any upper level collegiate science course, that's for sure. Nevermind a research paper.

I may not say things in the nicest possible way but thank my parents for reproducing and passing these genes to me. That doesn't detract from my solid points in any way though.
 

cowboylogic

Well-Known Member
Please tell me you are joking? How is my post not constructive? Albeit parts of it are nothing more than dickishness it is definitely accurate and arguably more useful than rat's.

Your post contributed exactly zero to the thread. Hypocrite.
Nice try. Happy Trails............
 

cowboylogic

Well-Known Member
And if you want my opinion on CO2 its this. Growers use it because it allows for higher temps in the growroom without negatives side effects. Commercial growers with a huge crop have better things to do than chase temps. And chase smells as far as that goes. A sealed enviroment means less chance of odors escaping, bugs getting in and less chance of detection. But with the closed enviroment comes temperature control issues. It takes way less power to maintain 85 degrees than it would to drop and maintain 75 degrees within the same thermomass and area. When it comes down to it, its just about business. I know many growers that dropped some decent coin on CO2 goodies. Only to be dissapointed with the return. Just my 2 cents.
 

Nitegazer

Well-Known Member
Please tell me you are joking? How is my post not constructive? Albeit parts of it are nothing more than dickishness it is definitely accurate and arguably more useful than rat's.

Your post contributed exactly zero to the thread. Hypocrite.
RanTyr,

I have no doubt that you are an experienced grower, but after reading your response to the myths, I gleaned only two points that run contrary to what Mr. Rat stated:

1- You think the 'typical' ppm should be 1200 rather than 1500. A lot of sites do mention 1500 as a target, so I don't think DesertRat was misleading at all.

2- You think its a waste of time to experiment with home-based systems, because they can not achieve a consistant enough level of CO2, so a full commitment to CO2 enrichment (sealed room, digital monitors, etc.) is required. Well, the whole point of this thread is to examine that claim, and preliminary attempts at least look promising.

I do appreciate your point that the closer we get to 1200 or 1500, the more we need to 'dial in' all the environmental factors. However, I have also read that even bringing ppm up to 700 can have a significant improvement on growth. The trick to me seems to be finding a happy medium where the increased growth is worth the effort to get there; for smaller scale grows (like my 4 sq. ft.), it might be targeting 700 or 900 ppm, and for that, I would not consider purchasing a full CO2 enrichment system.

Don't be surprised that folks are hostile after your admittedly 'dickish' post. Live by the sword and die by the sword.
 
Top