Anyone have a Co2 vs natural (300 +/- ppm) grow compariosn?

It is just dumb to question the merit of adding co2 and fine tuning your environment, that is not the question. And everyone is free to speculate the standard answer of 20-100% more growth/yield. But these things are too often not tested. Again i am not saying these claims are not right, i am simply asking if anyone has done a comparison journal.

They have journals for lights, mediums, nutes, etc. The good ones use clones from the same mother to control the comparison. Has this ever been done for a co2 vs non co2(natural air) grow?

I have exhausted my googling talents, and only found speculation and the likes.



Finishing words. Co2 is great. Co2 WILL make your crops better when used right. Im just searching for a journal to reference

This is a good question that needs answering. bump. Hi world, by the way.

I found on the Co2 Mythbusters thread that the guy (dessert rat or something) was thinking about doing a co2 vs non (or perhaps another user). I haven't seen a follow up though.

It would just be fun and informative to see an ideal environment vs a basic environment grow with equivalent clones, lights, nutes, etc