CO2 good for plants?

some of my plants bottom leaves are looking a bit yellowish, im not sure exactly why, maybe a lack of nutes....i bought some Schultz 20-20-20 and applied it to the sick looking ones. my question is that my friend who grew plants once had a dropper of vinegar that made CO2 from baking soda and released it into the air. does this really help the plants cuz mine could use all the help they can get...

 

ok heres my idea about this.....

ive heard co2 really does help plants grow bigger and faster, and it makes sense to me. some people might tell you that you have to buy a $200 co2 generator...not so.

if you got an empty coffee can with a lid, some vinegar, and a little baking soda, you got a co2 generator~!
poke a small hole in the top of the lid of the coffee can, about the head of a pin. inside, put in equal parts baking soda and vinegar...stir, and put lid on coffee can, and set in the middle of your plants , make sure your exhaust isnt on at the time, or the co2 wil get sucked out. there you go. i wouldnt do it every day...maybe twice a week would provide a noticeable improvement, im sure. good luck.

 

QUOTE

As the CO2 content of the air progressively declined millions of years ago, certain plants evolved specialized biochemical pathways and anatomical adaptations that enabled them to increase their intracellular CO2 concentration at the site of its fixation, which allowed the primary carboxylating enzyme rubisco to function more efficiently.  The CO2 concentrating mechanism possessed by these CAM plants operates by sequentially reducing CO2 into carbohydrates at two different times of day.  The initial reduction of CO2 into a four-carbon sugar is done at night - when CAM plant stomata are open - by the enzyme PEP-carboxylase.  Then, during the day when CAM plant stomata are closed, the four-carbon sugar is decarboxylated, increasing the plant's intercellular CO2 concentration, and the resulting CO2 is subsequently reduced back into a carbohydrate, but this time by rubisco.
Because this CO2 concentrating mechanism saturates rubisco, some researchers have suggested that CAM plants will not respond to rising levels of atmospheric CO2.  However, it has recently been shown that despite the apparent saturation of rubisco, atmospheric CO2 enrichment often elicits robust photosynthetic enhancements in CAM plants.

Lootens and Heursel (1998) reported that two Phalaenopsis hybrids grown at an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 950 ppm exhibited net photosynthetic rates that were over 80% greater than those displayed by control plants grown at 350 ppm CO2.  Similarly, pineapple plants grown at 700 ppm CO2 exhibited photosynthetic rates that were more than 80% greater than those of control plants grown in ambient air (Zhu et al., 1999); and in the study of Fernandez et al. (1999), a 200-ppm increase in the air's CO2 content boosted rates of net photosynthesis in an inducible CAM herb (Talinum triangulare Jacq.) by 250 and 350% at the onset of drought and four weeks into drought, respectively.

In addition to increasing photosynthetic rates, elevated CO2 can also enhance biomass production in CAM plants.  Zhu et al. (1997), for example, reported that a 400-ppm increase in the air's CO2 content increased rates of net photosynthesis and dry mass production in pineapple by 36 and 23%, respectively.  In addition, Graham and Nobel (1996) observed that twice-ambient CO2 concentrations enhanced daily net carbon uptake in Agave deserti plants by 50%, which contributed to an 88% increase in their biomass.  Likewise, when exposed to twice-ambient concentrations of atmospheric CO2, the epiphytic orchid Mokara Yellow attained shoot and root dry mass values that were 31 and 98% greater, respectively, than those reached by control plants grown in ambient air (Li et al., 2002).

Positive results have also been obtained in studies with super-elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  Hew et al. (1995), for example, reported that Mokara White orchids exposed to a CO2 concentration of 10,000 ppm produced total dry weights that were approximately 33% greater than those displayed by ambiently-grown plants, while the fumigation of other epiphytic orchids with air containing 10,000 ppm CO2 resulted in total dry weight values that were twice as great as those exhibited by orchids grown at ambient CO2 (Gouk and Hew, 1999).

Clearly, therefore, CAM plants can, and do, respond positively to increases in the air's CO2 concentration, as do nearly all of earth's C3 and C4 plants.

References
Fernandez, M.D., Pieters, A., Azuke, M., Rengifo, E., Tezara, W., Woodward, F.I. and Herrera, A.  1999.  Photosynthesis in plants of four tropical species growing under elevated CO2.  Photosynthetica 37: 587-599.

Gouk, S.S., He, J. and Hew, C.S.  1999.  Changes in photosynthetic capability and carbohydrate production in an epiphytic CAM orchid plantlet exposed to super-elevated CO2.  Environmental and Experimental Botany 41: 219-230.

Graham, E.A. and Nobel, P.S.  1996.  Long-term effects of a doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration on the CAM species Agave deserti.  Journal of Experimental Botany 47: 61-69.

Hew, C.S., Hin, S.E., Yong, J.W.H., Gouk, S.S. and Tanaka, M.  1995.  In vitro CO2 enrichment of CAM orchid plantlets.  Journal of Horticultural Science 70: 721-736.

Li, C.R., Gan, L.J., Xia, K., Zhou, X. and Hew, C.S.  2002.  Responses of carboxylating enzymes, sucrose metabolizing enzymes and plant hormones in a tropical epiphytic CAM orchid to CO2 enrichment.  Plant, Cell and Environment 25: 369-377.

Lootens, P. and Heursel, J.  1998.  Irradiance, temperature, and carbon dioxide enrichment affect photosynthesis in Phalaenopsis hybrids.  HortScience 33: 1183-1185.

Zhu, J., Bartholomew, D.P. and Goldstein, G.  1997.  Effect of elevated carbon dioxide on the growth and physiological responses of pineapple, a species with crassulacean acid metabolism.  Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 122: 233-237.

Zhu, J., Goldstein, G. and Bartholomew, D.P.  1999.  Gas exchange and carbon isotope composition of Ananas comosus in response to elevated CO2 and temperature.  Plant, Cell and Environment 22: 999-1007.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/summaries/camplants.htm



QUOTE

Autotrophic Plants
    Green plants (the green color comes from the green pigments in chlorophyll molecules) are completely autotrophic. Autotrophic plants require only solar energy, carbon dioxide, water, and a few minerals to make all the organic compounds necessary to keep themselves going and growing. So all autotrophic plants use carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, water, and minerals are all inorganic compounds. Autotrophic plants, then, can get everything they need from inorganic compounds.
http://www.ftexploring.com/askdrg/askdrg6.html

 

see? just like i said.................

 

Joker, your method won't work unless:
-You have a way to control the atospheric ppm level (digital meter cost $500.00) and a way to stop/maintain augmentation when it reaches the correct level.
-You have an air tight enclosure, with fans on timers.
-You don't use it during lights off or after the first 3 weeks of flowering.
CO2 is heavier than air. The leaves process CO2 so the CO2 should be introduced above the plants.

What CO2 does: it speeds up the veg process. If your target height is 15" during veg (like mine), then instead of taking 21 days (I have good ventilation) it takes 19 days with CO2 augmentation.
To properly use CO2 augmentation costs about $1,000.00 for equip.
Much more cost effective in excellent flow-thro ventilation, which costs less than 50 bux.

 

ok, i respect your opinion. i disagree that you need to spend 1,000 dollars, when (and i bet it will work, even to a limited degree) a coffee can costs bupkus. as for the ppm and all that stuff, i mean, thats getting a little too anal for me , i mean, theyre weeds. but whatever, to each his own.
i love how everyone likes to try to dispute everything i say now....its kinda funny actually. i get smoked out and lllllauuuuuuughhhhhhh........hahahahhahahahhahahahaha

 

Technically you're right aggie.
Just as if you spit in the ocean it will contain more liquid than it you hadn't spit in it.

Saying monitoring CO2 levels is too anal is like saying you don't need to know how much gas is in your car when you drive somewhere.

 

My gas tastes funny.

 

lllndigoll are you an indoor grower

 

Rangerdanger...I know why not to use co2 when lights out, but why don't you want to use co2 after first three weeks of flower?

 

OK...does anyone out there know why you should not use co2 after the first 3 weeks of flower?

 

Plants utilize CO2 for vegatative growth, they need less during the remainder of flowering, when vegatative growth ceases. I don't think add'l CO2 will hurt the plant but it doesn't do any good either, it's just a waste of money to augment during flowering.

 

Rangerdanger, thanks for your reply. I'm not questioning your experience, but I did a grow without co2 (same strain, ww) and this time with co2 and I know my buds are larger this time than last. Both in soil. I'm just wondering if maybe the co2 in veg works the same on the bud (making growth both in height in veg and growth in bud in flower. Then it just could have been something else I did?? I don't have alot of experience. Thanks for your info and input!

 

I'm an indoor grower.

 

10 years ago, before going out and spending a thousand bux for a complete CO2 set-up, I did extensive reading up on the subject of CO2 augmentation. What I learned has been the basis of my posts on the subject.
For several years High Times touted CO2 augmentation as some sort of 'magic bullet' when it comes to indoor MJ cultivation. It's not.
If you have crappy ventilation adding extra CO2 can help greatly but I found out it's way cheaper to provide excellent ventilation. That's why my CO2 equip sits in boxes in my basement. I used to have to lug that damn tank down to the welding shop every 3 weeks and pay $15.00 to have it re-filled.
Providing plants with extra CO2 during veg enables them to do in a certain span of time what takes the plant longer to do without extra CO2. Not bigger. Faster. About 5%--10% faster than excellent ventilation.

 

Thanks Rangerdanger.....that was the answer I needed! (You're good and I appreciate your knowledge) Thanks for sharing!

 

So here is the question then? How could CO2 increase yield if the flowering is not enriched. I think that it just creates a larger vegged plant if things work the way you're saying. But I read somewhere that CO2 enrichment allows you to increase the overall temperature and even lower the light, if this is true then even in flower it would be a significant increase in yield due to proximety.

 

Where did you read that?

 

Yes, using increased levels of CO2 does allow you to get by with hgiher temps.
But higher temps does not make bigger buds.

Excellent ventilation allows you to get the light closer to the plants.

Most growers have a 'target' height during veg, a set height at which time they will switch over to 12/12.
Adding CO2 will get a plant to that point a bit quicker that good ventilation will, but not much.
It won't help the flowering process at all.

 

I know of a good, cheap way to obtain CO2. Get a cracker.

ImperialNitro