Co2 boost buckets???

[countgrishnackh]

Right, so, i was looking into some Co2 enrichment without some gnarly burner, and i found this...

http://www.co2boost.com/home.aspx

i was just wondering if it's any better than the old sugar and yeast in a bottle idea like this...

$150 for that Co2 boost bucket seems a little steep, but would it be worth it?

 

[fatigues]

Right, so, i was looking into some Co2 enrichment without some gnarly burner, and i found this...

http://www.co2boost.com/home.aspx

i was just wondering if it's any better than the old sugar and yeast in a bottle idea

$150 for that Co2 boost bucket seems a little steep, but would it be worth it?

It seems very steep indeed. The testimonials on the c02 bucket appear favorable, but I would want to hear more from ICMag members who have tried the boost buckets in actual grows.

The boost buckets are fungal based and depend upon an air pump for their vigor. The costs of $105 or so for a replacement / refill of the fungal bucket (as distinct from the cost of the tubing and air pump at the higher $150 or so mentioned by the OP) seems damned high to me. If it worked well enough, it might be worth it. I have serious doubts though...

 

[summitoker]

its a novelty at best, make your own.

 

[Mist]

No, they aren't a novelty. I have used them before with incredible results and plan on picking up on next week for my current grow. I was sceptical when they first came out several years ago and when I was in my local hydro store I saw they had some and decided to give one a try. The setup took 5 minutes and I attached the output hose to an occilating fan on low and let it run. The plants loved it and really took off. It was a strain that I had already grown and I got about a 30% increase in size and yield from the previous grow.
I will post some shots of my current grow when I get one next week and you can be the judge.
The 150 dollar price tag seems somewhat expensive since most places have it for $120.


Oh yea, I have done the sugar and yeast method too and all it did was attract a lot of ants!

 

[ItsAllOver]

Hmm, but at that initial price (even $120) plus replacement cost of whatever it is, isn't that way more expensive at the end of the day than a bottle and reg?
I don't use CO2 yet, but I'm working on at least a little knowledge. Yea I was thinking about trying the yeast+sugar tech but insects would surely love it... hmmm

 

[sparkjumper]

Any method even a gnarly burner without a controller is like pissing in the wind.I just dont see this device taking you to 1500PPM and leaving it there with no more than a 200PPM fluctuation for 12 hours straight.Thats the only way I've ever actually increased my harvest is to have your method on a controller,and I've been using co2 for a very long time in my flowering room

 

[ItsAllOver]

sparkjumper: What did you mean when you said "your method"?

 

[*mistress*]

this may be interesting/helpful:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=108618
unlimited cheap c02

enjoy your garden!

 

[ItsAllOver]

Yep, that's what they're referring to above. That was a cool thread.
One question I have always wondered about is whether or not it is worth it to use CO2 supplementation in a non-sealed, ventilated (redundant) room. I mean I always come back to the, "it can't hurt," answer, but I don't want to waste my time, either. Fuck it, I'm trying it this time. Surely it'll be wasteful, but who cares?

 

[*mistress*]

Yep, that's what they're referring to above. That was a cool thread.
One question I have always wondered about is whether or not it is worth it to use CO2 supplementation in a non-sealed, ventilated (redundant) room. I mean I always come back to the, "it can't hurt," answer, but I don't want to waste my time, either. Fuck it, I'm trying it this time. Surely it'll be wasteful, but who cares?

not a waste... 5 gallons of sugar + 5 gallons of dollar store juice cost ~10 coins... if, c02 concentration levels are raised by a minimal 100 ppms (have never tested c02 ppms using 5 gal buckets in sealed room), still have only spent 1 coin per 10 increase in ppms of c02.

lots of gardeners here normally spend 20-30 coins per bottle of 'new' or 'organic' or 'new-organic-hydro-super-extra' nutes...

some contend that plants will only respond if ppms of c02 are 1500 or more... debatable... the cost + effort to incorporate cheap c02 outweighs any possible scenario where co2 has no effect. in any event, cannot hurt plants whatsoever... and, if actually getting c02 ppms up by a mere 200 ppms, have only spent ~1/2 a coin per ppm...

if excellofizz (supernatural) claims that their puck can provide 1000 ppms of c02, how can a constantly cooking batch not place more c02 than was ther in the room?

humans like cleaner oxygen than polluted oxygen - even if only 100-200 ppms cleaner...

enjoy your garden!

 

[Oldmac]

There was a recent study done on cannabis sativa by U of Miss that showed that by just doubleing the ambient CO2 level, there was a 33% improvement of growth. So if you can raise the ambient (abt 300ppm) to 600ppm there is a major benefit.

I happen to use supernatual's excellofizz "fizz pucks" in my personal grow. My bloom room is abt 6'x6'x6' and 1/2 a puck will raise the CO2 level to abt 800ppm peak during the first 5 or so hrs, then drops off after that. During the last 6hrs of the bloom photoperiod, any air intake is from the mom/veg room that is dark during that period, and bloom room CO2 levels are in the 500ppm range.

 

[sparkjumper]

By "your method" I was talking about a burner or co2 tank whichever you choose its all for nothing if its not on a controller.When people say they got a 30% increase in yield using suger and yeast or the aforementioned bucket,I just plain dont believe them having used co2 for many years now.If the method you choose is uncontrolled,you can forget any benefit.I even found the cyclestat to be bullshit.This controls the frequency and length of burn according to room size.Yea right haha.Its bullshit if you dont have an actual controller the cap ppm-3 being about the cheapest

 

[Mist]

LoL! Well that is interesting. I would like to see your grow and see what kind of setup you have going that is so superior. But I can't seem to find any pics of your garden.

Look, my rooms exhaust changes out the entire room every minute and a half with the tent itself being changed out every 55 seconds. So any high dollar CO2 system would be a waste of money. But with the boost bucket attached to a fan blowing across my garden that is all I need to boost my grow. I don't want or need any expensive systems.

 

[*mistress*]

There was a recent study done on cannabis sativa by U of Miss that showed that by just doubleing the ambient CO2 level, there was a 33% improvement of growth. So if you can raise the ambient (abt 300ppm) to 600ppm there is a major benefit.

I happen to use supernatual's excellofizz "fizz pucks" in my personal grow. My bloom room is abt 6'x6'x6' and 1/2 a puck will raise the CO2 level to abt 800ppm peak during the first 5 or so hrs, then drops off after that. During the last 6hrs of the bloom photoperiod, any air intake is from the mom/veg room that is dark during that period, and bloom room CO2 levels are in the 500ppm range.

please provide link(s) to referenced study...

used xcellofizz long moments ago. tried to find ingredients so could make... might still be nice project.

cheapo c02 has worked w/out adding machines. four 5 gallon buckets of mix costs ~20 coins... pound of sugar on ea per wk. continuous cheapo c02 production...

enjoy your garden!

 

[darookie2000]

There was a recent study done on cannabis sativa by U of Miss that showed that by just doubleing the ambient CO2 level, there was a 33% improvement of growth. So if you can raise the ambient (abt 300ppm) to 600ppm there is a major benefit.

I happen to use supernatual's excellofizz "fizz pucks" in my personal grow. My bloom room is abt 6'x6'x6' and 1/2 a puck will raise the CO2 level to abt 800ppm peak during the first 5 or so hrs, then drops off after that. During the last 6hrs of the bloom photoperiod, any air intake is from the mom/veg room that is dark during that period, and bloom room CO2 levels are in the 500ppm range.

Do you filter the air? I'd try to minimize the possibility of cross-contamination as much as possible.

I have been using a yeast system stabilized by baking soda, which doesn't require daily changing (it lasts for about 2-3 weeks) after being told not to bother with the buckets or pucks because they were wastes of money. The system I bought was a hagen CO2 kit (bought it from petsmart, I believe for 20-30 bucks). It came with 3 sets of two packets, I think they are "activator" and "stabilizer". When I first read the instructions, I knew exactly what the activator was - yeast. The stabilizer was a bit of a mystery to me at the time, though it was a fine white powder, so I figured it was probably baking soda. When I ran out of the packets, I decided to do some research to see if I could save myself a lot of money. My intent is only to use this system for long enough to save up for a proper CO2 system (bottles) and a controller. I found out that I was correct, so I went and bought a bunch of "active dry" yeast, a thing of sugar (you add your own to the hagen system anyway), and a box of baking soda. Now all I do is add the sugar to the line, add an eighth of a tsp of yeast, a quarter tsp of baking soda (I think this is the right amount, I found it at one point and started to second guess my measurements, so I'll go double-check later), then fill to the second line with warm water. I've done a few bubble checks and it constantly releases bubbles every few seconds until the yeast start to run out of food and produce a nasty sulfur smell. I have avoided this by changing the solution more often. Since it's cheap, I don't bother adding more sugar or pouring off liquid, I just throw it all out, clean the container and start over.

Very low maintenance. I haven't tested the CO2 levels, so I can't say how effective it is, but it gives me peace of mind, and I did notice more stretching when it ran out (I didn't initially know that the sulfur smell was bad), but when I refilled it started to produce more branches again. I'm definitely a believer in CO2

 

[Oldmac]

Hello *mistress*,

Here is the link to the referenced study. It is very technical so don't let the micro-moles bite your ankles.
Hope it helps, it is one of the best papers I've seen that is pretty current, 10/08.

 

[Oldmac]

Do you filter the air? I'd try to minimize the possibility of cross-contamination as much as possible.

I have been using a yeast system stabilized by baking soda, which doesn't require daily changing (it lasts for about 2-3 weeks) after being told not to bother with the buckets or pucks because they were wastes of money. The system I bought was a hagen CO2 kit (bought it from petsmart, I believe for 20-30 bucks). It came with 3 sets of two packets, I think they are "activator" and "stabilizer". When I first read the instructions, I knew exactly what the activator was - yeast. The stabilizer was a bit of a mystery to me at the time, though it was a fine white powder, so I figured it was probably baking soda. When I ran out of the packets, I decided to do some research to see if I could save myself a lot of money. My intent is only to use this system for long enough to save up for a proper CO2 system (bottles) and a controller. I found out that I was correct, so I went and bought a bunch of "active dry" yeast, a thing of sugar (you add your own to the hagen system anyway), and a box of baking soda. Now all I do is add the sugar to the line, add an eighth of a tsp of yeast, a quarter tsp of baking soda (I think this is the right amount, I found it at one point and started to second guess my measurements, so I'll go double-check later), then fill to the second line with warm water. I've done a few bubble checks and it constantly releases bubbles every few seconds until the yeast start to run out of food and produce a nasty sulfur smell. I have avoided this by changing the solution more often. Since it's cheap, I don't bother adding more sugar or pouring off liquid, I just throw it all out, clean the container and start over.

Very low maintenance. I haven't tested the CO2 levels, so I can't say how effective it is, but it gives me peace of mind, and I did notice more stretching when it ran out (I didn't initially know that the sulfur smell was bad), but when I refilled it started to produce more branches again. I'm definitely a believer in CO2

Hey darookie2000,

I don't use filters between the rooms, my grow space is extremely clean and sterile. The incomming air to my grow area runs thru a very large hepa grade filtering system that is nuclear particule rated....my grow space is an old fall-out shelter. I stopped using tank/emitter system when I could no longer (I'm old) hump the tanks up and down to the shelter. Then I went to the suger/yeast in a jug untill a few years ago I came across the "fizz" pucks. Not as cheap as the tank/emitter but less then the CO2 bucket. Added plus is the pucks smell like eucylptus

In a parterned grow we still use the sugar/yeast in jugs method, and when temps start to get high like in the summer we just add more jugs. I find they last 7-10 days by adding a few sugar cubes every few days. Small hassle but very cost effective, plus I usually make my partner do it.

Sounds like you figured out a cheap way to refill the hagen co2 kit, nice work. I had never heard of using baking soda to stabilize it, I may have to do a few experiments. And you (and someone before mentioned) are right about the need for a good controller when using a tank/emitter set up. I'll probably go that route in the partnered grow when we can get other issues and problems sorted out. It's a fairly new, fast and cheap grow we have going now. Good luck and good growing.

 

[*mistress*]

Hello *mistress*,

Here is the link to the referenced study. It is very technical so don't let the micro-moles bite your ankles.
Hope it helps, it is one of the best papers I've seen that is pretty current, 10/08.

have gandered @ a few tech articles here & there... micro-moles as in photons hitting leaves & being measured... or micro moles of a nutrient... these should help explain umols, relevant to light:
lighting conversion data
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=108993

&

This is a gold mine of cannabis growing laboratory research
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=127379

enjoy your garden!

 

[Oldmac]

Hey *mistress*,

I had no trouble with the light conversion since I've been experimenting with and using LEDs for the last few years now. It was the damn CO2 converstions I needed to get help with, but my oldest grandaughter is in college, with science as a second major, and she managed to pull gramps thu it.

Thanks for those two threads, looks like the one was discussing this same paper.LOL

good luck and good growing

 

[sparkjumper]

Links,pics I have to laugh at times but its no wonder so many folks dont even come here to share experience anymore.What I suggest to all of you is very simple.Getcha some RAE systems co2 tubes for 5 bucks apiece and check your levels about 4 times throughout the day.If you don't believe you have to stay in that 1500PPM range without fluctuation of more than 200PPM for actual results,I dont know what to say.Its a shame though when you're just trying to tell people look I've already done all of this dont waste your time too,people just want to se pics haha.And for those that are saying 3-400 dollars is a lot to put into your grow and you are actually expecting results well..we live on different planets.A controller for 400 bucks meant the difference to me in lbs in my 8 by 8 room.After a few years of flowering blockhead on a cyclestat what a waste when all I needed to do was spend 400 bucks on a true controller.Then I really saw what blockhead could do