View Full Version : Is lighting related to the need for co2?
Jspigs
10-20-2009, 8:35 PM
Is lighting related to the need to inject co2? If so I have 3.6 watts per gallon on a ten gallon planted tank, do I need to inject co2?
froglover007
10-20-2009, 8:47 PM
No it is not, however once you get to a certain point the lighting will not make a difference and no matter how bright it is the plants will not grow any faster. In other words, once lighting reaches a certain point it will have no effect unless you inject Co2. I do not know if Co2 is necessary for such a small tank.
True but! The more light without Co2 is a recipe for a serious algae breakout.
As for the Op, lighting is different for small tanks for instance I have a 27watt Home depot Cfl over my 5.5 and I can really only grow low to mid plants no carpets...
Nanos don't hold the standard WPG rule I believe.
If you don't plan on adding Co2 just cut the photo period and use Excel if you feel the need.
stratusfearrr
10-20-2009, 9:39 PM
like mott said, the general wpg rule doesnt really apply to small tanks. If you want, you could use a liquid co2 (seachem flourish excel).
jpappy789
10-20-2009, 11:15 PM
I would consider 36w over a 10 gallon to be medium lighting. No need for pressurized CO2 but I would highly suggest adding some form of carbon.
Jspigs
10-21-2009, 3:36 PM
I heard that Flourish Excel melts some kinds of plants, what kind of plants does it melt?
bazil323
10-21-2009, 4:10 PM
Vals for one. I'm not sure of what others, except that subwassertang always dies within a week or two on my 2.5g that I dose with Excel, but it is doing just fine in my 20g and 75g that I do nothing with (other than WCs and fish stuff of course).
jpappy789
10-21-2009, 4:29 PM
At full dose, vals and I've heard cases of anacharis also being a problem.
Jspigs
10-21-2009, 5:00 PM
are vals fully or semi-aquatic?
coach_z
10-21-2009, 5:16 PM
WPG is not necessarily accurate to begin with but can be used as a general rule of thmb to describe lighting....
WPG becomes extremly inaccurate when you start talking about small tanks or very large tanks.
Excel may harm vals, anarchis some mosses and some ferns, you can google it to find the info.
The point at which you need co2 is a fine line IMHO. i run 2.5wpg on my tnak and if i need it kind of depends on the day...but i like it but i can also run 5WPG and i defiately need it.
generally...
more light = faster growth
faster growth = faster co2 uptake
faster growth + faster co2 uptake = faster nutrient uptake
faster nutrient uptake, growth, co2 uptake = more light
as you add more of one thing you need to consider the other important pieces of the puzzle.
jpappy789
10-21-2009, 6:00 PM
are vals fully or semi-aquatic?
Fully aquatic
Also another thing to keep in mind, especially for new folks to planted tanks. The limiting factor should always be the lighting. Purchase or build your CO2 system first, then worry about upgrading lighting.
Co2 at the highest fish-safe levels will even accelerate low/med light levels, basically the lighting should always be the gas pedal or catalyst in the equation.
jpappy789
10-21-2009, 10:35 PM
Agreed, Co2 is usually what is missing...not the light.
Jspigs
10-22-2009, 2:40 PM
So I should get some flourish excel? I am not able to inject co2 so if I am going to use co2 I would have to use flourish excel, I have checked and it is safe for all my plants.
P.S. This is urgent because my dad needs to know if I should get some so he can pick some up on his way home from work.
coach_z
10-22-2009, 2:49 PM
getting it and using it wont hurt so i guess he can pick it up for you...
plantbrain
10-22-2009, 6:55 PM
Adding CO2.............will most certainly improve growth at any light value that is able to grow plants at all, in fact, and it is a fact.............you are able to use less light and get more growth since the plant has a higher light use efficiency when you enrich CO2 than without.
So in other words, you can grow plants at lower light levels with CO2, than without.
Plants need to allocate less to acquiring CO2, and can therefore divert all resources to gathering what little light is available.
A good paper for hobbyist is on Tropica's web site.
Why do folks buy lots/too much light, then try and skirt and get by without adding CO2? It's not like this has not been mentioned by folks for decades now.
If you want good managed growth than you get without CO2, then add CO2, not more light.
Regards,
Tom Barr
coach_z
10-22-2009, 8:19 PM
hi tom!
Jspigs
10-23-2009, 2:26 PM
Well my dad could not find any Flourish Excel but this weekend we will got to a place that will probably have it.
Jspigs
10-24-2009, 8:59 PM
Today I went to my usual LFS (the other ones I mentioned are chain stores that we don't usually go to) and got some Flourish Excel and put the recommended amount in so we will see how it goes.
Dr. Awkward
10-24-2009, 11:02 PM
Maybe you could try Excel for a couple weeks and do a before and after picture. Then stop the Excel and try DIY CO2 for a couple weeks and compare.
This is kind of what I did, minus the before and after pictures, and I could not believe how much better the plants grew with CO2 vs. Excel. The Excel kept the algae away but not much else. The CO2 increased the growth significantly and kept the algae away, a little better than the Excel did. The growth is crazy and I spend a lot more time pruning than I'd like but it looks awesome.
It really depends on how often you want to trim the plants but adding carbon will help you either way. Maybe you could run CO2 until you got to the growth amount you want, then switch back over to Excel.
Jspigs
10-25-2009, 11:28 AM
I thought about using DIY co2 but I decided that was a little advanced for me (having to deal with pH change, etc.)