I've got pretty basic LED's on my planted tanks. I leave them on 10-12 hours and dose ferts.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Just starting out
- Thread starter mgm007
- Start date
This is going to be difficult if not impossible for any of us to answer unless you can decide on CO2 or not first. Lighting must be balanced with the available nutrients of which CO2 (carbon) is one, otherwise you will have a tank of algae with either too little or too much light.
If you are going to have diffused CO2, you will need brighter light to balance, and more regular fertilization (daily in most cases, generally using dry ferts as they are less expensive). But if you do not intend diffused CO2, then you want moderate lighting, and this will balance the natural CO2 plus added fertilizer such as a comprehensive liquid maybe once a week. The latter is the method I use, and this is referred to as low-tech or natural compared to high-tech.
Lighting units are expensive, and knowing what you need is essential to find the best.
Aquatic plants will photosynthesize (which is how they grow) as much as they can provided everything they need is available. Photosynthesis is driven by light. Adequate light intensity (spectrum also plays into this somewhat) plus all 17 nutrients, CO2 being one as I said. If any one of these is missing, plants will slow photosynthesis and may cease altogether, and that is when algae takes advantage. This works in all methods of planted tanks; the level of balance must be there. Too little light for the available nutrients, and plants cannot use the nutrients so algae does; too much light without sufficient nutrients in balance and plants cannot use the light and algae does. I have had both cases in my tanks, until I worked out the balance, which in my case is mainly duration since the nutrients and light intensity are in balance.
Unfortunately there are no reliable "guides" to light these days. This is because of the technical advances in lighting that make such across-the-board terms meaningless. Watts per gallon 20+ years ago was somewhat of a reliable comparison because all fluorescent lighting was T12. But today we have T8, T5, and now LED, and these can produce very wide ranges of light with varying energy needs, even within the same type, and watts is simply the measurement of energy needed for the particular tube or bulb.
Byron.
My apologies. I didn't realize that the choice of CO2 additive changed the lighting requirement so much. For my first attempt at this I've decided to go with Flourish Excel rather the diffused CO2. Given that, you mentioned a comprehensive liquid fertilizer that you use. Which one do you use? I was planning on using the below guide (found in the sticky above) and purchasing the dry fertilizer from aquariumfertilizer.com (also recommended in the sticky). Is that guide more geared towards high tech set ups?
20-40 Gallons
1/4 tsp KNO3 3x a week
1/16 tsp KH2PO4 3x a week
1/16 tsp K2SO4 3x a week
1/16 tsp (5ml) traces 3x a week
20-40 Gallons
1/4 tsp KNO3 3x a week
1/16 tsp KH2PO4 3x a week
1/16 tsp K2SO4 3x a week
1/16 tsp (5ml) traces 3x a week
Excel=/= Co2...which is fine if you are intending to not have higher lighting.
Contrary to a prior post saying there are no guides to lighting these days....there actually is. PAR. Only problem with it is that many fixtures do not have PAR data available without really looking. Search around TpT, there are many threads there with PAR values for many different lights. That being said...you yourself would want something around 30 par if you aren't doing co2 and are newer to planted tanks. This lands you safely in the mid to low range of lighting, which many plants will still grow fine under.
The thing you posted is more geared towards a high tech setup, but its pretty easy to adjust that to a lower tech setup. Basically, just start by cutting all of those amounts in half, and then increasing or decreasing specific nutrients from there in response to plant growth. Although, personally, I think there are better methods of fertilization for one who is starting out.
For starters, I would recommend having a nutritious substrate to begin with. Such as mineralized top soil (if you have the time and means to read how to make that...or if you find someone selling it) or using organic potting mix and dealing with the nutrients spikes and longer cycling, topped with sand. Alternatively, if you want to spend some real $$$ there is ADA Amazonia, which is a wonderful substrate, but is hard to find and is pretty **** expensive. However it has a lot of nutrients in it and could sustain a tank for a decently long amount of time, especially if the tank is low tech. You will however have a long cycle due to it releasing a lot of ammonia for the first month or two, and it will require a lot of water changes before it is really cycled and safe for livestock (although plants can and should be added immediately when cycling a tank, provided you have the nutrients and lighting for the plants).
If you had a good substrate, you could then get away with doing liquid ferts. Dry ferts cost significantly less yes, but liquid ferts are for convenience. In a smaller tank like yours, it would be easy to accidentally dose more than you meant to if dosing dry. However, you could buy dry ferts and then make your own mixtures, which is what I would recommend doing, but I forget how accurate of a measuring device you need in order to reliably do that.
Long story short is, before doing a planted tank, I recommend RESEARCH above all else. Its VERY VERY easy to make a mistake early on and jump the gun and end up dealing with something dumb like algae and the like. There are also a lot of myths in the hobby about aquarium plants...its really a specific subset of people that are great at plants, and most of those folk keep the plants as priority over the fish (some are actually not that great at fish keeping but very good at plant keeping...different hobbies really).
Contrary to a prior post saying there are no guides to lighting these days....there actually is. PAR. Only problem with it is that many fixtures do not have PAR data available without really looking. Search around TpT, there are many threads there with PAR values for many different lights. That being said...you yourself would want something around 30 par if you aren't doing co2 and are newer to planted tanks. This lands you safely in the mid to low range of lighting, which many plants will still grow fine under.
The thing you posted is more geared towards a high tech setup, but its pretty easy to adjust that to a lower tech setup. Basically, just start by cutting all of those amounts in half, and then increasing or decreasing specific nutrients from there in response to plant growth. Although, personally, I think there are better methods of fertilization for one who is starting out.
For starters, I would recommend having a nutritious substrate to begin with. Such as mineralized top soil (if you have the time and means to read how to make that...or if you find someone selling it) or using organic potting mix and dealing with the nutrients spikes and longer cycling, topped with sand. Alternatively, if you want to spend some real $$$ there is ADA Amazonia, which is a wonderful substrate, but is hard to find and is pretty **** expensive. However it has a lot of nutrients in it and could sustain a tank for a decently long amount of time, especially if the tank is low tech. You will however have a long cycle due to it releasing a lot of ammonia for the first month or two, and it will require a lot of water changes before it is really cycled and safe for livestock (although plants can and should be added immediately when cycling a tank, provided you have the nutrients and lighting for the plants).
If you had a good substrate, you could then get away with doing liquid ferts. Dry ferts cost significantly less yes, but liquid ferts are for convenience. In a smaller tank like yours, it would be easy to accidentally dose more than you meant to if dosing dry. However, you could buy dry ferts and then make your own mixtures, which is what I would recommend doing, but I forget how accurate of a measuring device you need in order to reliably do that.
Long story short is, before doing a planted tank, I recommend RESEARCH above all else. Its VERY VERY easy to make a mistake early on and jump the gun and end up dealing with something dumb like algae and the like. There are also a lot of myths in the hobby about aquarium plants...its really a specific subset of people that are great at plants, and most of those folk keep the plants as priority over the fish (some are actually not that great at fish keeping but very good at plant keeping...different hobbies really).
First on the Excel, I cannot recommend this. It consists of glutaraldehyde (and water), and this is a very toxic disinfectant used in hospitals, anti-freeze, embalming fluid, and elsewhere to kill bacteria. Even when used at the dose recommended on the label, it usually kills Vallisneria and some mosses outright. If it should be overdosed, it can kill plants, fish and bacteria. Given that there is a fair bit of CO2 naturally occurring, this risk seems unwise. And, it will again raise the balance with the light and other nutrients.
CO2 occurs mainly from the breakdown of organics by various bacteria (different from the nitrifying bacteria) in the substrate, less so in the filter, and on every surface on which a biofilm grows which is every surface under water. Respiration of fish, plants and some bacteria also produce CO2. There is sufficient in my tanks to allow me to have the light on for eight hours daily before it begins to give out. There is no doubt that some plants will be stronger/bushier/faster growing with CO2 added, but most will still thrive without it being added in any form. It really depends upon what sort of tank you want in the end. Just for illustration, I'll add a photo of my present 70g to show what is possible with a natural or low-tech approach.
On the comprehensive fertilizer, I use Seachem's Flourish Comprehensive Supplement, once a week. I used to use this twice a week, but began having brush algae issues in one or two tanks, so I experiemented and ended up with one dose of Comp and one of Flourish Trace weekly. This has worked better in my situation, but yours can be different depending upon your tap water (the "hard" minerals mainly occur here via water changes), fish load and feeding, plus of course the plant species. You may find once a week with Flourish Comp sufficient. Another near-identical product is Brightwell Aquatics' FlorinMulti. I have never bothered with the dry ferts because I use so little and buying the Comp and Trace in the largest jug is not expensive; I go through one jug of each in a year or longer, and I have six planted tanks running (a 115g, 90g, 70g, 33g, 20g and 10g). Given that Flourish Comp and the FlorinMulti basically contain all necessary nutrients in proportion as plants require (only carbon, oxygen and hydrogen are not included), this works easiest for me.
I've no experience with the dry, but I would expect that formula to be for high-tech systems. Overloading the tank with these nutrients if the plants do not need them will only cause terrible algae. You could perhaps reduce the dose, but you are still missing several micro-nutrients and as my use of Trace has proven to me, these are important.
Byron.
I've read a lot about many of these topics and I've never come across anything so negative about the Flourish Excel. Assuming I don't use that, what kind of light would be required and how long should it be on per day? Thanks for the info on the liquid fertilizers. That seems like themuch easier way to go.
HybridHerp and I were posting at the same time, and he/she has presented more good info. Except for the Excel, I agree, just so you know. PAR is something I have never bothered with simply for the reason given there, that many tubes/bulbs do not tell us this. However, it can help when you have it.
And the last point on "plant" aquarists or "fish" aquarists is certainly bang on. I belong to several planted tank forums but rarely am active as most of them are high-tech folks with beautiful planted tanks that have no fish (or very few). I am here for fish, and just like to see living plants enriching the aquascape without jeopardizing my fish. So to your light question. I am using all T8 lighting on my larger tanks, as I started these in the mid-1990's before LED was even heard of, and T5 HO is way too bright for my purposes. Getting T8 fixtures is next to impossible now, as it has been superceded by T5 (at least for those with marine setups or high-tech planted) and now LED which is much less costly to operate. LED is not inexpensive, and some of it is next to useless for planted tanks. But there are good fixtures, and I will leave that for other members who have the experience to recommend. Of course, you can make good use of shop lights from Home Depot and similar; I recently had to repair my T8 dual tube fixture over the five-foot tank, and found that pulling out the parts and screwing in a dual tube shop fixture for $30 solved my problem.
The duration depends again on that balance. Back in the 1990's my lights were on for 15 hours daily, and surprisingly I had no algae issues. More recently, I've had to reduce this and now (for the last five years) find eight hours daily to be it without algae increasing. I also keep the windows heavily covered during summer, as I discovered that the additional intensity and duration of daylight in summer affected the tanks with algae; this shows how finicky that balance can be. I would suggest starting around 8 hours, depending upon the fixture you go with. Intensity and duration are both important, but one does not compensate for the other except very minimally. Light that is too intense is going to be problematic whatever the duration, and light that is too weak cannot be compensated for by a longer photoperiod. And remember too that in a new set-up algae is more likely to be tropublesome for a couple months due to the imbalance biologically. Algae is always ready to take advantage of any shortcoming.
I'm fish first for sure and a healthy tank of live plants is obviously the best environment for fish. But I'm also obsessed with some of the beautiful aquascapes that I've been looking at. Do you think this light would be sufficient for what we've talked about?
Would it be overkill if I used a base of this organic potting soil and then topped it with this substrate?
I rather doubt it. I found the manufacturer's web site:
http://current-usa.com/aquarium-led-lights/satellite-freshwater-led/
but there is no data on the actual intensity of this light so nothing to base assessment on. No mention is made of plants in the data, which further leads me to think this might not be very bright. Don't let their "super bright" fool you, I have tried other fixtures claiming this and they were anything but bright for plants.
I tried a LED when my 5-foot fixture gave out, and had to sell it as it was no good; the aquarist who snapped it up knew what it was like, and actually wanted it, but not for plants. Anyway, he said Current do make a good plant light, so look around and you should find it. Quite expensive though, I believe.
Byron.
