So that isn't your tank? I'm confused. You did an ADA tank in their gallery?
The little sign that says "do not open, ask for assistance" is confusing.
The little sign that says "do not open, ask for assistance" is confusing.
ADA low light tank, no you do not "need" high light
- Thread starter plantbrain
- Start date
Yes, precisely.
You get more out of adding CO2 than you do adding more light as far as plant growth, even at low levels, say 1 w/gal etc of PC or T5 lighting.
Regards,
Tom Barr
PPMN
Who could resist this face??
Nope, it's not my tank.It's sitting at Aqua Forest. I stop in every so often and talk to Steve. I have a light meter and measure things. I do not just test and measure my own tanks(not that you implied that).
Who's tank it is really does not matter, the dosing routine etc, all that matters here is that this is yet another example that you do not need high light to grow nice scapes, nor foregound plants.
They have some issues with algae but a little trimming and more CO2 helped that. Their other tanks are also considerbly lower light as well. While they have MH's on them, they are about 15-16" above the tank. This is a mere 5".
Using a water proof PAR light meter can tell you precisely what the light levels really are in standard units right at the location of the plant.
Then you know and understand what drives the system and can compare the results from good stable long term tanks.
Applying that data to client's tanks you immediately see why and how the tank was balanced easier with light manipulation/reduction.
For all the banter about testing and measurement, how the W/gal rule is flawed, I suppose I am the only one out there with a PAR light meter doing comparisons. Same is true for O2.
Both are very important when comparing things such as plant growth and algae and energy added to the system.
However, at a basic here's an example level: 1.5 w/gal of T5 lighting is about all most will ever need for most every goal.
If plant farming is you bag, go ahead, play with 3-5w/gal, but the higher light systems are terrible for scaping. Steve says so, Amano does, David Oliver, Mike and Jeff Senske, George Booth, myself, Karen Randall.
It's pretty well accepted.
Can you do it with high light?
Yes.
But it's easier with less.
As far as your goals, yes, that works well for you, and you are interested in both methods. Still, you may want to re evaluate the lower end and see how low you can limbo
A lot of folks are rediscovering what some have been telling folks all along.
It's less work and you get great results. I fully understand this might not be your goal for every tank, yet you must admit it is for many folks.
I see many folks get bulldogged into buying a high light tank, or using CO2, when their goals are not line with such equipment. Then they suffer.
They can go there later if they chose, no issue there, I encourage that as well, but I think starting out with a nice example and low light is a good approach and ensures a higher success rate than high light.
I have high light tanks also, I had 6 non CO2 tanks, a marine macro tank etc, but those are gone.
I have some new things coming up with lighting not done in this hobby yet for lighting for my own personal goals and system for my new home.
Moving lights.
Regards,
Tom Barr
ADA stands for Aquarium Design Amano, which is a namebrand for premium products backed by Takashi Amano. Amano is one of the most highly regarded aquascapers and made popular the "nature aquarium" style of aquascape.
This is the ADA gallery. Its not a store front but an art gallery. This is also where the design and test their products.http://akuatic.no.sapo.pt/Nature Aquarium Gallery/a.html
Tom,
I want you to know that I agree with you completely that for most people and in most cases a lower light set up is the best way to go.
FishMatty,
I know you likke high light:headbang2:
I do as well, and in some cases, it's worth the trade offs and for some folks, is fun.
I started using high light with another purpose many years ago, to find out how fast and under what conditions non limiting growth occurs. How fast can we grow plants?
Simple question.
To do so, you need non limiting light, 600-800 micro moles of lighting.
That's a lot.
5-6 wgal of PC lighting with reflectors in a 16" deep tank near the surface is about 1/2 that.
Why did I chose high light?
I was measuring uptake rates and seeing if I could destabilize a tank with nutrients/CO2 at the time.
I reasons that with very high light, this would occur faster and this part is true.
As far as scaping, various methods etc, they all work better and you have more wiggle room with less lighting.
If you have good success with dosing say 1/4 teaspoon daily of KNO3 on a 90 gallon tank with 3-4 w/gal on T5's and then move to 1.5 w/gal of T5s, you still do not need that much KNO3 obvously, nor as much CO2 to get the same results.
If you keep adding it, that's fine also, but you do not need it and it's easier to tend any tank that uses less. Common sense apllies.
As you add more light, more CO2....... you add more nutrients.
But this example is to show you can have those nice scapes folks druel over with rather modest lighting, T5's are very efficicent and nice for planted tanks, giving better spread/evenness than PC and better wattage options on the lower end.
Adding "just enough" lighting is not a bad idea.
It makes the most sense out of any of the parameters we might control.
Still, you may have different goals than this, folks should respect those goals that others have and offer methods to get there with less pain.
I might have a goal that wants to slow down growth and do it with nutrients instead, however, still havign high CO2/lighting etc , it all goes to waste because we are not using it 100%, since the plant is limited, say by PO4, it cannot fully use the CO2 or light.
That is wasteful in terms of electric blls, cost etc and more light always = faster algae gowth as well.
So I can still achieve that gaol of slower growth using lighting, because it makes more sense and is far far less labor/no testing-monitoring/removers etc to achieve that same goal with.
I get more stability.
Regards,
Tom Barr
I know you likke high light:headbang2:
I do as well, and in some cases, it's worth the trade offs and for some folks, is fun.
I started using high light with another purpose many years ago, to find out how fast and under what conditions non limiting growth occurs. How fast can we grow plants?
Simple question.
To do so, you need non limiting light, 600-800 micro moles of lighting.
That's a lot.
5-6 wgal of PC lighting with reflectors in a 16" deep tank near the surface is about 1/2 that.
Why did I chose high light?
I was measuring uptake rates and seeing if I could destabilize a tank with nutrients/CO2 at the time.
I reasons that with very high light, this would occur faster and this part is true.
As far as scaping, various methods etc, they all work better and you have more wiggle room with less lighting.
If you have good success with dosing say 1/4 teaspoon daily of KNO3 on a 90 gallon tank with 3-4 w/gal on T5's and then move to 1.5 w/gal of T5s, you still do not need that much KNO3 obvously, nor as much CO2 to get the same results.
If you keep adding it, that's fine also, but you do not need it and it's easier to tend any tank that uses less. Common sense apllies.
As you add more light, more CO2....... you add more nutrients.
But this example is to show you can have those nice scapes folks druel over with rather modest lighting, T5's are very efficicent and nice for planted tanks, giving better spread/evenness than PC and better wattage options on the lower end.
Adding "just enough" lighting is not a bad idea.
It makes the most sense out of any of the parameters we might control.
Still, you may have different goals than this, folks should respect those goals that others have and offer methods to get there with less pain.
I might have a goal that wants to slow down growth and do it with nutrients instead, however, still havign high CO2/lighting etc , it all goes to waste because we are not using it 100%, since the plant is limited, say by PO4, it cannot fully use the CO2 or light.
That is wasteful in terms of electric blls, cost etc and more light always = faster algae gowth as well.
So I can still achieve that gaol of slower growth using lighting, because it makes more sense and is far far less labor/no testing-monitoring/removers etc to achieve that same goal with.
I get more stability.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Bravo Tom- its about time that somebody with a plant rep posted about what I call "over lighting". I see the same trend with folks, especially those just starting out with plants, buying tons of watts, injected co2 etc and then wondering why they can't get their tanks to look like the pics they see from folks like you. Wondering why they have rampant algae and other problems.
One of my greatest criticisms of plant info sites is that most never make it clear exactly how much work and cost is involved in maintaining a high light tank. Unless one has the time and energy needed to keep these looking great, they are far better off going with the kind of setups you are discussing here.
I liken setting up one's first planted tank as a high light, pressurized co2 added regularly dosed tank as learning to drive for the first time at the Indy 500.
One of my greatest criticisms of plant info sites is that most never make it clear exactly how much work and cost is involved in maintaining a high light tank. Unless one has the time and energy needed to keep these looking great, they are far better off going with the kind of setups you are discussing here.
I liken setting up one's first planted tank as a high light, pressurized co2 added regularly dosed tank as learning to drive for the first time at the Indy 500.
This has been trend for about 10 years now but it's really an issue with this:the group of folks supporting PPS and "less is better" have a conflict in their logic. I have no issue with a method that adds ferts, I have an issue when they say you "cannot have enough light in a tank", even the highest powered lighting available today...... that's straight from the horse's mouth.
Why add "just enough" when it comes to fertilizer when you adde Excess light and Excess CO2?
Light drives CO2 uptake, which drives nutrient uptake.
Light causes algae to grow and more light = more algae.
If you reduce the light, then you have less demand for CO2 and for nutrients, this is supported by research, by testing, and by logic.
It makes far far more sense to limit light. It's easy to control, far easier than CO2 or NO3 levels certainly.
If you chose to use the concept less is more, then it should apply to CO2 and to lighting, not just plants. Daily dosing for what the plants need is hardly a new idea, PMDD and adding some PO4 in there is a rather old idea.
But unlike PMDD, which used low light, 1.5-2w/gal on Normal FL's, folks today use all sorts of high powered lighting and then get algae.
Dosing alone is only 1/3 of the plant growth.
CO2 and Light are the other 2/3rds.
If you also accept less is better as a concept, then adding any CO2 would be considered unwise and bad for fish.
Just like adding "excess levels" of NO3...........why they chose to address only part of that is beyond me while suggesting high light is great.
Bad idea, you and anyone that helps folks with algae on these forums knows it too.
Still, ADA, myself, most everyone else, EI, non CO2, Marine systems even, less light is certainly easier to manage.
And easy management and nice tanks that require less labor are general goals folks have.
Who wants to do lots of extra work with little gain to show for it?
To experiment?
I mean it's not hard to predict that more light = more CO2 demand.
Nor more light and CO2 = higher nutrient uptake rates.
But where does photosynthesis start?
Light.
Amen!
Yes, the old car analogy is an oldie but goodie.
Some folks have to learn the hard way though.
I was, well, honestly, I still am, the type that has to learn the hard way but I like exploring things and asking questions like how low can we go and still have a decent method that we can manage?
How much can we add where it hits that point of diminishing returns?
What are the upper limits?
I do not make assumptions like 30ppm NO3 is bad for fish, or that less than 2 w/gal is too low to grow nice tanks with nice scapes.
I add and test and see. I'm much more empirical about all that.
That way the evidence and results from such test lead me to the conclusion, not having a conclusion first, then trying to find the facts to suport it.
Making poor assumptions get us into trouble and lead folks down the path of frustration.
High light is one such path for many.
Later, folks may want to explore high light, or non CO2, or marine, or breeding, or more scapes with art as the goal.
But for ease of care and success rates over longer time frames: lower light works wonderfully, as logn as they are the same terms for say normal output lighting vs T5's and PC;s and MH's etc.
That causes some confusion as well.
I just use a light meter and can know precisely what the limits are and the ranges provided by various set ups like this ADA tank.
Then I'm not guessing and making poor asumptions.
Regards,
Tom Barr
www.BarrReport.com
Regards,
Tom Barr
PPMN
Who could resist this face??
WOW.:thud:
That link is AMAZING!!! Where have I been? Thank you!!! (you too phanmc)
