# Kelvin and plants?



## MoneyMitch (1 Nov 2009)

ok guys so heres another one,

ive read that plants are more "sensitive" to red and blue than any other color or w/e. but that they can also adapt to any color you put them under. is this true or a myth? like can i get what ever lamp i want and throw it over a planted tank and as long as everything is in balance the plants will be fine regardless of the kelvin? 

and please i need to be able to have proof of this cause on another forum theres a guy that is bound and determined that you need those crazy "designer" bulbs that are very high in blue and red, when that i think is a myth and you can use ANY light and get the SAME results.

Thanks,
Mitch

wait heres a quote from his post,

_Howard, the info in the previous posts is very misleading if not totally inaccurate, as I intend to explain...yet again. Links to information as you asked for will be provided in what follows.

Photosynthesis uses light in the blue and red colours of the spectrum, and reflects light in the green. This is a scientific fact. The first link is to an article from the Tropica plant site in Denmark, written by three Europeans and which first appeared in the publication The Aquatic Gardner, volume 20(2), 2007, pp. 26-35. The Aquatic Gardners' Society is highly respected in the field of aquatic plants, and Tropica Nursery is similar, employing professional botanists who understand plants. This is an excellent article on this subject.
Tropica

The second link is to an exchange on the forum of Acquatic Plant Central but the first post is very detailed, and others follow (for 11 pages).

Lighting Spectrum and Photosythesis - Lighting - Aquatic Plant Central

I could cite dozens similar. My conclusion is simple from the facts. Plants most need blue and red light, they reflect green. But blue and red alone creates a purplish hue to the aquarium which does not render true colour of plants and fish. Adding the green balances. Full spectrum best achieves this. The sun at mid-day has a colour temperature of around 5500K, so a tube close to this will probably be natural, although they can vary because of particular emphasis in the manufacture.

Where there are two tubes over a tank, one can mix a full spectrum with a cool white to achieve what scientific studies have determined is the best light for plant growth. In a test that I mentioned in another thread, plants responded with the best growth to a mix of full spectrum and cool white, second best to cool white alone, and third best to warm white alone. The evidence speaks for itself. The test appeared in the July 1987 issue of FAMA, in an article by K. Richards, pp. 16-20, and was cited in Diana Walstad's book, Ecology of the Planted Aquarium, should you want to track it down.

All of these findings over more than 20 years agree on the science and hundreds of aquarists have observed the obvious results of following the advice. If you want to see my tanks as proof, check the photos under My Aquariums. This is what some term low-tech, I prefer the term "natural" aquarium because it makes the most use of nature with the least amount of interference by the aquarist. If you are aiming for a similar style of planted aquarium, it is easy to achieve at little expense.

To your initial question, 96 watts over a 50g is high light in my view; I would aim for no more than 1 watt per gallon without CO2 which is what I have over my three tanks. The plants that will thrive under this system are the majority; those few others such as some of the grass substrate covers and such need more, and probably benefit from added CO2. What you need to spend on paraphernalia depends upon the type of tank you want in the end.

Byron._


----------



## Jack middleton (1 Nov 2009)

You have just taken the words out of my mouth, i was about to post the same thing


----------



## MoneyMitch (1 Nov 2009)

yeah the info byron posted is like 20 something years old.. going to wait for proof before i get into it with him lol


----------



## baron von bubba (1 Nov 2009)

i've given up on that forum!
basically its.
this is what i've done for twenty years and i'm not open to new ideas, techniques or research
the same guy still says nitrates cause algae!
who ya gonna believe mitch! ;0)


----------



## Jack middleton (1 Nov 2009)

I'm tired of him, and- people are taking his ancient advice because:
A. he is a moderator
B. he has been keeping fish for 20 years
C. his posts are lengthy and are full of ambiguous drivel 
D. He quotes people that have admitted they're wrong!


----------



## Mark Evans (1 Nov 2009)

Jack middleton said:
			
		

> I'm tired of him, and- people are taking his ancient advice because:
> A. he is a moderator
> B. he has been keeping fish for 20 years
> C. his posts are lengthy and are full of ambiguous drivel
> D. He quotes people that have admitted they're wrong!



you get this on_ every_ forum. believe me!


----------



## baron von bubba (1 Nov 2009)

i've yet to see a tom barr quote i must admit. ;0)


----------



## Mark Evans (1 Nov 2009)

i think it's more a case of experimenting and finding out what's good for the individual, rather than the individual looking for the ultimate answer.


----------



## MoneyMitch (1 Nov 2009)

but just to debunk things HERE plants can use anything its just what YOU prefer right?


----------



## Mark Evans (1 Nov 2009)

MoneyMitch said:
			
		

> but just to debunk things HERE plants can use anything its just what YOU prefer right?



pretty much so, as long as things are 'balanced'


----------



## JamesC (1 Nov 2009)

saintly said:
			
		

> pretty much so, as long as things are 'balanced'


Exactly. Forget Kelvin numbers as they tell you very little to what spectrums the light contains. Nearly all fluorescent tubes contain a variety of wavelengths which is why you can use any old tube to grow plants. Generally speaking plants use the red and blue wavelengths for photosynthesis, so as long as your tubes have these you can grow plants fine. It has been shown that under bright daylight sun some plants can use the green wavelength to a greater extent than the red and blue wavelengths. This is because green light is able to penetrate the leaf deeper. Not sure if this applies to aquarium plants as aquarium light is much much dimmer than sun light.
From personal experience I find that tubes with lots of blues and reds have worked best for me which is why I like Grolux tubes. Also daylight tubes with a high CRI work well compared to those with a low CRI as the low CRI ones tend to have loads of green with little red and blue.


----------



## Mark Evans (1 Nov 2009)

I to have tried virtually every lamp available to MA. there are some great T5 combos to give different looks. 



			
				JamesC said:
			
		

> lots of blues and reds have worked best for me



I'll second that too.

I'm in the 'amano' trap at the mo with 8000k green look. which i think may fade soon.


----------



## MoneyMitch (1 Nov 2009)

thtas what i thought , has anyone ever "tested" this? just would like some info to relate to before i prove this guy wrong. i can find things that say plants will use any light but nothing "specific" to aquatic plants.


----------



## baron von bubba (2 Nov 2009)

couple of links may be good info in here somewhere.

http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/m ... 00359.html

http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Tech/light-spectrum.html


----------



## aaronnorth (2 Nov 2009)

this is a good read

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3972&start=20


----------



## baron von bubba (5 Nov 2009)

just as well i'd decided to stop posting there..................
just noticed, i've been banned!!!!


----------



## roadmaster (5 Nov 2009)

MoneyMitch said:
			
		

> thtas what i thought , has anyone ever "tested" this? just would like some info to relate to before i prove this guy wrong. i can find things that say plants will use any light but nothing "specific" to aquatic plants.



 Have read the other guys post and it would seem ,that others here agree that blue and red spectrum is  needed in some degree?


----------



## aaronnorth (5 Nov 2009)

baron von bubba said:
			
		

> just as well i'd decided to stop posting there..................
> just noticed, i've been banned!!!!



same  

i only posted 4 times, i showed him some science papers to go against his theory ad he didnt like it....


----------



## Jack middleton (5 Nov 2009)

I got banned too, wow and no reason! now theres a forum I won't be visiting again! Banned for expressing my opinion, they're a bunch of nazis.


----------



## baron von bubba (5 Nov 2009)

i can kinda understand me getting kicked as my last post was slightly antagonistic and arguementative. 
But i am slightly surprised at you two guys getting banned.
Especially arron, your posts were not really argumentative and were totally respectfull. 
Oh well.....


----------

