Everyone is right ...

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Plants don't need high light to grow well, nor do they - in a densely planted aquarium - require high light to saturate the water column with DO.

I use a slightly different approach to light intensity. I use whatever lamp I have to hand and <"use it on a 12 hour day">. I always have a floating plant as my initial layer, how complete their coverage is depends upon the incident light intensity.

As light intensity increases the volume of plants (and their density) increases, until we reach a state where all available PAR is utilised. It means that the bottoms of all my tanks are <"dark and gloomy places">, and most of them don't have any <"swimming space">.

I realise that this approach <"isn't going to work for every-one"> (Iwagumi is a non starter).

cheers Darrel

 

[Wookii]

Hi all,

I use a slightly different approach to light intensity. I use whatever lamp I have to hand and <"use it on a 12 hour day">. I always have a floating plant as my initial layer, how complete their coverage is depends upon the incident light intensity.

As light intensity increases the volume of plants (and their density) increases, until we reach a state where all available PAR is utilised. It means that the bottoms of all my tanks are <"dark and gloomy places">, and most of them don't have any <"swimming space">.

I realise that this approach <"isn't going to work for every-one"> (Iwagumi is a non starter).

cheers Darrel

But what lights would you typically have to hand Darrel?

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

But what lights would you typically have to hand Darrel?

A mixture Of T5, T8 and LEDs now, all the older ones are <"grow lights">. Originally I used <"400W Son-T grow lights">, which were incredibly bright (and hot etc.)

cheers Darrel

 

[Wookii]

Hi all,

A mixture Of T5, T8 and LEDs now, all the older ones are "grow lights". Originally I used <"400W Son-T grow lights">, which were incredibly bright (and hot etc.)

cheers Darrel

Lol fair enough - I couldn't imagine putting one of those 400 Watt lights (60,000 lumens apparently) above any tank of mine for 12 hours a day without it being a complete disaster 😂 Your green fingers are something of legend Darrel.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

above any tank of mine for 12 hours a day without it being a complete disaster

When we did the waste water work some of the tanks (plastic containers) were just filled with green algae (filamentous and phytoplankton), when you scooped it out there wasn't really any water, just a huge gelatinous mass of algae. The tanks with higher plants eventually cleared, but there was still a lot of filamentous algae attached to the Phragmites etc stems.

The nature of some of the waste water made it pretty inhospitable to invertebrates, so snails and Asellus weren't an option. There was also the heat issue in the summer, with water temperature of ~40oC.

Your green fingers are something of legend

No, I really don't have green fingers. If you can get enough plants in active growth you can clean up nearly anything. There is a lot of scientific research in the tropics on using Eichornia crassipes (a <"turned up to eleven plant">) with <"abattoir wastes">, <"raw sewage"> etc.

cheers Darrel

 

[JoshP12]

I think promoting or pursuing 'high light' as an objective, and certainly recommending to beginners, is a complete folly.

Want to join me in a pro/con list of using high light vs low light (been meaning to sit down and draft one myself)? To qualify the terms let's go ahead and say high light > 75 PAR and low light is 25 PAR (measurement from substrate and let's forget spectrum for now). The classically quotely all you need is 50 PAR so lets call that medium?

The rest of your post is excellent and I need to leave in a few minutes so will read through and comment unhastily soon 🙂.



Josh

 

[Wookii]

Want to join me in a pro/con list of using high light vs low light (been meaning to sit down and draft one myself)? To qualify the terms let's go ahead and say high light > 75 PAR and low light is 25 PAR (measurement from substrate and let's forget spectrum for now). The classically quotely all you need is 50 PAR so lets call that medium?

PAR values are of course, the only real accurate way to measure the output of an aquarium light on a planted tank, however comparing theoretical values like these are of little help unless we can actually relate that to what we typically achieve from commonly used light fittings in a practical application.

You highlight (no pun intended) a difference in perception of what is high light straight off the bat though. Darrel's example aside, I would consider high light being well over 100 PAR. Taking modern lights often used on high-tech tanks (after a quick search around): A Vivid II at 100% is 270 PAR at 50cm, ADA Solar RGB is over 200 PAR at 40cm, a WRGB II is 120 PAR at 55cm, a Twinstar SA is 165 PAR at 46cm . . . (one caveat being I have no idea if these value are taken on a comparable basis, e.g. in air or water etc etc, but they give a general idea). There are more real world measurements here: 2Hr Aquarist

In practical terms then, I would say if a new aquarist with one of those lights at 100% on, say, a newly set-up 60p, without floating plants - that would be high light/excess light. To achieve the classic 50 PAR target you mention, they're going to have to dim those lights considerably. This is the practical message I was reaching for when I said:

I think promoting or pursuing 'high light' as an objective, and certainly recommending to beginners, is a complete folly. Excessive light is up there in the top three - alongside inadequate CO2 application and insufficient fertilizer dosing - as predominant causes of planted aquarium issues for beginners.

I run the Vivid II on around 50%-60% around 40cm above a 40cm deep tank, maybe about 12cm substrate at the rear, so around 68cm to substrate, and from experience that is more than sufficient to grow the high light plants I have tried on a mature tank with minimal algae, but then its still probably around 90-100 PAR (extrapolated, inverse square law and all that - and if the Chihiros PAR values are to be believed). Now I have recently removed all the high light loving stems, and let floating plants cover the surface - I've no idea how much the light has reduced as a result, but it's likely significant, and that is more than sufficient for the low light plants I have remaining (crypts, echinodorus, anubias, buce etc).

 

[MichaelJ]

I think promoting or pursuing 'high light' as an objective, and certainly recommending to beginners, is a complete folly. Excessive light is up there in the top three - alongside inadequate CO2 application and insufficient fertilizer dosing - as predominant causes of planted aquarium issues for beginners.

Speaking from personal experience I could not agree more. I've had planted tanks on-and-off over the years - some success some disasters without ever knowing why. (it was back in the 80-90ties before forums like this were available 🙂 ). Eventually I gave up plants (mostly) and for years only had big Cichlids (which would dig them up or tear them apart anyway ). When I rebooted the hobby a little over a year ago I really took the low light (intensity) and fertilization seriously and its been working out beautifully... especially after simplifying my water prep and realizing that even low stocked heavily planted tanks needs regular and big WC's 🙂

Anyway, sorry for interjecting... I have nothing to say about PAR - except that its too bad PAR meters are so expensive, and not available to most hobbyists. I guess we just have to rely on our eyes and see how the plants are doing 😉

Cheers,
Michael

 

[JoshP12]

PAR values are of course, the only real accurate way to measure the output of an aquarium light on a planted tank, however comparing theoretical values like these are of little help unless we can actually relate that to what we typically achieve from commonly used light fittings in a practical application.

You highlight (no pun intended) a difference in perception of what is high light straight off the bat though. Darrel's example aside, I would consider high light being well over 100 PAR. Taking modern lights often used on high-tech tanks (after a quick search around): A Vivid II at 100% is 270 PAR at 50cm, ADA Solar RGB is over 200 PAR at 40cm, a WRGB II is 120 PAR at 55cm, a Twinstar SA is 165 PAR at 46cm . . . (one caveat being I have no idea if these value are taken on a comparable basis, e.g. in air or water etc etc, but they give a general idea). There are more real world measurements here: 2Hr Aquarist

Wanted to keep the thread going in real time but can't sit quite yet to respond to all yet.

The pro/con list is the pith.

Here can be the categories:
1) Buy a light
2) Run it at 100%
3) dim it to 50%

Pro/Con list!

Josh

 

[sparkyweasel]

I suppose time, patience, itself is a lever as well hehehe.

Perhaps patience is your firm place to stand:

Give me a lever and a firm place to stand and I will move the whole world.
Archimedes.

 

[JoshP12]

Perhaps patience is your firm place to stand:

Give me a lever and a firm place to stand and I will move the whole world.
Archimedes.

With all due respect, I don't need to be told where my place to stand is.

And since you have quoted Archimedes, I am sure you will appreciate the following:

The rest of this thread can be left as an exercise to the reader.

Q.E.D

Cheers,
Josh

 

[John q]

Wanted to keep the thread going in real time but can't sit quite yet to respond to all yet.

The pro/con list is the pith.

Here can be the categories:
1) Buy a light
2) Run it at 100%
3) dim it to 50%

1) the light Is blahblahblahblah.
2) The light is to powerful for your needs.
3) The light is to weak.

I've a lot of time for your thesis, but to answer a question with a question, fails miserably imo.

My question to you is ... what's the benefits of putting 200 par on an aquatic plant.

 

[erwin123]

Want to join me in a pro/con list of using high light vs low light (been meaning to sit down and draft one myself)? To qualify the terms let's go ahead and say high light > 75 PAR and low light is 25 PAR (measurement from substrate and let's forget spectrum for now). The classically quotely all you need is 50 PAR so lets call that medium?

The rest of your post is excellent and I need to leave in a few minutes so will read through and comment unhastily soon 🙂.



Josh

1) the light Is blahblahblahblah.
2) The light is to powerful for your needs.
3) The light is to weak.

I've a lot of time for your thesis, but to answer a question with a question, fails miserably imo.

My question to you is ... what's the benefits of putting 200 par on an aquatic plant.

Very few fixtures can deliver 200 umol par (just call it par for short i guess) at substrate level in the usual sized tanks (eg: 40cm depth+). One presumes that most 'beginners' won't be purchasing such lights but instead will be using the normal twinstar or chihiros models in a single configuration.

The more intriguing question is JoshP's question... is there any reason to have 75 par and is there any benefit over 50 par or even 25 par? - as these are likely levels that are accessible to the typical beginner (myself including... still learning) with a 'normal' twinstar/chihiros light.

 

[jaypeecee]

I think promoting or pursuing 'high light' as an objective, and certainly recommending to beginners, is a complete folly. Excessive light is up there in the top three - alongside inadequate CO2 application and insufficient fertilizer dosing - as predominant causes of planted aquarium issues for beginners.

Hi Gareth (@Wookii) and Josh (@JoshP12)

I also think it very pertinent to take a look at the expert advice of @Christel. She favours emulating nature with a long photoperiod and a lower lighting intensity. Please take a look at her posts and people can see for themselves what she suggests/recommends.

JPC

 

[jaypeecee]

I have nothing to say about PAR - except that its too bad PAR meters are so expensive, and not available to most hobbyists.

Hi @MichaelJ

I wish I was a lot younger. I would seriously consider launching a budget PAR sensor.

JPC

 

[MichaelJ]

Hi @MichaelJ

I wish I was a lot younger. I would seriously consider launching a budget PAR sensor.

JPC

Hi @jaypeecee ,I do not know too much about the specifics that makes PAR meters so expensive, but for starters, I suppose the photodiode used in a PAR meter need to be very high precision in terms of sensitivity, response uniformity and linearity combined with the spectral selectivity of the optical filter for the range of interest (400-700 nm). The packaging and acquisition part and necessary electronics to drive that seems pretty straight forward though. Of course, the question is what level of precision we actually need as hobbyists to go about measuring PAR in an aquarium?

Cheers,
Michael

 

[JoshP12]

The more intriguing question is JoshP's question... is there any reason to have 75 par and is there any benefit over 50 par or even 25 par? - as these are likely levels that are accessible to the typical beginner (myself including... still learning) with a 'normal' twinstar/chihiros light.

My question to you is ... what's the benefits of putting 200 par on an aquatic plant.

1) Plant dependent ... but ignore that for now
2) More oxygen (provided ferts are present)
3) Plant can adapt for too much light (it is very hard to destroy plant tissue with our technology) ... change pigment composition, use more nutrients from roots, etc
4) Easier to dial in CO2 and not kill fish
5) Higher rate of nutrient consumption including ammonia etc ... keeps the column clean

The benefits are system and user oriented. Discussing specific values of PAR is irrelevant: buy a light run it full blast - finished. Further, using our experiences in an attempt to affirm our bias perpetuate myths - we need to go the other way: validating our experiences with a framework is what is needed. The more experiences we can explain/validate, the "potentially nicer" the framework.

Josh

 

[JoshP12]

Hi Gareth (@Wookii) and Josh (@JoshP12)

I also think it very pertinent to take a look at the expert advice of @Christel. She favours emulating nature with a long photoperiod and a lower lighting intensity. Please take a look at her posts and people can see for themselves what she suggests/recommends.

JPC

In her book, she has the preferences for every plant.

Her book is gold.

Her substrate/soil analysis … light/photoperiod tracking … water analysis …. Etc etc

 

[JoshP12]

Clause: You can manipulate and adapt any of these factors and obtain success as long as you accommodate the rest of the factors to suit your manipulation.

The criteria that yields highest probability for system-wide (fish, plants, etc etc) success:

Category	What to do	Justification
LIGHT Photoperiod	6-14 hour photoperiod	It really depends on plant choice (and intensity though photoperiod will not replace intensity) as it dictates food. I find 12 hours works well.
LIGHT Intensity	100% at lights on until lights off If ramping is a possibility: at most give a 30 minute ramp up and 30 minute ramp down.	Lights directly influence CO2 demand/consumption. Too much ramp and we have too much change on CO2 demand. This change means the injection rate is harder to set. Harder on fish. High light intensity means it is easier to dial in CO2 -- a 1/4 wheel turn can be MORE easily consumed at higher light rather than low light ... easier on fish. Plants will also cleanse the column.
CO2 Timing	With lights	The plant does not care what is in the column (20 ppm, 30 ppm, 70 ppm), they care about the gas trapped in their tissue. Yes, these are related. The plant takes time to begin photosynthesizing at “prime rate” (this can be noted with rapid increase in pH after about 3-5 hours from lights on. What the plant cares about is the rate of refreshing the nutrients (hence the demand for optimal flow mentioned later) -- If you start before lights, you have no customers for CO2 - though you are filling the tissues with gas due to pH drop - but that filling of tissues un necessarily puts fish exposed. Further, too high an injection rate and your fish won’t be able to keep up. Too low and the plants run out of CO2 … low O2 etc etc With lights means you customers IMMEDIATELY so you can pump MORE (faster refresh rate) CO2 without adjusting injection rate.
CO2 Injection rate/how to dial it in	You need to plummet pH down within at most 30 - 45 minutes.	The plant will empty it’s CO2 tissue within that time frame - so get the pH where it needs to be (this can be done by “eye/feel” by simply setting injection rate and watching the system, then turning it up a little and watching, then turning it up some more if the fish look affected in ANY way, then look at flow/reduce the injection rate etc etc etc). We can alleviate the time constraint by manipulating factors such as ferts: This will allow 1 hour, 2 hour time to drop etc … 24/7 injection … etc.
Substrate	Acidic/iron/nutrient rich/root tabs	Need a reserve as an option
Flow	Get it right (and hardscape influences it)	Not too fast or the plant can’t acquire nutrients/CO2 Not too slow or it won’t replenish it fast enough Needs to be uniform, high turnover, low velocity. Empiricism: watch the water move
FERTS: GH + K	If you can, aim for sacred Ca:K:Mg -- 3:2:1 30/20/10 +/- all of these by guess/error Dose up to these levels at water change If you can’t, have at least 20 K and 10 Mg but high extremes of Ca will affect plant forms of SOME but not all plants.	The idea here is to keep nutrient interactions, Coulomb’s law, at bay. Hence doing this ALL at water change
FERTS: NO3/PO4	At water change, dose to a target (maybe 6NO3, 3PO4 ... or full EI or whatever try Low N and high P ... ). Then daily smaller amounts: Ex: .5NO3, .3PO4 Use K as the cation (KNO3), then you shouldn't need to worry about topping up K.	The idea is that substrate has nutrient reserve, let the water have nutrient reserve as well. Daily small amounts to top up and stay and keep nutrient interaction stable. If you rely exclusively on feeding fish for N and P, you run a very tight rope, get very sexy growth, and can easily spawn cyano etc.
FERTS: Micro + Fe	Daily minimal ~ .01 as iron proxy If GH/KH is higher, you may need more.	If you use CSM, you need to mix very concentrated solutions so that your ratios hold well. You can circumvent this by dosing more, but remember you are going to get nutrient accumulation and as such you need to change water more often. That’s fine. But we can explain why in this framework. You can rely on alternate days and uptake through the leaves, certainly, but daily will keep everything just right. Pick the right chelate based on your KH. Low KH, EDTA. Moderate KH, DTPA. High KH, MAYBE EDDHA … but DTPA probably work. Gluconate works too.
FERTS: KH	Low KH will change pH faster than higher KH. Be aware that a 1/4 needle wheel turn may gas fish at low KH but not at higher - so if your equiptment is "not so good" then it is just harder.	Le Chatelier's principle
Surface agitation	Go watch a lake on a moderately windy day. That’s what it should look like.	You need surface agitation and it needs to be a nice ripple: the more agitation, the higher the injection rate, The higher the rate of topping up CO2 The happier the plant
Filtration	Wet/dry yields highest gas exchange (optimal surface agitation). Canister with 10x flow	Minimum media, no floss, a foam or two, purigen.
Temperature	Buy Christel’s book: Look up your plants Find a temp that works for them Buy a fish book: Look up your fish Find a temp that works for them If the two don’t work, re-evaluate. You should be able to find one that works ~ probably 25celcius.

These are my thoughts based on the framework that I proposed. Under the framework, this should yield the optimal system. But, I mean, other stuff works ... the framework explains why.

As always, challenge it so we can all grow.

Cheers,
Josh

 

[erwin123]

Too much ramp and we have too much change on CO2 demand

If ramping is a possibility: at most give a 30 minute ramp up and 30 minute ramp down.

The plant takes time to begin photosynthesizing at “prime rate” (this can be noted with rapid increase in pH after about 3-5 hours from lights on.

Thanks for the analysis.

Given that in nature there is 'sunrise', it seems natural that the plant takes time to react to lights on and doesn't begin photosynthesising at the 'prime rate' immediately?

Wouldn't this then suggest that ramping lighting is good? If you go 100% light at the start, only the algae benefits if the plant takes time to "react" to 'sunrise'? For example, some plants are 'closed' in the dark and take time to open/spread out their leaves on lights on? 30minutes sounds good, rather than something grudgingly done?

Minimum media, no floss, a foam or two, purigen.

Because purigen is so 'fine', putting some floss before purigen prevents purigen from being blocked up too soon? If you only have coarse sponge, purigen and no floss, the purigen essentially starts acting like a fine filter floss?