10-26-2009, 03:39 PM
|
#21 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyjiron  Wow very useful information thats what im talking about! Im planning to get a 48" 2x54watts t5 ho light fixture from coralife.. ( this t5 ho light fixture from coralife is supposely new...)
I would like to get one t5 ho plant grow tube and one t5 ho full spectrum 6700k for this fixture.. what do you think? | In my view, I would not get the dual-tube T5 fixture. I had one of these on my 115g tank (two 48-inch T5 HO tubes) and it was way too much light. And that is over a 5-foot tank. After using it for a full week, I took it back for a dual-tube regular because I wanted more light/type that one T5. Believe me, T5 is a lot of light; the wattage may be 54 (compared to 40 watts for a regular 48-inch) but the intensity of the light produced is roughly 150% of the normal tube. One T5 tube over your 55g would work (with reduced light period), or two regular tubes. I would go with the latter just because of being able to mix two types. But either choice will give you more than enough light for many species of plants. When you get into high intensity as with two T5 tubes you get way out of balance with the available CO2 and other nutrients. This is when the plants can't use the light (remember, everything has to balance) and algae can occur.
Byron.
| 
|  | |
10-27-2009, 08:32 AM
|
#23 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyjiron Most of the advice that i get from my LFS tell me that just with the proper lighting I would do fine... | Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron This is one of those times when the advice of your lfs is bang on. Plants are easier to manage than fish...the reason so many aquarists starting out with plants have a terrible time (and too often give up) is solely because the basic premises aren't understood. It is not rocket science, and it need not cost a lot of money.
Byron. | you seem to be ignoring most of the advice here, but thats fine if all you want to do is make your LFS a bit richer.
if the advice you have been given by the LFS is that you can grow anything with higher lighting, then that's rubbish!
yeah there are plenty of "easy" plants that will be fine, but there are an equal amount if not more that wont grow without the addition of CO2.
low light and co2 will give you many more choices and chances of success than high light and non co2, to say light is the most important thing is a bit blinkered in my opinion!
as is to say plants are easier to manage than fish!
this is a sweeping statement that is obviously very short sighted!
yeah sure, if you have wild discuss in a tank full of amazon swords and Java Fern and E tennilus then its probably right and if you are not really fussed on the way the tank looks, again possibly true!
but many of the planted tanks now have a lot of work and time put into them.
take a look at some of these. NatureAquarist.com : Nature aquarium gallery ADA Gallery Slide Show for album :: Takashi Amano akvariji 2008 AGA Aquascaping Contest
plants are easier to manage than fish!
i don't think so...................
| |
| | |
10-27-2009, 10:33 AM
|
#25 | | |
WisFish is correct, the advice and suggestions have to be kept in balance and not out of context. When I agreed with johnnyjiron's lfs it was under the general comment that the "proper" lighting is the most important. And to me that means sufficient light to balance the nutrients. One T5 or two regular tubes is what I consider "proper" light; the type of tubes (full spectrum, cool white...) is important but that's the next step. And I never recommend "plant" tubes by which I mean Plant-Gro, Aqua-Gro, Flora-Gro or similar; they are not intense light (the T5's are better though) and the tank looks goulishly purple. But if that's what someone wants...fine.
As for plants and CO2, the vast majority of aquarium plants can be grown very well without added CO2. There are plants like those MoneyMitch mentioned that are more difficult if not impossible without CO2 and porportionally increased lighting. But any aquarist can have a healthy, beautiful and biologically stable planted aquarium without CO2. It depends what he/she wants. My aim in responding to members asking for advice because they have had little or no luck with plants is to offer that which will work with the least expense in money and effort. And it is more likely to ensure complete success with fish and plants. Beginning aquarists do not need to be using equipment that is going to cause shifts in water parameters that will be unsettling for the fish. The easier/simpler, the better. If you have found plants more difficult than fish, it is probably because you are interfering too much with the biological equilibrium. After all, many of these plants grow in habitats that are far removed from what is created in high-tech aquariums. Plant needs are simple and easy to provide.
| |
| | |
10-27-2009, 11:20 AM
|
#26 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron WisFish is correct, the advice and suggestions have to be kept in balance and not out of context. When I agreed with johnnyjiron's lfs it was under the general comment that the "proper" lighting is the most important. And to me that means sufficient light to balance the nutrients. One T5 or two regular tubes is what I consider "proper" light; the type of tubes (full spectrum, cool white...) is important but that's the next step. And I never recommend "plant" tubes by which I mean Plant-Gro, Aqua-Gro, Flora-Gro or similar; they are not intense light (the T5's are better though) and the tank looks goulishly purple. But if that's what someone wants...fine. | proper light?  light is light, it doesn't get any simpler.
No plant needs a full spectrum tube, plants can utilize all colours of light. some better than others, but all can be used effectively.
As for plants and CO2, the vast majority of aquarium plants can be grown very well without added CO2. There are plants like those MoneyMitch mentioned that are more difficult if not impossible without CO2 and porportionally increased lighting. But any aquarist can have a healthy, beautiful and biologically stable planted aquarium without CO2. It depends what he/she wants. My aim in responding to members asking for advice because they have had little or no luck with plants is to offer that which will work with the least expense in money and effort. And it is more likely to ensure complete success with fish and plants. Beginning aquarists do not need to be using equipment that is going to cause shifts in water parameters that will be unsettling for the fish. The easier/simpler, the better. If you have found plants more difficult than fish, it is probably because you are interfering too much with the biological equilibrium. After all, many of these plants grow in habitats that are far removed from what is created in high-tech aquariums. Plant needs are simple and easy to provide.[/quote]I wouldn't say vast majority.
In the wild plants don't require much CO2 because they're out of the water for the majority of the year! Injecting CO2 to levels of 30ppm are not going to 'unsettle' the fish at all if you have plants, plants are as complicated as you make them, although they do need some 'basic' care, all need CO2, nutrients and light, some will do fine in low light, some will not, which is why some can only be grown in the high tech aquarium.
| |
| | |
10-27-2009, 12:07 PM
|
#27 | | |
Have been following this thread with some interest and have formed the opinion that there are many different ways of growing plants and many differing opinons on ways to do it. I am thankful that my dabbling in the planted tank realm has allowed me to glean the info needed without becoming confused.
I have seen members tanks here, and visited planted tank sites from across the pond. Have read articles by Barr,Farmer,James somethin or other,and Amano.
For the novice or beginner,, I would urge them to read or google .."Tom Barr's Non CO2 method" I am of a mind that you must first learn to crawl before you can walk. Other members here have beautiful examples of what can be accomplished with relatively little money and some dedication. As one begins to understand more, and CHOOSES,,, to advance into CO2 injection, then there will hopefully be those here as well that can provide the means to achieve success there as well. We should not loose sight in my view, that this arena is by and large, open for many differing views all of which can be helpful or confusing to the beginner. If all one can do is.. find fault with each other ,how is anyone to glean anything of value?
It is also clear to me that those whose primary focus is on plants, often neglect what may or may not be harmful to fish or inverts in planted tanks based largely on incomplete studies and or the regurgitated words of some higher power. This is thus far,a largely fish orientated forum and as such all consideration should be given with regards to not only the health of our plants but,fish as well. I have attempted to be as respectful as I can but am growing painfully weary with the attempt for it does not come natural to me. I would respectfully ask others to do likewise if they have the intestinal fortitude to do so.
| |
| | |
10-27-2009, 01:40 PM
|
#28 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Middleton proper light? light is light, it doesn't get any simpler.
No plant needs a full spectrum tube, plants can utilize all colours of light. some better than others, but all can be used effectively.
As for plants and CO2, the vast majority of aquarium plants can be grown very well without added CO2. There are plants like those MoneyMitch mentioned that are more difficult if not impossible without CO2 and porportionally increased lighting. But any aquarist can have a healthy, beautiful and biologically stable planted aquarium without CO2. It depends what he/she wants. My aim in responding to members asking for advice because they have had little or no luck with plants is to offer that which will work with the least expense in money and effort. And it is more likely to ensure complete success with fish and plants. Beginning aquarists do not need to be using equipment that is going to cause shifts in water parameters that will be unsettling for the fish. The easier/simpler, the better. If you have found plants more difficult than fish, it is probably because you are interfering too much with the biological equilibrium. After all, many of these plants grow in habitats that are far removed from what is created in high-tech aquariums. Plant needs are simple and easy to provide. | I wouldn't say vast majority. In the wild plants don't require much CO2 because they're out of the water for the majority of the year! Injecting CO2 to levels of 30ppm are not going to 'unsettle' the fish at all if you have plants, plants are as complicated as you make them, although they do need some 'basic' care, all need CO2, nutrients and light, some will do fine in low light, some will not, which is why some can only be grown in the high tech aquarium.[/quote]
In spite of 1077's suggestion, with which I agree, I cannot let these misleading statements go unchallenged because it is just possible, nay probable, that some beginning aquarists here will read them and accept them without knowing the facts. As long as I am active on this forum I will do my best to be honest and truthful in what I suggest and recommend. Others are free to disagree, but inaccurate conclusions in so doing will be noted and corrected.
In another thread on this topic Mikaila31 provided a link to a chart that shows the light wavelengths that are most absorbed by plant chlorophylls in order to photosynthesize (grow) [chart attached below]. This clearly shows light highest in the blue, then the red; there is very little in the green. Plants reflect green light, that is a fact of botannical science and physics, and is why we see the leaf colour as green. To any logical mind, this says that by providing blue and red light to plants they will photosynthesize better.
There are also the scientific studies proving that a combination of full spectrum and cool white light resulted in the most and fastest growth of several aquarium plants; the reason is that the cool white is higher in blue, and the red (and additional blue) comes from the full spectrum, and the green provides the natural balance to our perception so the plant colours look natural rather than purplish hued. Under straight cool white, growth was less. And it was less yet under warm white which is weak in blue. Mr. Barr, so often quoted (or mis-quoted) also singles out cool white as preferential, and full spectrum as being a matter of our preference in the appearance of the colours. All light is clearly not the same.
Providing the light plants prefer and having it in balance for our perception of colour means the aquarist will get the most from the least. And that is a good place to begin for beginning planted tank enthusiasts.
Last edited by Byron; 10-27-2009 at 01:42 PM..
| |
| | | |
Similar Threads 
