Tropical Fish Keeping banner

Changing from High tech to low light

5K views 29 replies 4 participants last post by  migdem 
#1 ·
Hi all,

I have a high tech setup or at least something like that.
So, I have a Juwel Rio 400 which is 450 litre tank, I have 216 W of T5's that runs on for 8 hours a day with reflectors on them, CO2 with PH controller that gets the ph to 6.6 whilst I have a KH of 3. I dose PPS-PRO daily with recommended dosage.

Now I need to change it to low light plants and if I can reduce light it is better. The problems that I have is that 216 W for 8 hours a day it is a bit high in electricity expenses and I have loads of algae grrrr that I cannot cope with and I cannot find out why!!!!

So as regarding plants I have Amazon Sword, Red Lotus, Vallisneria Spirals, Crypts and ECHINODORUS TENELLUS. I beleive that these will be good with low light right?

Now as for CO2 I can leave it with no problem. Practically it is better to leave it on for me because I can adjust the PH to my liking since my tap PH is 8 and I love fish that likes acidic water. I know that some of you tell me that with a lot CO2 i should have a lot of light but with 2Kg of CO2 it serves me for 4-5 months so I do not think that a lot of CO2 is diffused in the system.

About lightning how should I do this? How much time should I leave them on? I have 2 power of 108 W each so I can switch on 1 and then 2nd one for less hours.

About ferts what should I use? I do not think that PPS-PRO is suitable for low light also I do not love how much algae I have and the plants that are getting bigger so much fast with this method.
Also at home I have Seachem Flourish Comprehensive that I could use weekly.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thank you in advance
*hoping in much much less algae*
by the way the algae that I have is Green-Blue algae which I believe is Cyanobacteria a bacteria.
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
Two main things I will mention.

First, the cyanobacteria (the blue-green slime that you can easily wipe off with your fingers) is caused by high organics in the presence of light. It can occur in any method of planted tank, high-tech or low-tech. I have had it but only in tanks with high organics. So that is something to consider; if you remove the cause (organics), this should disappear. We have had more than one thread on this issue within the past few months, so I won't go into it further here.

Second, algae. Algae in excess [= beyond the normal algae that one should expect in any aquarium] is solely due to "excess" light. In non-planted tanks any light will cause it because there is nothing to stop it. In planted tanks, the plants can and should keep algae under control. And to do this, we ensure the light is the "limiting factor" in plant growth. As I have so often written, plants need light and 17 nutrients in balance, and as soon as any one of these becomes unavailable, the plants will slow down or even stop photosynthesizing. And if this limiting factor is something other than light, the now excess light will cause algae to take advantage.

So, limiting algae is easy, in theiry: reduce the light so it is balanced. The more light you have--and this means intensity and duration, one does not make up for the other--the more nutrients you need to balance. I suspect something in the nutrients is missing and the light causes algae. And the cyanobacteria is probably due to this, as some excess nutrients will be organics (some other nutrient is likely missing or in short supply) and these will feed the cyano.

So, to your question on light. Limiting the duration will not solve the algae/cyano issue because the intensity is still beyond the balance with the nutrients. The intensity must be reduced, then the duration, until you are balanced with the available nutrients. The first issue to address is the light. As Tom Barr correctly suggests elsewhere, start with minimal light for what you want to achieve in the plants, then increase nutrients to the point where they balance. Otherwise algae will occur.

Byron.
 
#4 · (Edited)
I didn't get into the ferts previously becuase I think the light is too intense. So once that is lesseened, the nutrient issue can be looked into.

Is that your only option on the light? As opposed to getting something different?

Checked back on the tank size, I assume it is 5 or 6 feet in length. Two 48-inch 54w T5 HO full spectrum tubes would be double the intensity I have over a 5-foot so that should be suitable. Duration might have to be experimented with, anywhere from 9 to 12 hours daily. The minimum duration is said to be 6 hours, but with CO2 and nutrient dosing 9 is probably more realistic to start with.
 
#6 ·
This is the aquarium that I have JUWEL Aquarium Homepage

You have all the details available.

So practically you are saying that it is better to go with more light instead of doing a low light setup?
Reading the specs, that aquarium has two full-length fluorescent tubes. So I am assuming you are staying wiith these? If the tubes are T5, then only T5 tubes will fit. IF they are T8, you can replace them with other T8 tubes that are the same length. There's not sufficient data for me to say more.

Low light to me means minimal light to grow plants without CO2 difussion. If you dose CO2 you need more light to balance.
 
#8 ·
as regarding light yes I will stay with those since I cannot alter that much since aquarium is situated in the living room.

so if I dose CO2 then more light then more ferts right?
Balance. First the light, then balance nutrients accordingly. As you have CO2 for good reason, the light and nutrients has to balance it for the plants to make use of it. But I don't think you'll need more light than the two T5 tubes.
 
#10 ·
As for tubes I have 4 in total. So only 2 I use?
That ;link you gave earlier mentioned two tubes running full length. That I believe is adequate. Since you have too mjuch now, cutting in half seems preferable. Unless i am missing something...
 
#11 ·
oh sorry about that. I have 4 tubes in total of 54 W each that means 1.8W/gallon. They changed the model and I got the new one with 4 tubes. The problem is that if I cut by half the light in the aquarium is not so nice because it becomes dull because on the back there will be light but on front nothing and same if they are reversed.
 
#12 ·
oh sorry about that. I have 4 tubes in total of 54 W each that means 1.8W/gallon. They changed the model and I got the new one with 4 tubes. The problem is that if I cut by half the light in the aquarium is not so nice because it becomes dull because on the back there will be light but on front nothing and same if they are reversed.
OK, I just did a calculation, your 450 litre 5-foot tank is about equal to my 115g 5-foot tank.

This is difficult for me to advise, as I have never bothered with CO2. And, the watts per gallon is somewhat useless, esp with T5 HO light.

I have experimented with T5 HO lighting, two 48-inch tubes (54w each) over my 115g. For my purposes, it was way too much light. I went back (after a week's test) to 2 48-inch T8 tubes, 40w each. Though again the watts is rather meaningless. The intensity is more important, and one T5 HO tube is approximately equivalent to 1.5 T8 tubes of the same type [e.g., Life-Glo 2]. So two 48-inch T5 tubes give the same light intensity as 3 T8 tubes. I only have two T8 tubes and it is adequate for my plants, and without additional CO2.

From this, I would assume that with CO2 and increasing fertilization to balance, you would need 2 to 3 48-inch T5 HO tubes. I assume youhave 4 now, and you had a real algae problem. That suggests there is too much light intensity to balance the nutrients.
 
#13 ·
actually the algae that I am having right now is a bacteria. Maybe I could remove this manually with lots of WC but I do not know how to eliminate it :s

Also right now I do not believe that I have more algae apart that blue-green algae (bacteria)
 
#14 ·
actually the algae that I am having right now is a bacteria. Maybe I could remove this manually with lots of WC but I do not know how to eliminate it :s

Also right now I do not believe that I have more algae apart that blue-green algae (bacteria)
As I think I mentinoed at the start of this thread, cyano is due to excess organics and light. I have battled it, only in one tank, and reducing organics (stricter cleaning, less nutrients) and cutting back the light did eliminate it in several weeks. Each week I removed as much by hand as i could, it came back within a couple days, until finally after 2+ months of doing this it stopped.
 
#16 ·
well as stock I have 5x ancistrus, 7 clown loach, 15 sterbai cory, 10 angelfish and around 15 rummy nose tetras.

water parameters are
Nitrate - 25
Nitrite - 0
Ammonia - 0
PH - 6.6
GH - 7
KH - 3

tap water
Nitrate - 25
Nitrite - 0
Ammonia - 0
PH - 8
GH - high but reduced with resin to 7-8
KH - 3

maintenance 25% wc every 2-3 weeks. Right now I am injured usually every 2 weeks.
 
#17 ·
I see two or three issues here. Glad Mikaila asked this, it helps us understand what's happening.

Nitrates: 25 ppm in tap water is high, and this is going to be food for cyano. As the nitrates in the tank are equal, the plants are not using these. A change in ferts may be helpful, I'll leave that for Mikaila who has experience with high-tech fertilization.

Water changes: must be every week, and 50%. As I mentioned, rigorous maintenance helped me rid my tank of cyano, and this water change is something that should be done weekly regardless. I understand about personal issues, and am obviously sorry to hear that, but the fact of the effect of the minimal water changes is still there.

Stocking: This is a lot of fish for a 75g, when they are mature. They may be small sized now, but they will (or should) grow, and this is going to increase the bio-load as they do. Fish that attain the adult size of angels and clown loaches need space.

Byron.
 
#20 ·
I would suggest trying out EI (estimative index) dosing. Its similar to PPS-Pro, but designed to dose fertilizers in excess in a high tech tank. Are you using a basic "one-for-all" solution mixture? If you are making your own like I think, what do follow and how much are you dosing? PPS-Pro would work, but ATM it is clear something is not right. Unless you customize what you are dosing your not going to see much effect with PPS-pro IMO. Its based on providing the minimum nutrients needed. While you have a high tech tank that has a high nutrient demand. This IMO is where your problem lies. PPS-Pro and EI are very similar, just use a different method. EI method requires 50% weekly water changes to remove excess fertilizers.

As far as your tank nitrates, I don't see a problem with them. I have 20-25ppm out of my tap as well and have never dealt with cyano in either high tech or low tech. No single parameter causes algae or cyano IMO. It is the combined effect of multiple variables. Though I agree with byron that nitrate being the same in the tank is a sign you plants are not consuming very much of it. Though If you decide to switch to EI I would cut KNO3 entirely out of the dosing regime to start with. We aim for around 20ppm as a GOOD level, your tank is holding that ATM so I would not add any additional nitrogen there. That said, I would expect improved growth with EI and its likely the tank will increase nitrogen consumption. So if nitrates start falling then you need to start dosing KNO3. When not dosing KNO3 I would use more K2SO4 to make up for the loss of potassium. This is why those PPS-Pro and EI "starter" solution recipes are truly for starting. Both systems are designed and meant to be customized. Your tank may not need any supplements of a particular fertilizer, while another fertilizer may need to be dosed more then normal.

Also I highly suggest adding at least another species of fast growing stem plant to your tank, at least until you get back under control. Also what funky growth or things happen to your plants? Since I'm pretty sure this is a nutrient issue something has to be limiting and your plants will show it. Any current pictures would be helpful.
 
#21 ·
I will take pictures and post them.

Coming to think of it lately I removed NO3 from the PPS-PRO and I believe that after then I saw the cyno but I am not 100% sure. For now I am going to dose PPS-PRO.

As for a fast growing I put a piece of hornwort because I do not have much and see if it grows well.

I went for PPS-PRO because I cannot afford to do 50% WC weekly. To much time consuming and too much waste.
 
#22 ·
I know you are not in the US. But IDK what would make WCs expensive. IMO you are not going to have much luck with High tech without large water changes and high fertilizer use. If you want to go low tech you have to reduce lighting. Its still not much of a reason to not do weekly WCs. I can understand a temporary situation where you can't do them. Long term though there is no reason. It is asking for problems.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#23 ·
I looked into the PPS system... and I have to say, it goes against what every professional in the field of aquarium plants knows. (sorry if this was mentioned)

It could work, if the site said start at low light and work upwards, but it says it works with ANY light level.

If you want a cheap fertilisation system, I'd personally go for PMDD, or even soil substrates if you're really in a situation where you can't do W/Cs.

Do you use RO or distilled water for your tanks or something?.
 
#25 ·
Well you wouldn't neccesarily have algae issues.. NPK is present in low levels in most well-stocked aquaria.

Might need to stop gravel vac'ing, but you'll be fine. just look at Byron's tanks- all he uses is Flourish comprehensive..
If you have a deficiency, you can identify it and rectify it.

Might be a good idea to just throw everything you know about plants out the window, and read Byron's stickies... Start over, so to speak.
 
#26 ·
If fertilizers are what is costing you EI for me costs $30 for about 2 years of fertilizers treating 70 gallons of high tech tanks. That $30 ends up being about 3-4 pounds of DRY fertilizers. You need a small gram scale off ebay. The only real issue is the hassle of mixing your own fertilizers which is minimal considering it costs at most 50 cents and 5 minuets to make one of those $10 bottles in the flourish line. If I couldn't use my cheap dry ferts no way would I be running high tech tanks. A high tech tank needs lots of fertilizers, no matter what you do you can't escape this. You increase light everything else must be increase to compensate for this. By fertilizers I mean an entire regiment, not just traces or macros alone.
 
#27 ·
So to make this clear maybe i misguided you.

I have in stock Seachem Flourish which I can use but right now sitting in the fridge.

I also purchased the dry ferts which are extremely cheap compared to seachem. Right now I am dosing PPS-PRO until I make a decision. As for WC I will try and do 25% weekly water change.

With EI I need to do 50% which I cannot do due to time.

So do you think that it is better switching on to PMDD? If yes should I dose the PO4 (phosphate)?
James' Planted Tank - PMDD
 
#28 ·
PMDD is roughly equal to flourish, and much cheaper.

I do agree with you, that the EI is extremely time consuming. Yes, you should dose potassium phosphate. Phosphate was left out of the original, because of the rumor that it causes algae.

That's a much different recipe than I read, and doesn't seem similiar to flourish at all...

Here's the recipe I found, that chemically, is nearly identical.
into 250 ml of distilled water, add 1 TBSP of CSM +B, 1 tsp potassium nitrate, 1 tsp potassium sulphate. I'll double check when I get home.



Tom Barr said:


Plants, not nutrients define the system and their ability to grow and flourish.
Ever seen a tank with algae and flourishing plants?

I haven't.

In tanks where the plants are flourishing and doing very well we see little if any algae. These tanks can seemingly have little or a great deal of nutrients, both are seen and there is a wide range observed. Why is that? Well, light and CO2 paly a rule also. Less light, less nutrients, also sediment sources can make up for seemingly low water column ppm's and poor testing can also lead to poor conclusions, as is often the case.

So sediment sources + water column dosing are synergistic, they make both methods easier.

As long as the sediment is not messy and you are not making a mess as well, then this is a good method to add to any water column dosing routine.

Less light = less CO2 demand = less nutrient demand.
Fish load also can and does add some variation as well and load of nutrients.

Plant biomass differences between tanks also play roles, and often tanks are nutrient limited which causes issues for CO2 demand(reduces the CO2 demand often several times), so if you add non limiting amounts of nutrients, then you have much more CO2 demand as result, if the CO2 is not adjusted for this, then you end up with algae, not from nutrients, rather, lack of enough CO2.

Such indirect relationships cause many to assume algae is limited by nutrients, without considering what and how the plants are affected and without regard or measure of the CO2 and light critically.

This was common decades or so ago, not so much today, but many "still cling to the past". Ironically referring to themselves as new, more evolved methods that dose less than EI etc. If you have low light, then it's not an issue, the tank is not limited by nutrients or CO2. If you have a PO4 limited tank, then you are not limiting algae, you are limiting CO2 demand from the plants.

Very poor conclusions and even worst test method/s.
You can find tanks with no PO4 measured and low limited PO4 and algae ridden. Likewise, where's my algae bloom if limited PO4 works as claimed? If this is true then I should be able to induce algae and run and high risk or a bloom if this theory is correct.

So both cases do not explain the results and observations.

Thats from the guy who (I'm pretty sure) invented EI dosing, pretty much admitting that it's unneccesary in low-light tanks. (in red).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top