# Why the trend towards more and more CO2?



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

I picked up Amano's Nature Aquarium World Vol 1 last night.. and as I was looking through it I noticed that his tanks all have about 15 ppm of CO2, even in tanks with 5 WPG.

Yet, his tanks are algae free and the growth is lush and vibrant.

Why is it that he doesn't feel the need for more CO2, yet more than any other recommendation to people that I see on these forums is along the lines of "Oh, you need more CO2", "Crank up your CO2", "Your CO2 isn't high enough", "You want at least 30 ppm CO2", "I keep my CO2 around 50ppm" etc.

I know folks like Tom Barr are big advocates of keeping the CO2 as high as possible but clearly it isn't really necessary to have a fantastic planted tank, even in very high light environments.

Also, I don't know that I've ever seen the science behind why more CO2 is supposedly good at stopping/preventing algae. Anyone have any information on that?


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

As with any "american" approach, more/bigger is better. Amano uses very little water column ferts. He also uses less light in comparison to our approaches.

Its all a balancing act. If you add more ferts, you need more co2, if you add more light, you need more co2. EI is dependent on very high co2 levels because there is always a super concentration of macro nutrients in the tank. Tom stands by "excess does not cause algae......" This can only be accomplished if the Co2 levels are high. Thus the "jack your co2, add more co2.........etc"

jB


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

Jason Baliban said:


> As with any "american" approach, more/bigger is better. Amano uses very little water column ferts. He also uses less light in comparison to our approaches.
> 
> Its all a balancing act. If you add more ferts, you need more co2, if you add more light, you need more co2. EI is dependent on very high co2 levels because there is always a super concentration of macro nutrients in the tank. Tom stands by "excess does not cause algae......" This can only be accomplished if the Co2 levels are high. Thus the "jack your co2, add more co2.........etc"
> 
> jB


It would seem then (correct me if I am wrong) that the big advantage to doing things the way they are popularly advocated here is that it's just easier.

EI doesn't require a balancing act, you just use lots of everything. It's interesting then that the recommended advice is always "More CO2!" even when many times people giving that advice don't even know if the person is using EI, or instead going for a more nutritionally lean approach.

I guess I would like to know also if there is some observable advantage to the Americanized way of doing things, in terms of better growth, faster growth, healthier, etc.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

I recall reading somewhere that 30ppm of CO2 was a measured optima for plant growth. However, I can't vouch for its accuracy. I don't know why/when/how 30+ppm came to be the suggested number. When I discovered the web in regards to planted aquaria, the numbers being tossed were 20-30ppm CO2. Seeing how folks have beautiful planted tanks without using any CO2, one can imagine how the 15ppm you mention with Amano would also yield beautiful tanks. As Jason said, it's all a balancing act. There are all sorts of ways to have that seesaw/fulcrum combination be equal. You just have to find the one that works for you, and that you're willing to work with. My 2 cents worth.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

I guess the phrase, "there is more then one way to skin a cat" is very appropriate here. EI is very easy if it works for your setup, but that can be said for any approach. I have read countless people who have lots and lots of success with EI, PPS, iron only, substrate ferts only. But really what is success? That is a personal opinion. To me it is about finding the right method for my water conditions. That is the goal. I could never use iron only approach, because my tap already has 15ppm of NO3 in it. I get GSA if i dont counter it with PO4. Amano's water is so soft and perfect for plants, he is already at an advantage. He adds very little to the very little that is already in his water. Im sure if he started upping his lighting, he would run into limiting just like the rest of us, but he goes with the more gentle approach i think. 

Its trial and error unfortunately. Every method has a shortcoming of some kind. There is no silver bullet. IMO, your tap water dictates the difficulty level of achieving success(whatever you consider success).

jB


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

Jason Baliban said:


> I guess the phrase, "there is more then one way to skin a cat" is very appropriate here. EI is very easy if it works for your setup, but that can be said for any approach. I have read countless people who have lots and lots of success with EI, PPS, iron only, substrate ferts only. But really what is success? That is a personal opinion. To me it is about finding the right method for my water conditions. That is the goal. I could never use iron only approach, because my tap already has 15ppm of NO3 in it. I get GSA if i dont counter it with PO4. Amano's water is so soft and perfect for plants, he is already at an advantage. He adds very little to the very little that is already in his water. Im sure if he started upping his lighting, he would run into limiting just like the rest of us, but he goes with the more gentle approach i think.
> 
> Its trial and error unfortunately. Every method has a shortcoming of some kind. There is no silver bullet. IMO, your tap water dictates the difficulty level of achieving success(whatever you consider success).
> 
> jB


I see what you're saying, but a number of Amano's tanks are at or above 5 WPG.

I just think that these insane levels of 50+ ppm CO2 are unnatural, not to mention unhealthy for the fish, and judging by Amano's tanks, totally unnecessary to have a healthy planted tank at very high lighting levels.


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

Bert H said:


> I recall reading somewhere that 30ppm of CO2 was a measured optima for plant growth. However, I can't vouch for its accuracy. I don't know why/when/how 30+ppm came to be the suggested number. When I discovered the web in regards to planted aquaria, the numbers being tossed were 20-30ppm CO2. Seeing how folks have beautiful planted tanks without using any CO2, one can imagine how the 15ppm you mention with Amano would also yield beautiful tanks. As Jason said, it's all a balancing act. There are all sorts of ways to have that seesaw/fulcrum combination be equal. You just have to find the one that works for you, and that you're willing to work with. My 2 cents worth.


It's funny how these sorts of ideas get started, and then repeated by everyone even when those doing the repeating couldn't even begin to tell you *why* you should raise your CO2. They just know that everyone else says so and some of the more seasoned aquarists say so (even though other even more seasoned aquarists say otherwise).

This trend to tell anyone and everyone with any problems that they need more CO2 seems like a meme.


----------



## Happy Camper (Jul 22, 2004)

Memes, a very interesting subject indeed. Cultural viruses, and I have also been wondering about Takashis setups as clearly they are not pushed 'balls to the wall' as the western world seems to be going! It might be in the way that the co2 is delivered. Either those pollen diffusers are WONDERFUL or I'm missing the point completely. In the TFH mags they've been running a few articles on his setups and most of them he states "3 bubbles per second". My tank has been running 3 bps using the Tom Barr Diffuser and my tanks certainly are not free of algae. Nor look as good as Mr amanos setups 

Its a mystery I tell......hey, look at all those black helicopters


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

Happy Camper, what size tanks is Amano using three bubbles per second on?

These tanks in the NAW vol 1. are from 1991.. where he says he is using one bubble every five seconds, but these are also on tanks that are 10 to 15 gallons.

Or, maybe Amano himself is on board with the idea that higher CO2 levels are better. Admittedly I am not up on his very latest endeavors.


----------



## Happy Camper (Jul 22, 2004)

Hi Barry, you can call me Cameron 

The TFH articles are fairly new (as far as I can tell), they've been translated into english along with a picture of the setup and a little box stating all the equipment used, co2 bps etc. Tanks range from 60cm to just short of 3 foot. Out of the 4 or so tanks in the last 2 issues of TFH all of them state 3bps !


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

I think wpg is a terrible way to guage light. Lots of people use it as a guideline, but once you start using it as a variable in an equation, it falls far short of a fact.

For example, you could put 150 watts over a 10 gallon and have 15wpg!!! But what if you but the light 20" above the tank? What if its NO vs MH? All these things change the actaul light getting into the tank despite the general wpg.

I would be willing to bet that amano's extended experience allows him to get the same amount of light in every sized tank. So if we took a meter and measured light at the bottom of one of his 15 gallon tanks vs his the bottom of one of his 180 gallon tanks, i bet the results would be fairly close no matter what his wpg.

jB


----------



## Happy Camper (Jul 22, 2004)

That seems like a logical conclusion Jason. Fair enough.
So, as a rough guestimate, what do you think the wpg on his tanks are? 2, maybe 3, or much more?


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

I would just say that his lighting is less then what we use here in the states. I would imagine his growth is slower as well. But really, that isnt the key to his success. The key is understanding his goals and the water he has to work with. 

jB


----------



## Ransom (May 3, 2006)

banderbe said:


> I see what you're saying, but a number of Amano's tanks are at or above 5 WPG.
> 
> I just think that these insane levels of 50+ ppm CO2 are unnatural, not to mention unhealthy for the fish, and judging by Amano's tanks, totally unnecessary to have a healthy planted tank at very high lighting levels.


Not disagreeing, but... as to unnatural...
If you compared light meter readings between your tank and where your plants and fish are in the wild (greater depth/murkier water), I doubt many of the species spend 8 hours a day in anything like the same number of lumens. Maybe two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.


----------



## Salt (Apr 5, 2005)

banderbe said:


> It's funny how these sorts of ideas get started, and then repeated by everyone even when those doing the repeating couldn't even begin to tell you *why* you should raise your CO2. They just know that everyone else says so and some of the more seasoned aquarists say so (even though other even more seasoned aquarists say otherwise).
> 
> This trend to tell anyone and everyone with any problems that they need more CO2 seems like a meme.


This made me think of this old "troll" post on another forum...



> It starts with a cage containing five monkeys.
> 
> Inside the cage hangs a banana on a string with a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.
> 
> ...


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

I think the major problem with recommended levels of CO2 is the extreme difficulty in knowing just how much CO2 you have in the water. Measuring PH accurately isn't easy, and is barely possible with titration test kits. Even measuring it with a PH meter is tricky, since electrical interferrence can mess up the reading, and calibration can be difficult too. KH is easier to measure accurately, but it doesn't give alkalinity caused by carbonates only, it gives the equivalent of carbonate alkalinity. So, any other contributor to alkalinity will mess up the measurement too. My research into older internet formum entries doesn't suggest to me that folks used to appreciate how hard it was to get accurate CO2 measurements. So, I'm not sure I believe that a few years ago people really knew that they had 20 ppm or 15 ppm or 50 ppm of CO2 in their tanks. Once we find an easy, reproducible method for measuring CO2 we will be able to say what the "best" amount is.


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

hoppycalif said:


> I think the major problem with recommended levels of CO2 is the extreme difficulty in knowing just how much CO2 you have in the water. Measuring PH accurately isn't easy, and is barely possible with titration test kits. Even measuring it with a PH meter is tricky, since electrical interferrence can mess up the reading, and calibration can be difficult too. KH is easier to measure accurately, but it doesn't give alkalinity caused by carbonates only, it gives the equivalent of carbonate alkalinity. So, any other contributor to alkalinity will mess up the measurement too. My research into older internet formum entries doesn't suggest to me that folks used to appreciate how hard it was to get accurate CO2 measurements. So, I'm not sure I believe that a few years ago people really knew that they had 20 ppm or 15 ppm or 50 ppm of CO2 in their tanks. Once we find an easy, reproducible method for measuring CO2 we will be able to say what the "best" amount is.


I think the 1 point deviation from degassed pH is about as good a measurement as one can get.

Amano gives his water KH so one could estimate the degassed pH, and see if his listed tank pH is reasonable in light of the given value of 15 ppm CO2.

Either way at 1 bubble every 5 seconds his CO2 is bound to be less than what is routinely claimed to be the necessary concentration to have a happy tank.


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

I thought Amano used relatively high light on all his tanks, regardless of the size. If you look at the pictures of his display tanks in his gallery or shop or whatever it is, all the tanks, even the small ones have metal halide lights hanging over them... don't they?

As far back as 10 or 15 years ago people were saying that 30 mg/L free CO2 is required to saturate photosynthesis in submerged aquatic plants. See Water Plants 101 written by Dr. David Huebert. 

Europe has always used less, much less. Based on Dutch aquariums, they have very slow growth anyway and I think 10ppm C02 is considered the norm. Dutch aquariums do not have much algae either.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Ah, a nice interesting discussion.

I was talking to Karen Randall about this a month or two ago. She made a comment that I've been thinking about for a while now. She stated that it had been proven that the addition of CO2 was more beneficial for plant growth than any other factor including light, substrate, nutrients, water hardness, current, or temperature. If you read the text of Amano's Nature series books he gives the story of how he first started using carbonated water and reached the same conclusion.

After trying both methods myself I'm convinced that the difference between CO2 and non-CO2 cannot be overstated. So, if everyone agrees on this point, then why is there a trend toward more CO2? If you look back at what people were posting in the 90's the 'magic number' was between 10 and 15 ppm. This has been slowly creeping upwards to about 30 ppm (or more) now, although thankfully people are now starting to talk more in terms of pH depression. This is probably a more reproducible measure of CO2 concentration between setups. I agree with Hoppy about the difficulties inherent in measuring CO2. Most methods that derive it from KH and pH are neither accurate nor reproducible. 

If I was in the business of setting up planted tanks for a living I'd be perfectly content with healthy, but not extreme rates of growth. Rapid growth = more maintainance, which would be a bad thing. If you look at Amano's work and many others, they keep fish loads quite low compared to what many of us try to get away with. I think this has major benefits when it comes to algae control. If I put my fish load into his tanks I think you'd see trouble pretty quickly.

The bottom line is that people use CO2 as a tool for algae control and robust plant growth. Some species are very difficult without it. For whatever reason, healthy, actively growing plants tend to remain algae-free. Plants are often carbon-limited in our tanks, especially in the high-light, nutrient-rich soup we like to use. If my plants would stay looking good, I'd be perfectly happy using less CO2 with slower growth rates, requiring less maintenance. But, I have a million fish in the tank, reasonably high light, EI nutrient levels, and I find the extra CO2 helps keep the algae down. I'm sure I could achieve the same (probably better) results by getting rid of 2/3 of the fish and using less CO2.

I appreciate the comments about there being many ways to skin a cat. Those who dispense advice on APC and on other forums tend to believe that everyone else has a setup that is similar or identical to their own. This is simply not true. Water parameters vary enormously. Tank stocking, species kept, and one's personal goals for his/her tank also vary greatly. Following a particular person's recipe to success will only work if you keep all the other variables the same.

All other things being equal, CO2 gives you the most bang for your buck when it comes to making a positive difference. It's cheap, it's pretty easy once you get it set up, and fish seem to tollerate it just fine, so why not crank it up a little?


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

> All other things being equal, CO2 gives you the most bang for your buck when it comes to making a positive difference. It's cheap, it's pretty easy once you get it set up, and fish seem to tollerate it just fine, so why not crank it up a little?


That's the way I look at it. It's just one less thing to worry about and goes toward making sure you have your bases covered. I have mine at about 40ppm and both fish and shrimp show no discomfort. The cherries spawn without issue.

You don't really have to only jack it up to cover high lighting. A low light tank with high co2 is very stable and easy to keep algae free.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

> You don't really have to only jack it up to cover high lighting. A low light tank with high co2 is very stable and easy to keep algae free.


This is SO TRUE. But so many folks want to put 220W over a 50 gal tank and wonder why they can't have an algae free tank.

CO2 is indeed the easiest thing to deal with in a tank. Perhaps as people got higher and higher lighting they just discovered that the higher CO2 was the best way to control algae in the tank, so it went higher and higher. I don't have high lighting (2.2-2.4wpg), but I am a 30+ppm person because it is the easiest thing I can control consistently to be in a good zone which will really make a difference in my plant's health and keeping algae at bay.


----------



## John P. (Nov 24, 2004)

Because it works for me. Plants and fish look very healthy … they are my gauges.


----------



## Avalon (Mar 7, 2005)

I've been on both sides of the fence here, and as I recall all the tanks I've set up, the easiest to maintain and most enjoyable have been lower light tanks. I think impatience may be the biggest hinderance of today's aquarist. In an effort to grow plants bigger, better, and faster, we have found ourselves in a position that tends to make us lack appreciation for our tanks on a daily basis. If your tank could be algae free every day and you would never have to worry about scraping algae or leaving for more than 2 days, would a slower growing tank be worth it to you? 

To those with high light tanks, tell me the honest truth: When you first look at your tank after work or when you've been away, what is the first thing you look for? Beauty or something wrong/could be done better?

Now I'm not going to say one way is better than the other or condemn anyone for their personal choice, but I do know what works best for me. And I will say that CO2 in very low light tanks really makes a difference in plant health and growth. I think that many look for the simple solution or equation, but in reality, micromanagement is not necessary. A number of factors should be kept in mind, but when a general approach is applied and tailored to the user's needs, the outcome will be highly positive. Like a race car, each and every part in the engine must be tailored to a custom parameter to achieve a certain performance quota, but when cruising 55 down the highway, just about any ol' engine will do.


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

Perhaps I missed it but it seems nobody is addressing the main issue.

Amano has what I think can be called "very high light" tanks, yet uses little CO2 and still has no algae.

Some comments have been about how higher levels of CO2 keep algae at bay and I am observing that clearly others have been able to keep algae at bay without lots of CO2, even in high light environments. How?

The best guess as to how seems to be Guaiacboy's comment about low bioload. I have seen it said many times that ammonia may be the deciding factor in how rapidly algae can get a foothold.


----------



## banderbe (Nov 17, 2005)

John P. said:


> Because it works for me. Plants and fish look very healthy &#8230; they are my gauges.


I have no doubt it works for you. Clearly however, high levels of CO2 are not required in order to have an algae free tank in a high/very high light environment.


----------



## Happy Camper (Jul 22, 2004)

Barry, I think JB made a good observation, Amano may be using Metal Halide but look at the distance it is from the tank. Its not as if his lights are hanging 2 inches above, its actually quite a distance away. His light levels are not demanding high co2, thus he gets away with no algae. The low bioload observation is also a good one. Does TA dose Nitrates? or is it mostly K in his ferts?


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

Happy Camper said:


> Barry, I think JB made a good observation, Amano may be using Metal Halide but look at the distance it is from the tank. Its not as if his lights are hanging 2 inches above, its actually quite a distance away.


I think he also uses less of a light cylce when he uses these more intense lights.....6-8 hours or something like that.

All the way back to the first book he put out, i always thought he was using less light then americans.

And it should be noted that amano has problem tanks just like the rest of us. If you look closely you can almost always find some algae in his tanks. Usually it will be gsa on his anubias or a bit of thread here and there. I have some aqua journals with closeups of his hairgrass and it has algae in it as well.

I dont think there is any secret to be uncovered here. Amano understands his water and knows what to do to make his plants thrive under those conditions. I dont think he could show up and my house and apply his exact method to my tank and have the same success. Not saying that he couldnt figure it out in a few weeks.

What is important is the overload of ferts. You cannot have excess ferts without high co2 to balance it. Amano doesnt dose very much because of his lower light levels and his lower co2. I dont know if that makes for healthy growth, but i bet it makes for slower more managable growth.

jB


----------



## Happy Camper (Jul 22, 2004)

Yo Salad Bar 

Its very very *very* good to ear that Amano has algae in his tanks 
Best news I've heard in weeks. Thanks mate!

Kind Regards
Cameron


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

Happy Camper said:


> Yo Salad Bar
> 
> Its very very *very* good to ear that Amano has algae in his tanks
> Best news I've heard in weeks. Thanks mate!
> ...


HAHAHHAHAHA

Its true. I think it is safe to say that everyone has problem tanks. I have heard jeff senske say it. I have seen it in amanos work....

The advantage those guys have is that they have 10's to 100's of tanks. So of course they are going to have a lot more examples of tanks that have very little algae. Us regular people only have 2-3 tanks, so one or two with algae makes it almost feel impossible. Plus with that many tanks, you get tons of experience.

jB


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

I had read somewhere that Amano used high light only for noon burst type of lighting and even then only for 3 or 4 hours. The rest of the time the lighting is a lot less...

I'm trying to find where I read that... no luck yet.


----------



## Happy Camper (Jul 22, 2004)

I hear you Jason. At present I am sitting on tank number 9 - only 2 of them are issueless. MTS has struck hard - so many plants, so little time, and space 

Kind Regards
Cameron


----------



## Happy Camper (Jul 22, 2004)

Hello Laith

Yes I have also read that somewhere along my 'aquatic surfing'. I hear also that he only switches the co2 on during this 'burst'. While the flourescents are on there is no co2 going. Interesting considering how many folks turn their co2 on an hour b4 lights on to help build up to the desired 30ppm. What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

A bit off topic (and probably deserves it's own thread), but about light levels.....

The 'noon burst' idea strikes me as something that closely parallels what occurs in nature. We all take for granted that there are a number of species that cannot grow in 'low light' tanks. The question then, is how much light do 'high light' species need? Both intensity and duration factor in, but I'd be willing to bet that of the two, intensity is more important. We all know that you can't compensate for wimpy lights by leaving them on longer. Where more intensity makes a difference is for the low-lying plants at the bottom of the tank and for leaves that are partially shaded by taller portions of the same plant or by neighboring plants. The upper leaves next to the lights always seem to have 'enough'.

In the tropics it is daytime for almost exactly 12 hours per day, year round. Of those 12 hours, the sun is high above the horizon for only a few hours of that. Everyone knows that it's pretty hard to get a sunburn at 8:00 am or at 6:00 in the evening. During that limited time, the plants get enough photosynthesis in to meet their needs for the day, and even have some left over for cloudy days.

From an algae point of view, I'd be willing to bet that a system would be quite stable and happy even with ridiculous (10 wpg?) light levels for a couple hours a day. If you could saturate photosynthesis even on lower, partially-shaded leaves, think how well the plants would do. CO2, of course, is only needed when the plants are actively photosynthesizing, but it's a bit impractical (any possibly stressful to the fish) to maintain high levels for only a few hours a day.

It makes some sense to use CF's to keep the tank bright and cheery while the big MH's come on to really fire up photosynthesis for a few hours a day.


----------



## Jason Baliban (Feb 21, 2005)

On top of that, reflection. If the sun is not directly above, you are loosing light intensity from the angle the light comes throught atmosphere. On top of that, if the light hit the water at an angle, a lot of it is deflected buy the surface of the water.

jB


----------



## jude_uc (Feb 7, 2006)

I think if you just take a look of the NWA books, 1,2, and 3, you'll see that Amano does use very high lighting, at least in his small tanks. I think it is also true that if you look at the difference between book 1 and book 3, both light and CO2 get higher. Amano also uses much less fertilizer as everyone is saying, but he also is very herbivore intensive.  I know that all of his tanks have a decent number of otocinclus and shrimp. I'm certain that makes a difference as well. 

-Adam


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I believe that the amounts of CO2 that we actually have in the tank water are questionable. That includes those people that have pH controllers. The best way of measuring the CO2 is by leaving the water overnight and seeing how much the pH increased due to the CO2 fizzing out. But how many people do that?

We usually go by the way the plants look, or by what the pH decices show. To me personally the way the plants look is the ultimate indicator. But one needs to have things established and consistent. In that sense I believe that Amano's tank are a well maintained ballance of everything supplied to the point of the techical aspects becoming stadard and allowing concentration on the aquascaping.

In the US there seems to be another aspect - a lot of us seem to be too eager for our plants to grow faster, bigger, nicer... rarer . That goes against the idea of letting Nature help us.

--Nikolay


----------



## standoyo (Aug 25, 2005)

*meme time!*

Hi Barry,

A very good discussion. I think by lumping lower co2 +high light and algae free Amano tanks together makes a lot of people go why you question the *meme*. hahaha.

Some of the points I'd like to comment from this thread are as follows. _[strictly my opinion disclaimer! SMOD!]_

I think the issue is the limiting factor everyone here seems to think that requires no serious thought is to up the co2 and keep it high and saturated for the duration of the photoperiod because it does go down at the end of the day.

15ppm or 20ppm or 50ppm doesn't matter as long as it is not zero.

Thing is, how do we maintain it so CO2 doesn't bottom out at anytime during the photoperiod? [normally at end of the day]

So i think the noon burst light is a good idea if you want to prevent the co2 from bottoming out while keeping the co2 at 15-25ppm[some like me stinge on it because I loath going to get my co2 refilled. The cost of transport is almost equal the value refilled!]

For high-light tanks ph controllers may be very handy indeed- _as an idea for clueless me_.

---------

Lighting:
At high light levels, Rotalas[light] outcompete Ferns[shade] for nutrients in Amano routine/serviced tanks at my LFS. Saw with my own eyes poor growth needle leaved ferns but very healthy rotalas in a tank that has the 150W mh hanging ~ a feet above the tank.

_However, at high light levels algae grows faster too! [as if this hasn't been repeated often enough to become meme!]_

---------

Amano's tanks at HQ look great because they are well maintained.
Eg: Double sets of lily pipes, pollen glass etc. At weekly water change, Lily pipe/pollen glass diffuser is replaced with spare to soak in algae remover/unclogger.

--------

As for printed material such as coffee table books and magazines, if I were Amano, wouldn't be wasting a single 8X10 film on a tank that has algae issues in the first place.
Amano is said to be a perfectionist and also very open with his ideas.
So if you saw some algae in his tanks at HQ that means somebody under his payroll wasn't doing his job!
[That said, i did notice some hair algae on some of his early coffee table books.]

One in a thousand plus huge resources. 
You and me got one to three to play with limited budget on average so no comparison.

Regards

Stan Chung
Meme! that's a great word, thanks Barry.


----------

