# High light, CO2, "El Natural?"



## onemyndseye (May 12, 2006)

Its been a slow day in the forum so I thought I'd pose a little different question.


I've been wondering lately... not that I'm just gonna just in and try it.... if its possible to maintain a High Light CO2 supplimented tank on El Natural principals. That being:

Soil Subtrate
No Dosing
No Waterchanges
etc.

I know alot of people here on APC use a soil subtrate with mild CO2 suppliments and no dosing with moderate lighting. But I'm talking really driving the plants like you would in a high tech tank. 5WPG+, heavy CO2 ferts, MH lighting maybe... you get the idea. 

Could balance be acheived through perhaps using a much richer subtrate than one would normally use in our Natural tanks? Maybe subtrate tabs once in awhile? Or would the subrate be depleted and the plants still be driven to defficency after a time?

I just ask because even with great methods like EI and PPS it still just seems that high tech tanks are more complicanted that they have to be. It just seems to me that a balance could be found between fish load, subtrate fertility, CO2, and lighting.

Infact Im sure of it in the short term..... long term may be a different story  


Take Care,
-Justin
One Mynds Eye


----------



## DataGuru (Mar 11, 2005)

I think in the short term that would work. The main concerns I've heard are that the substrate would be depleted over time.

My NPTs at home are in front of south windows and get full sunlight for most of the day in the winter time. I'd classify that as high light. I don't add CO2 tho. and I do see pearling.


----------



## bpimm (Jun 12, 2006)

I ran a soil substrate 100 Gal at 2.5 WPG and pressure C02 with no dosing. Had it up for over 2 years before I tore it down. The teardown was due to burnout not problems with the tank. I was on a continuous water change system, so that and the light level are different than your question. 

I think it will work if you can find a way to replenish the substrate.


----------



## schaadrak (Aug 18, 2006)

If your plant growth is high enough, couldn't you somewhat replinish the soil with plant clippings? Just tuck them between the soil and the gravel. Maybe add some tubifex in there to speed up the decompisition of the clippings (they might also work some mulm into the soil as well)? A majority of the soils that are used in NPT's are mostly organic matter anyways, right?


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

With 5+ WPG you are going to have to dose, and dose heavily too, and sooner than than later.

I think that the idea of a CO2 injected, high light, rapid growth tank is not compatible with the "El Natural" concept, even with a soil substrate. In fact, I think the soil substrate will cause more problems than it is worth in the high light tank.

Schaadrak, I was in Jacksonville last March. There I netted 5 gambusia from a small pond and brought them back to Pennsylvania. I placed them in a tank with some female guppies. The only fry to survive in that tank were gambusia and only a few of those. The tails of the guppies also got pretty short. In spite of my efforts, there are still two of them left, both males, fortunately. Sooner or later . . .

Bill


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

Hi
You could have a better chance if you don't use CO2 and run few air stones instead. Then the high light be on for about 4 - 6 hours a day.


----------



## sarahbobarah (Sep 5, 2005)

You would have to acheive that "balance" of ferts and plant consumption a lot quicker, wouldn't you? Less room for mistakes....


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

Two reasons why no CO2.
First, you don't want CO2 and no water changes in the same aquarium with carbonate based substrate. The CO2 acidity dissolves the substrate making water harder and harder. GH and KH go up. Second reason is less CO2 slows down plant metabolism. Means less nutrients required to feed the plants and therefore less dependent on perfect fertilization. 

The reason for the shorter lighting period is to let the plant rest more, take extra nutrients and then be ready for the blast. Basically the same effect as direct Sun light. Very strong blast of light for limited number of hours, 4 - 6.


----------



## lake_tuna (Mar 18, 2010)

Edward said:


> Two reasons why no CO2.
> First, you don't want CO2 and no water changes in the same aquarium with carbonate based substrate. The CO2 acidity dissolves the substrate making water harder and harder. GH and KH go up. Second reason is less CO2 slows down plant metabolism. Means less nutrients required to feed the plants and therefore less dependent on perfect fertilization.
> 
> The reason for the shorter lighting period is to let the plant rest more, take extra nutrients and then be ready for the blast. Basically the same effect as direct Sun light. Very strong blast of light for limited number of hours, 4 - 6.


Can anyone support these claims?

1. CO2 makes water harder.

2. Less CO2 slows plant metabolism.

3. Plants take up nutrients when the light if off.

The reason I'm asking is that I was pondering about setting up an NPT with 4WPG and CO2.. sounds like a bad idea, or is it? There isn't a lot of info out there it seems on the kind of setup I was thinking about setting up.


----------



## HeyPK (Jan 23, 2004)

1. CO2 by itself, can not make water any harder, but if there is limestone (CaCO3-MgCO3) or mollusk shells, (mostly CaCO3) in the tank, then CO2 will make the water more acidic, and will dissolve more of the carbonates, making the water harder (GH goes up---Gh is measure of Ca++ and Mg++ ions). 

2. Less CO2 means lower rate of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is process by which plant makes its food. The metabolic rate (rate of metabolizing food) is pretty much the same, day or night, but, if the plant can make very little food, it grows very little or not at all, if it only breaks even (photosynthesis = respiration over 24 hours). If plant is starving, it likely has a lower metabolic rate than a well-fed plant that is growing. 

3. Taking up mineral nutrients requires some metabolic energy, but not a whole lot. Evolutionary arguments, alone, would predict that a plant that could take up nutrients in the dark would have a big advantage in a nutrient-limited environment over a plant that could not do this. I don't think there is evidence that nutrient uptake is tied to photosynthesis. Animals take mineral nutrients from their food and from water, and the processes by which plants take up minerals are similar to those of animals. Photosynthesis is limited to chloroplasts, and I don't believe there is any evidence that chloroplasts have a role in mineral nutrient uptake.


----------

