# Dummy Question #008: Light!



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

So, after toying with the thought of selfishly abandoning the Dummy Questions I got some inspiration from somewhere and here we go again:

First off here's a cartoon that has been altered to strike closer to home. It's about a guy that asks too much and a guy that talks too much. Both make a lot of sense but don't make sense. I hope I make sense while not making sense in the Dummy Questions:










So, on to bigger and better things, namely "LIGHT".

Let's go back to an obscure Japanese aquascaper. He's rather obscure because he lights his tanks with a rather mediocre light setup - Power Compact lights without reflectors hung high above his tanks. The only thing that saves the plants is a blast of strong Halide light for a few hours a day. How novel! We knew about that even before he started doing whatever he's doing. What's he thinking anyway?

So, let's hear some views *why the mid-day burst of strong light seems to be a very good idea.*

And maybe more important - *What are the correlations between the strong/weak light and the other parameters of the planted tank?*

Hopefully this Dummy Question will be less confusing and frustrating. Once again - it turned out that ADA's light setup's design had more, many more, intentional things than I thought. I will of course not go into details about them, but rather encourage creative googling. Look at the talkative guy in the cartoon above - that could be me - listen to myself talk too much, get a fair amount of attention, give nothing. Or maybe give a whole lot - a definite path to explore.

--Nikolay


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

mid day burst with MH is high light 'lite' 
the auxiliary PC or T5 are to extend viewing period, its an aesthetic extension.
for long viewing of a show tank.
without the stickiness of high light stability management.

its not because 'nature has a natural dimmer cycle' or anything else related to nature.
at least that's my opinion / observation. I wont use the phrase common to a familiar guru
in the hobby -- 'prove it'. I'll just put it out there as a skeptical opinion. 

theres nothing wrong with plant, dosing, and light choices to make the job of stability easier.
its commendable. 

using light to control uptake is the best kind of limitation.
rather than throttle back on nutrients or temp, cut back light.
nutrient limitation is a slippery slope, I remember my PO4=algae days. gulk. 

plants can have a pretty appearance in moderate to low light, and stability is easier to maintain.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

Haha. I like the cartoon.

niko, I agree with you that most posts seem to be repeats or just simple social affirmation that posters are part of a group. It certainly seems that to me. I can't tell you how many permutations of the exact same questions I have read over the years. Honestly we really do need new life breathed into the hobby. I like the idea behind the dummy questions - trying to dispel myths and get people thinking about why things work - but I think we should take this one step further.

I would love to see some kind of organized movement between interested hobbyists to actually start testing certain questions we all have about why things work or don't work in the hobby. Perhaps your next dummy question can be something along the lines of "how can we encourage people to contribute useful information to the hobby?" I am certain that there are many very basic questions about this hobby that we can figure out easily and cheaply. At the very least we can either confirm or deny results as a collective group.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Before we dwindle away in a meandering discussion let me just remind everybody what I've said several times before:

I had a tank that was situated in a completely dark room. There were no windows. 
The tank was lit with 3 wpg for about 3 hours a day. 
It had CO2. 
No fertilization of any kind. 
No fish. 
Inert gravel. 
The plants grew slowly, but were dark green and healthy. Mosses, Ferns, Krypts, some stems, also HC.

When one day the CO2 fizzled out it took about 3 days for many plants do deteriorate or die (stems). HC floating on the surface was fine. HC on the bottom died.

Two observations from all that:

*1. CO2 and light have some kind of connection.*

Here I'll spill a few beans and note that Amano varies his CO2 to basically match the amount of light. His CO2 is at its highest when the lights are the strongest.

At night he pumps Oxygen, but the reason is not to make the CO2 leave the water.

*2. Plants can do perfectly fine with very little light.*
Depending on the plant of course AND the presence of CO2.

So running a good amount of light for 9-12 hours a day over your tank is not the best idea. It certainly works. But it will probably lead to more risks of things going bad in case something happens in the tank.

And here are some more spilled beans: In ADA's tanks the factors that are used to control the system are very few (I think only 3!). One of them is the light. Don't be surprised now - you know how little effort it takes to steer a car once it has built up momentum. The more you interfere with the natural flow of things the higher the risk.

Just the other day I was driving on a busy highway and the driver of this small red car freaked out for some reason. I don't know if he was on the phone or what. The car started to swerve left and right and I thought it was going to fly up and spin. He stabilized it thank goodness. Why am I talking about that incident? Because often we make our aquariums "swerve" left and right when all we have to do is let them roll the way they are headed to. With minimal interference - minimal questionable notions:










--Nikolay


----------



## Diana K (Dec 20, 2007)

> Just the other day I was driving on a busy highway and the driver of this small red car freaked out for some reason. I don't know if he was on the phone or what. The car started to swerve left and right and I thought it was going to fly up and spin. He stabilized it thank goodness.


Me too, but the car that did this (right in front of my big truck) actually did roll- off the side and down the hill :shock:

:focus:


----------



## Neverlander (Jan 4, 2010)

Niko, you mean the adaptation of the survived plants under a certain -lets tell more proper- conditions, right? And the ones survived the way we settled in our tanks and did not change?

So, there may be several plants in our tanks. But there will be also ones will never get adapted to our condtions.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

niko said:


> So, after toying with the thought of selfishly abandoning the Dummy Questions I got some inspiration from somewhere and here we go again:
> --Nikolay


Why were you thinking of abandoning it?


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

niko said:


> No fertilization of any kind.


Not even fish food? If so, where were the plants getting nutrients to sustain their growth, albeit a very slow one?



niko said:


> The more you interfere with the natural flow of things the higher the risk.


Because of the illusion that we fully understand the system dynamics.


----------



## Viwwo (Oct 30, 2009)

Well think about it. You would not put a light hungry plant in to a low light aquarium. Maybe it won’t die but it won’t grow, it will just be. But that is a good thing! The burst of strong light allows the plants to grow but having it for a short time won’t create a runaway train of growing plants that you have to trim and they will grow again and you trim again. You could be smart about it, get the plants to where you want them to be and then lower the light to keep them there for a longer time. I have hair grass and 1.5w. SO LOW! The plant won’t die but it’s not growing, it’s just there.
I think this is one way you may use the burst of light. I will try it for sure for my next tank. I’m planning on a 30g one with 2x36 t5 light for a start and then put another one 36 t5 light and I will try the burst thing when I’m happy with my plants (the one 36 will be on for 10 to 12 hours a day and have natural time bursts from 12pm to 3pm of the other two lights) Will it work?? I don’t know.

Me as an responsible member of planet earth I have answered my question to the best of my knowledge, which is not much because I’m just starting out! lol


----------



## geeks_15 (Dec 9, 2006)

From my experience and from my reading, a successful planted aquarium can be achieved with all types of light: low to high intensity, different color bulbs, different lighting periods.

Success is more about achieving an equilibrium with the light you have and the substrate, filtration, CO2, fish load, etc.

Here is how I approach a planted aquarium:
I have certain equipment and I want maintenance schedule x. I think plants x, y, and z will work in this setup. I set it up and adjust as I go along (usually minor adjustments).

If you approach the problem from a different angle the question could be different e.g. I want to grow plant x which requires...

Regarding the midday burst: 
I believe the idea of the mid day burst is to accomodate high light plants, but by limiting the high light period you try to limit the other problems that go with high light (more maintenance required, more ferts, more algae problems (sometimes)).


----------



## tiffc (Jan 8, 2010)

My process is similar to geeks_15, I figured out what level of maintenance I wanted to do to the setup, how much money I wanted to spend on lighting, etc. and I found my plants according to that. The biggest thing for me personally was and continues to be research. It's so critical to someone starting out. Lighting is always a big factor in everything concerning the plants...it should be a major priority in beginning a planted tank.


----------



## Dryn (Sep 6, 2007)

We are constantly learning new things in this hobby, and relearning things that we once thought were true and now know weren't completely true. The great thing is that we can constantly adjust and expirament with all these things. I do not believe that there is a right way or a wrong way, per se. I do think that there are good ways and better ways, however.

From what I can tell, the plants that we keep need three very important things: light, CO2, and nutrients in order to survive. Every plant has a minimum requirement for these three things in both quantity, quality, and duration. If we set up a system that has a set parameter, then the plants should be chosen that "fit" that parameter. However, we can adjust the system to meet a different parameter if we want to include a particular plant. This is fairly basic and for a large part universally accepted. 

The debate comes when we try to define what the plant's requirements are and how to set the system parameter to meet the reqirements. This is when we get into this type of light or that type of how long, or how high or in conjuction with, etc. etc. All of this is debatable but the fact remains, if we meet the requirements we will succeed.

However, the key to success is understanding the requirements and knowing what you can do to meet the requirements. Sharing this information is paramount, especially when there are so many different disciplines and examples to follow. Therefore, we tend to confuse newbies and must suffer the inevitable repeated conversations. Perhaps someone could create a post with this information. Something like FAQ?


----------



## intothenew (Aug 1, 2008)

*Dummy Question #008: An Introspective Comment*

I find myself here late, not because of lack of interest, but from the intellectual burden that this series has enveloped me with. I comment today focusing on the not so subtle social undertow that has been expressed. I save response to the nuts and bolts until a more sober revisit of each wonderful thread.

Throughout the journey of prose expressed in this series, I have constantly ask myself, "Where am I?" and "Where do I want to be?". This self reflection commands that a bridge be constructed between those two points. To construct this bridge, I must first create a map. The following photos capture not only the mental sketches of the landscape, but also the gray and sometimes blurry vision that I have of these concepts.

The Passion Circle:










I find myself well inside the boundaries of this, and as well feel the company of many.

The Triangle of Disciplines:










I also find myself within the boundaries of this geometry, and again feel the company of many.

The Master Fence:










I certainly find myself outside of this one, and I imagine that to be a gratifying experience to be anywhere near that border.

?:

Inside that Master Fence I hold reserved for mother nature. I cannot hope to attain that level of competence, but I must always remain benevolent of her ways.

Where am I?:










Where do I want to be? I cannot answer that question, but I have a map to work with now.

Thank you Niko, thank you for making me feel less than learned.


----------



## Dryn (Sep 6, 2007)

It's not the goal that is the destination but the journey itself.


----------



## Diana K (Dec 20, 2007)

I like intothenew's concept, and find myself hovering around the science end of the triangle, but maybe not so deeply into the passion circle. I am enjoying what I am doing, but am more interested in why things work, and the mechanical aspects such as setting up the plumbing. 
However, this is not answering the questions about lighting.


----------



## grak70 (Jan 5, 2010)

If the goal is stability, that includes slow (or no) growth. That would be promoted by giving plants whatever minimum conditions keep them alive and healthy but limit opportunities for expansion.

The intense burst of light and CO2 stimulates photosynthesis and keeps the plants healthy. But the duration is limited to prevent opportunistic growth of anything (including the plants themselves) that would depart from equilibrium and make more demands on the system resources. If nothing about the system changes, nothing we do to it has to change either.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

grak70 said:


> If the goal is stability, that includes slow (or no) growth. That would be promoted by giving plants whatever minimum conditions keep them alive and healthy but limit opportunities for expansion


no growth? you mean silk plants? 
stability doesn't need to be tied to growth rate. but at a slow rate it is easier, definitely.

where'd niko go? is this a discussion about lighting or another one of those 'state of the hobby', 'why do noobs ask questions' threads? I was kinda hoping to see some words about lighting. the hobby is _fine_ and forums are forums.

I saw plenty of discussions about the state of the hobby when I was new, and it almost made me into a permanent lurker. maybe its a glass half full / empty thing guys? I/we want to make starters feel welcome on the forum(s), comfortable with the hobby, see theres fun to be had and things to learn for us all. Some people read, some ask questions. We could all do better to concentrate our info into faqs and guides, but the reality of our daily grinds usually nixes that. plus its *work*. and it involves putting yourself (the writer) up for criticism. That last one scares off some capable people unfortunately.

not valid cop-outs, I have a list a mile long of things I should collect up and document. so we should encourage each other to do that? if its fun, sure. if you want to help out, see what people think etc.

in general I think web discussions of any topic are repetitive and cyclical. Including this one I'm whipping right now.  theres informal show-and-tell, read and regurgitate, jump-in-with both feet, the philosophy, the science and pseudoscience. forums are a black hole for time, theres quirky people and topics, but we enjoy it right?

*light*

beyond debating _plants need light, for a minimum amount of time at a minimum intensity_
what else do we have to discuss? plenty I'm sure.

light as the preferred driver of the system?
variable intensity vs constant 
why cant we all have PAR meters? why cant they be cheaper?
are there really any high light plants? how do you tell?


----------



## intothenew (Aug 1, 2008)

ashappard said:


> I was kinda hoping to see some words about lighting.


I was kinda hoping to sober up before the switch was turned on.

Switch on:

"Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength."

Some of this stuff I can feel, some of this stuff I can see. Do my senses give me enough tools to understand enough to be able to implement its use in my garden? Yes, kinda sorta, in my terrestrial garden. The formula for the correct variance in spectrum, variance in photo period, and variance in intensity has been defined for me from cockcrow until the turkeys go to roost by sol. In the interim, an orb of night carries tenure.

I feel compelled to answer no concerning my cauldron of flora and fauna. I must call on the front lobe for help. I must remain benevolent of my terrestrial experiences. I have placed these creatures in an artificial environment of my design. I removed these creatures from a wonderfully dynamic setting. I can best serve them and myself by better understanding these heretofore feeble attempts at duplicating sol and the orb.

Variance in Spectrum:

With the rise and fall of sol and the orb, their energy is filtered by the gases, and liquids, and solids of the big blue marble. Might I best consider this? This not only questions the variance in spectrum during a photo period, but also calls into question the soup of my cauldron's capacity to filter. I should consider any item that might filter the spectrum of my artificial sol and orb, any and all items between the phototrophs and my radiation generator. Only then might I make some assumption as to correct spectrum output of my generator, or generators.

Variance in Photo Period:

The rise and fall of sol and the orb do not follow the constant digital structure that I have assigned to the generator. Consideration of the latitude from which I collected these creatures may be in order. Should I give them the benefit of the seasons?

Variance in Intensity:

My senses tell me this one is of significance daily, the gradual change in intensity affirms my biological needs of sustenance and rest. I also enjoy a cloud covered rainy day so that I may post ramblings concerning the effects of photons, and enjoy reading the same.

Lower kelvin, lower intensity at the beginning and end of the photo period. Higher kelvin, higher intensity in mid period. Just don't ask Artsy Fartsy to give up that low kelvin high intensity during show and tell. And yes, I do give them a cloudy day once in a while.


----------



## RestlessCrow (Nov 5, 2009)

IntotheNew..... You're awesome...


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

intothenew said:


> I was kinda hoping to sober up before the switch was turned on.
> 
> Switch on:
> 
> ...


----------



## maknwar (Feb 28, 2008)

Why does everyone use a mid day burst? Doesnt seem necessary to me. The same amount of light was always enough to keep my plants happy and growing. I would actually like to see proof of it being helpful.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

maknwar said:


> Why does everyone use a mid day burst? Doesnt seem necessary to me. The same amount of light was always enough to keep my plants happy and growing. I would actually like to see proof of it being helpful.


I agree, but we may not have the same opinion on how mid-day burst is unnecessary.

for aquariums that use long photoperiod, show tank, display tank etc - low light makes the job of stability easier. But maybe its not quite bright enough to get the plants to respond _as desired_, so a burst of higher light for a short time is applied. I did it for a while and it worked ok.

what I disagree with is that this is good because it simulates dusk/day/dawn found in nature.

what I started doing, since most of my tanks are not show tanks - is use a single high intensity bank for a period of time less than the original photoperiod but longer than the mid-day burst. 6 hours of MH for example, rather than 2hr T5 / 4hr MH / 2hr T5. the plants responded better, I used less electricity, and stability was still easy to maintain.

I didnt keep any convincing notes or make dry weight measurements / take photos of the experience. Anybody have thoughts about my observation? As an experiment, what could be done to validate the theory that mid day burst is or is not useful?


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

ashappard said:


> I agree, but we may not have the same opinion on how mid-day burst is unnecessary.
> 
> for aquariums that use long photoperiod, show tank, display tank etc - low light makes the job of stability easier. But maybe its not quite bright enough to get the plants to respond _as desired_, so a burst of higher light for a short time is applied. I did it for a while and it worked ok.
> 
> ...


I agree and I think you pretty much said it. If you want to run a longer photoperiod without many issues then you go with lowlight and you highlight burst 1 to 2 hrs. If you don't mind the shorter photo period than you can certainly run (i.e. all t5) for 6 hrs or so. This doesn't mean that you can't run a burst for 5 hrs or a t5 setup for 10 hrs. It just means in most cases you will have less issues with the shorter duration. It would be impossible to recommend one of these light strategies over the other since many people have setups that a burst simply isn't possible or practical. Also if one has a deep tank it would affect the light setup as well, in terms of position and strength. There are too many variables IMO to put this into a neatly defined space. Not every tank is ADA dimension.

This also goes for the other variables discussed, some just simply aren't practical for many planted tank people and if I was a newbie coming into the hobby and I saw this thread I would run like hell.


----------



## wet (Nov 24, 2008)

I'm just babbling.

Years ago I and this dude "Wizzard of Oz" were the guys who tried to standardize different bulb types under the argument that 2wpg NO isn't the same as 2wpg T5 or 2wpg Halide or whatever. Then we tried to standardize this to tank size (lumens per square inch) because, hey, why does WPG break on tiny or big tanks? Then we took a ton of samples from hobbyists -- both fact (tank size, bulbs used) and opinion (would the call their tank low medium or high light?) _and then_ even regressed this data set to correlate it vs Takashi Amano's tanks using this guy Fitch's analysis. Tom Barr called my wasted afternoon playing with these data sets great work! Anyway, we were all wrong and it's photo active radiation we care about. Or something.

But all that junk is wrong. After a bit more experience, I became of the opinion that there's only two levels of light that matter: a) enough light to grow plants and b) so much light CO2 is needed. The rest is almost over analysis. Maybe better said: taste and method. (Noon-burst to control uptake while keeping characteristics like bending plants and substrate hugging, for example.) But maybe you shouldn't listen to me because I am a dummy, too.

<3, Niko. Don't stop till you get enough.


----------



## intothenew (Aug 1, 2008)

*My Bias toward the Disciplines*

The scientist will focus on efficiency. His methods will surely parallel that of the modern fowl farmer where every turkey is plump at Thanksgiving. He will practice using intense regimes and only feel gratification from an increase in growth rate. This has/can/will be done.

The hobbyist will satisfy himself by reaching the silk plant syndrome. The gratification will come from viewing a static mural of his own design. This has/can/will be done.

The artist needs only one brief moment of self defined perfection. He takes the tools and products of the scientist and builds a sand castle. This has/can/will be done.

Where do I want to be?


----------



## geeks_15 (Dec 9, 2006)

> As an experiment, what could be done to validate the theory that mid day burst is or is not useful?


Here's an idea for an experiment:

Set up an aquarium and divide it in 2 with something that will prevent light from going between the 2 sides (black acrylic, filter foam). Plant the same plant on both sides of the divider with the same substrate, same filtration on both sides (to equilize flow), and on one side use the midday burst; on the other side no burst. The divider should allow water flow through it so the water is mixed and is less of a variable. The fish load should be the same on both sides. Basically do everything to make both sides the same except for the light.

Then you could measure plant growth over time. 
Some observations could also be recorded like amount of algae (and type of algae). Using a plant that will change depending on light level could be useful also (e.g. a plant with red color).

You could plant 3 types the same of plants on both sides of the divider and see how each responds.

I actually have the perfect aquarium for this. It is an 80 gallon subdivided into 4 20 gallon sections by black acrylic with slits cut into it. I thought about doing some such experiments, but I'm busy trying to breed dwarf cichlids right now. Maybe later.


----------



## ashappard (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: My Bias toward the Disciplines*



intothenew said:


> The scientist will focus on efficiency. His methods will surely parallel that of the modern fowl farmer where every turkey is plump at Thanksgiving. He will practice using intense regimes and only feel gratification from an increase in growth rate. This has/can/will be done.
> 
> The hobbyist will satisfy himself by reaching the silk plant syndrome. The gratification will come from viewing a static mural of his own design. This has/can/will be done.
> 
> ...


bravo, thats a concise and accurate summary.
I see myself as more turkey farmer, but cant claim to be a scientist even jokingly


----------



## bartoli (May 8, 2006)

wet said:


> After a bit more experience, I became of the opinion that there's only two levels of light that matter: a) enough light to grow plants and b) so much light CO2 is needed. The rest is almost over analysis.


Thus, instead of replacing bulbs very 6 or 12 months, I replace them only after they burn out.


----------



## Reginald2 (Feb 8, 2009)

I have not been into aquatic plant-keeping for very long. I'm not even really sure if it has been two years yet. Take that as my _idiot-disclaimer_.

I am sort of just throwing this out. When I was first looking into what I needed to be able to grow plants in the aquarium, I was looking at what I _needed_ to grow plants in the aquarium. Fortunately, I have a certain penchant for research and did a lot of bumbling around on mailing lists converted to web pages.

Sad stories of not enough light and melting plants and balancing shop lights atop tanks that were too narrow. Stories of success, even more stories of failure, and whispers of a brighter new future. These were the dark ages of aquatic agriculture, at least in its most recent resurgence.

It really wasn't that long ago. Twenty years on the outside. When it comes to lighting glass boxes of water, we've had a good couple of years. To go from is it possible to cram enough light on a tank to keep a plant alive, to how high do I need to suspend my lights marks a big shift.

That thought deserves a Friday not a Monday.

I would say that when I think of midday bursts, I think of the sun annoyingly ascending from its speckled green veil to burn the back of my neck (Southeast here).

I don't really know that I think that there is some genetic encoding in a plant soul that act as a sort of call of the wild. I don't know that mimicry of nature's rhythms would be enough to tame that savage beast either.

ps have you ever seen sun stream in through mini blinds? I've had to walk over and stare at a tube to make sure it was on.

I'm enjoying these. I like to hear maybe-hypotheses and possible-postulations, it makes my brain feel like there is still a little bit of juices left in there.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

I just want to say that I am being 'enlightened' by this thread.  I had always thought the idea of 'mid day burst' was a bunch of hokum, since there is no way to adequately replicate the gradual process of dawn through dusk in aquaria. But used as a management tool.....that may be the answer. 

Many folks seem to think they need a mini-sun to light their tanks. They want bright reds, and they want to grow every known specie of aquatic plant in the same tank. It's not natural, and often results in an algae farm. So as has been mentioned, I can see how the burst could function as a way to supply the higher light requiring plants what they need - give them enough to keep them healthy and growing (albeit slowly, perhaps), but control the duration of the high light so as to not have it cause algae issues. 

There is a balance (there's that word again), to be had. I have a friend who has a 29 gal tank, lit only by a 20W fluorescent strip. He rarely does water changes, but he does have a tank rather full of Anubias and Crypt wendtiis. They grow slow as molasses, but the tank is basically algae free. I doubt he could grow more than a couple of different stem species under those conditions, but, again, the balance is there for what he has in the tank.


----------



## Angry the Clown (Aug 26, 2006)

First niko, thank you. Your threads have me thinking of things in a whole new light (pardon the pun).

Here is my thoughts on the mid day burst:

When the mid-day burst is initiated, the water is saturated with dissolved CO2. The additional light radiation triggers an increase in the rate of CO2 uptake in the plants. This increased uptake would result in two things:

1. Plants would increase their absorption of CO2 which will increase the production of sugar (i.e. grow)
2. The levels of CO2 will decrease

The length of the burst would optimally allow the plants to use all the excess CO2 while allowing enough to remain for their normal biological activity, but not enough for algae. The increase of CO2 injection would seem to need to happen shortly after the burst lights come on, and end shortly before the burst lights are turned off. This would allow the plants to essentially outcompete the algae for available CO2. There would not be enough CO2 to allow the algae to grow and reproduce. 

Once the light levels return to the pre-burst levels, there is enough CO2 to allow the plants to sustain normal growth, making sugars/starches until the light is turned off. Then, by increasing the O2 in the tank, the plants (including algae) will bind to the O2 instead of any residual CO2 which forces the plants to give up a carbon molecule.

I'm sure I missed (read messed up) something here, but it seems to make some sense.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

From what I read ADA connects the CO2 with the burst of strong light exactly the way Angry The Clown described it. It makes a lot of sense to me, it's simple, and other than BBA (an algae that does not care about light an responds questionably to variations of CO2) one should not get too many algae.

Amano shrimp can easily take care of whatever algae decides to try to grow in such a tank. Also Otos. Both of these animals ara marginally effective algae eaters if not used in a reasonable number. 20 Amanos in a 55 gal. tank is a good number if you don't have visible algae. With visible algae think in terms of 100, 200, 300 - things start to get stupid. 20 Amaos would be enough if other factors reduce the algae anyway. My point is - we can certainly agree that things work together. And start understanding the interactions a little deeper now.

Let's take this further! So the light is shining brightly for 3-4 hours a day, we make the CO2 be at it's highest right at the beginning of the strong-light period, then CO2 is at it's lowest when the light is dim. Amanos and Otos take care of whatever weak algae tries to grow. We scrub all visible algae using a toothbrush (meaning they are very few and they are easy to scrub out). But in this algae-free paradise how do we manage the nutrients?

We could step up this system of algae genocide if we could increase the levels of nutrients so they are available only when the CO2 is at it's highest. And remove them when the light is dim. Quickly we'll all agree that that will be just too much. I guess a happy clown could do it with swift water changes, dosing pumps and so on. But it makes no sense. So I guess having a lean water column (no or very little ferts) and a substrate that can absorb the free floating nutriens should make more sense now that we have seen things a little brighter.

"Aha!" you could exclaim. "Now I understand why ADA publishes water parameters that make no sense! Zero Nitrate, zero phosphate, zero everything! Used car salesmen! No different than this guy!:"










The substrate on that parking lot should not only sequester nutrients from the water but also make them available to the roots. That concept sounds painfully familiar - it's the very description of ADA's AquaSoil.

That's how things start to come together, at least in our heads. If the above writings make sense to you you may start questioning why on Earth most of us run strong lights 8-12 hours a day while dumping fertilizers in the water to maintain a stable level of nutrients always available up for grabs. It's hard to not snub EI or PPS. But once again - if your tank is doing fine only a planted-tank-Nazi will yell you to run an get Poret sponges, increase your flow 10X the volume of your tank, order AquaSoil and have yourself a nice iwagumi.










In any case - the pristinely clean rocks on the picture below make more sense to all of us now. I hope. Go ahead and elnarge it, the original is spectacular:










And here's on observation that I've observed for at least 2 months now while observing my tank every day. A 55 gal. tank that I barely fertilize with K and Trace only. Once a week about 5 ml, of each. Water changes whenever I feel like it. 54 watts of Giesemann Midday T5HO for 7 hrs a day (no midday bursts). What's interesting is that there is a big smooth piece of wood right under the light. Right smack in the middle of the tank there's an exposed piece of wood that is lit the brightest comparing to any other areas of the tank. The wood is *completely* clean. For 2 months nothing has grown on it. I guess lean water column is what allows ADA to have hardscapes that look like a nice Japanese guy just got done scrubbing them with his toothbrush. At the same time the runners of my Val. nana have shot in all directions and are super fat - the substrate in that tank is inert, but very old. E. tenellus has grown from 1 measly plant to about 25 new plants since Christmas. I guess I've been doing something remotely similar to ADA (no midday light burst, no AquaSoil, no careful fertilizing, irregular water changes) and it keeps the tank clean as a whistle. I imagine the crazy plant growth if I add a midday burst of light.

Once again - in an aquarium setup to run with the plants as the center of the world ADA limits the controlling factors to only 3. One of them is the light. But by itself it can not perform miracles. Filtration, fertilization, interactions between the diffrent parts should be in place. I just uncovered all that and I know you haven't heard it ever before!

Another "once again" - there is more to be said about the lights that ADA has desgined but I don't want to go into details about them. It's better if we go into details about how and why we, ourselves, do things. But keep things fun please!










--Nikolay


----------



## longhornxtreme (Feb 20, 2007)

Excellent post niko. 

I'm going to be testing out some of these ideas over the coming months. Unfortunately, i had to break down my 29G that had been going strong for almost 3 years due to some heavy handedness on my part with H202. First time I've ever killed fish due to my negligence. I felt terrible. 

I'll be setting up a 29G with 72w Reg T5 with a earthworm casting + sand + clay topped with Eco complete substrate; a 10G with 36w AHS CF fixutre with same substrate. Both of these pressurized CO2.

And then I'm going to set up a 10G using screw in fluorescents in the ubiquitous hood, with same substrate, and excel only. Should be fun going.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

"Image hosted by Tripod" with super clean rocks:


----------

