Light Bulbs To Chew On

[lljdma06]

...excessive waterchanges make the limited CO2 unstable, which also triggers the algae...

lljdma06, do you think unstable CO2 (in tanks with no pressurized or DIY) has any effect on diatoms? My own observations completely support the advice that BBA is promoted by it, but I wonder about diatoms. Dave has indicated that low carbon is probably the major factor that keeps diatoms going assuming there's been trace ammonia to get it started. But maybe some think that fluctuating CO2 from large, frequent water changes is an additional factor?

WD

I think as the tank matures and you lose the likelihood of it being related to ammonia, then yes, it is possible, though I admit, I have not extensive research in the area! I do remember a low-tech I had a while back where I was actually cultivating the stuff for some otos. I couldn't get it to grow until I started doing more frequent, larger waterchanges and that helped the situation a bit. I imagine that there was no ammonia spike, as I was changing the water regularly, but since the amount is too small to measure, I cannot be certain. Of course, it opened a small can of worms, but for me, the need for diatoms outwayed the rest of the algae and the light levels were low enough that the other algae present was very easy to get rid of.

I think a key for newbies is having things at a manageable level. Many rush into the planted thing will all bells and whistles and then freak out when a problem develops quickly. If things were done at a slower pace, especially with the first tank, less people would get frustrated.

I have said this before, I personally do not mind a little algae, if it means I can invest a little less time in this hobby and enjoy the results more.

llj

 

[aaronnorth]

Now that lljdma06 has sent you guys out to pasture in the PARC and Dave has got the plants doing the cycling for you I thought it only fitting that I, as "beginner who talks too much" should attempt to pose another truly difficult question to draw the experts out of retirement and probably cause a huge sigh with nothing penned...

So here goes: I've read umpteen million articles on having light that's shining down at this or that energy, focused better with this or that reflector and kept on for this or that many hours, adjusted in this or that way to balance plant growth with algae avoidance, but its not good enough, I hunger for more!

What is the nature of the light problem in freshwater planted tanks? I know we all struggle with our own trial and error on this question but... How does the successful planted tankmaster *think* about his/her light? Which tradeoffs are more important than others? I'm just hoping to encourage you to share your insights, things that surprised you perhaps.. but I'll try to start that off by somehow shaping a few of my simple-minded questions.

What got me really thinking about light this time was realizing I'd gone over a year without changing out my fluorescents for new tubes. Lots of posts saying to do this. But then I thought, ok, they're dimming a tiny bit (not that I can see but the time is supposed to do that to them) but... and here is The Question... What is the difference, to plants, between more brightness (more photons per minute I'd guess/say) (in whatever wavelengths, lets leave that out) vs. more or less hours per day?

I found myself thinking about these 3 things, the tube somehow being different from age, the "energy" (for lack of a better term, since none of the light measurment things seem to work out as a useful scale) and the hours. I just can't get this out of my head, wondering about the brighter, fresher new fluorescent bulb vs the older dimmer one.

The hours have some interesting tidbits people mention. There's a statement people make that any photoperiod less than 4 hours won't be "seen" by the plant. That sounds interesting and I've even repeated it to others but I don't pretend to really understand that, any help? There are older statements by Dave and others here I respect who discuss starting out new tanks at maybe only 4 hours and then gradually increasing hours, watching for algae. I'm always interested in hearing peoples thoughts on that. There seem to be lots of people that will just declare that you need at least 9, 10, 11, 12 hours of light for healthy plants.. but that seems to cry out for more discussion.

WD

sorry for not posting, I haven't been on here for weeks!

When it comes to lighting, I take into account the wattage (for deciding wether I want low/ high tech) and the kelvin/ spectrum (to get a good White balance).
After that I will wait until my bulbs do not work before replacing them. In fact I haven't waited long enough once yet because the tank has usually been stripped down lol.

As for the photoperiod I start off with 6hr and work up until 8hr over a few weeks. No much difference it may seem but it certainley has seemed to help wiu algae, wether that be because o the gradual increase or becuase of the short 8hr photoperiod. I have never really gone above that.

Intensity vs photoperiod has never really been tested I don't think so I can't give a definite answer. But it certianley isn't related (can't think of the exact word) because you can't use 100w lighing for 5 hrs against 50w of lighting for 10hrs and expect to get similar results, although you are, overall, supplying the 'same' amount of energy.

Sorry for the poor spelling/ grammar- I am on my iPod

 

[waterdrop]

Certainly agree intensity and photoperiod are very different from each other - I think that's a basic in the lighting skill that even some of us beginners get early on.

I'm really glad to see lots of agreement on the 4 or 6 hour sort of starting period for a new tank, continues to make me feel like we are trying to pass good advice over to the beginners (of course a good deal of what I know ends up coming from the bunch of you over here with only little bits from AGA, some of the planted sites and other bits here and there.)

Aaron, I just could swear it was you or Dave (or maybe truck or radar or ll?) who had that post a long time ago with two large pics, one above the other of the same tank but with two different tints of light. I recall it being a commentary on how a combo of bulbs with different CRI could give a very different appearance to the tank. I would love to find that thread again!

I also wonder, and probably you guys/girls would remember, whether there's ever been discussion in the planted section over whether particular tints may seem to "click" better with a freshwater aquascape simply because perhaps our personal memories of what we think of as "correct" for a freshwater, say stream, scene really looks like in the wild (although I suppose the "true" snaps of the wild can at times be quite disappointing in this regard!) ...anyway I sometimes feel like the very presence of many submerged and emergent yellow/green plants seems to move the overall scene color in the yellow/green direction, not the white/blue direction. (I guess there's a world of doing tanks that are "authentic" recreations of particular aquascapes and I forget what this area of the hobby is called, forgive me.) But if you get my drift, is this color thing a discussion any of you have seen before, either here on TFF or elsewhere?

WD

 

[aaronnorth]

The only place I can think of is this site by JamesC

http/www.theplantedtank.co.uk/lighting.htm

Most people use a a combination of 2 tubes to give a broader white balance, usually a 6000k and then a 8000k or something so the tank remains a fresh white but the 6000k will bring out the greens in the plants.
Most of the advice being passed around is choose a kelvin that will bring out the optimum colours, so there has never been a thread that I can remember going into a great amount of detail, as the link above is then often given and the poster chooses a combination of tubes/ kelvins off of there.

(I guess there's a world of doing tanks that are "authentic" recreations of particular aquascapes and I forget what this area of the hobby is called, forgive me.

Nature Aquariums (NA)

Thanks, Aaron

 

[waterdrop]

So I've seen the term "white balance" used a few times but never known what it really meant. I assume it has nothing to do with the same term "white balance" that's used down in camera menus where you hold something white up to the camera so that its electronics can be adjusted to what you think of as "white" in the particular light you are in in the current situation.

So I guess its just a term for the spectral frequency response through the white region? ie. the shape of the little plateau through the visible wavelenghths... kind of like different frequency graphs would represent different timbres of sound? Sorry I'm being so dense, I guess it might even mean "tint" of the light color in a sense.

No, the example I was thinking of was definately on TFF somewhere but its the exact same idea as the link and thank you for that. Gosh, maybe the picture post I'm thinking of really was about how two tubes, each a slightly different K could add up to a significantly different look than either one of them alone.. I think I sort of remember that.

WD

 

[aaronnorth]

So I've seen the term "white balance" used a few times but never known what it really meant. I assume it has nothing to do with the same term "white balance" that's used down in camera menus where you hold something white up to the camera so that its electronics can be adjusted to what you think of as "white" in the particular light you are in in the current situation.

So I guess its just a term for the spectral frequency response through the white region? ie. the shape of the little plateau through the visible wavelenghths... kind of like different frequency graphs would represent different timbres of sound? Sorry I'm being so dense, I guess it might even mean "tint" of the light color in a sense.

No, the example I was thinking of was definately on TFF somewhere but its the exact same idea as the link and thank you for that. Gosh, maybe the picture post I'm thinking of really was about how two tubes, each a slightly different K could add up to a significantly different look than either one of them alone.. I think I sort of remember that.

WD

Not sure, I just use it because I am a keen photographer myself, so in this respect yes it is the same as the camera WB, whether its just me that uses it to refer to aquarium lighting I dont know lol

I'll give you an example from my latest tank then,

Sylvania 865 (80% 6500k) & Osram Skywhite 860 (80% 6000k)



A bit warm for liking, so I switched....

10 000k & 6500k

Now I just need to get a tank shot, I cant believe I havent got one since December I really need to sort out my tanks. That was the last time it had a waterchange too hehe, I am getting too lazy with this low tech business for my liking.

Thaks, Aaron

EDIT: In fact this may be with the new tubes.

 

[waterdrop]

Ah, for heavens sake ... you know you've "arrived" when you can show two shots of your tank with a lighting change like that and (in my opinion) in many ways one could just sit there thinking about the pros and cons of both. They are both beautiful! I could sit here all day just looking at and enjoying both pics! (I, on the other hand, still reside back among the beginners who have never even come close to putting together a tank that looks that good!)

Very good example though of what we've been talking about, probably every bit as good as the pair of pics I was going on about. I rather like both shades of light, each in its own way.

Certainly also makes me think about all the things that go into an individual shot! I like the way the new light helps define and show off the extreme right and left of the tank and I like the way more plants have filled in on the far left. On the other hand I like the way the wood is still defined in the first shot as opposed to being more obscured by plant growth in the second shot. In the first shot you've captured a wonderful positioning of the fish, with the shoal on the right perfectly placed to bottom anchor the thickest tallest portion of the scape and then to the left you've managed to also have another grouping at a good point where things are thicker over there! The light and camera though have rendered the fish more colorful in the second shot and that's nice. I'm completely torn between liking both the floating plants in the first shot but also the distinct and sharper stems and grass in the same right side positioning in the second shot. In fact, please tell me what the really thin tall grass is, boy would I love to have some of that (not doubt not for a beginner on excel though, like me.) The second shot also benefits from the extended horizontal line of brighter aqua color the back surface gives and I like the way your dark background seems to fog itself and not call attention to itself.

WD

 

[aaronnorth]

lol thanks. Great feedback
The grass is Cyperus Helferi... because I cant grow vallisneria

You might say the tank has gone backwards looking at that last shot and what it looks like now, since switching to low tech. I have taken out the cyperus and the stems and replaced them with C.Undulata which has barely grown.

The 2nd shot is really good though with the lighting, and surprisingly that was taken with less light (1st = 2x54w....2nd = 2x28w)

Thanks, Aaron

 

[lljdma06]

You might say the tank has gone backwards looking at that last shot and what it looks like now, since switching to low tech. I have taken out the cyperus and the stems and replaced them with C.Undulata which has barely grown.

The 2nd shot is really good though with the lighting, and surprisingly that was taken with less light (1st = 2x54w....2nd = 2x28w)

Thanks, Aaron

Both tanks look good, though I prefer the first photo. I guess I work more with tannic tanks and prefer the warmer tinge. I do have my limits with the warm tinge, though as I also use a mix of bulbs. One that's 6700k and one that's a colormax "full-spectrum" bulb, whatever that means. It's pink. Two 6700ks are just way too yellow and aweful-looking. It's not a warm, tannic yellow either, but a very weird green yellow. My nano uses a 7100k, and I've gone as high as 10000.

llj

 

[Dave Spencer]

My nano uses a 7100k, and I've gone as high as 10000.

llj

And many are the people that will tell you can`t grow plants under a 10000k lamp, despite evidence to the contrary. Not only your tank Lissette, but one I can think of on APC and one by Dan Crawford on UKAPS. It was never Dan`s intention to run 10000k lamps because, like most of us, he didn`t like the look, but he kept them for three months or so with good growth.

I generally go for a tube with a CRI of around 9 (between 90 and 100), which is still less than a perfect method, but I have accumulated enough cheap lamps to be able to get the look I like with some swapping around.

Intensity is the parameter most likely to cause problems as opposed to photoperiod, in my estimation. 100W for four hours could produce a scenario where CO2 needs to be injected. CO2 injection can increase growth rates by a factor of 10. Couple this with increased growth from the more intense light and you could run in to problems with the increased nutrient requirement, should there be no fertiliser regimen in place. 50W for ten hours may never see carbon becoming depleted, and no increased nutrient requirement.

Taking lighting above stock levels generally means a greater knowledge required of adding carbon, N, P, K etc.

Dave.

 

[lljdma06]

My nano uses a 7100k, and I've gone as high as 10000.

llj

And many are the people that will tell you can`t grow plants under a 10000k lamp, despite evidence to the contrary. Not only your tank Lissette, but one I can think of on APC and one by Dan Crawford on UKAPS. It was never Dan`s intention to run 10000k lamps because, like most of us, he didn`t like the look, but he kept them for three months or so with good growth.

I didn't intend it either. Bulb broke, only thing left was the 10000k that originally came with the fixture, while the others were on the way. Needless to say, it was pretty atrocious, but it got the job done. Better to have some light rather than none, even if it is ugly.

 

[waterdrop]

What does a 10000 do, take away all the warmth? (I'm picturing those Halides over salt tanks, creating mid-day white-blue sun like when you're at the ocean with white sand.. is that 10,000?)

 

[lljdma06]

What does a 10000 do, take away all the warmth? (I'm picturing those Halides over salt tanks, creating mid-day white-blue sun like when you're at the ocean with white sand.. is that 10,000?)

Remembering when my 36g had it for a few weeks a couple of years ago, it looked cooler (color-wise, more whitish), less tannic, and kind of washed out. Very ugly, IMO, especially since I had so much green, brown (mopani wood) and red-orange (cherry barbs) in the tank. There are more blues and purples and yellows in the saltwater tanks so for me, those colors look much better under 10000k. This is all a matter of taste, though. There are those who like the look of 10000k on their planted tanks. These people would call my tanks yellowish and overly tannic and "warm". I was not photographing the tank during its ugly phase.

Sorry, I missed this latest post.

 

[waterdrop]

You know, its a funny thing about this thread. I come over here every now and then to check on it and this currently last page of the thread starts off with Aaron's post with the two tank pictures. Well, I've always told myself that I'm sort of equally entertained by the whole range of things that happen in the aquarium world, by planted tanks and marine tanks and even beginners tanks with wacky decorations sometimes. But I'm having to face up to something. Deep down, all things are not created equal and I sure hope someday I get to do a real planted tank like all of you have, its really what I like the best.. by far. Somehow there's just nothing that quite equals a really good freshwater planted tank - I'm starting to feel a bias. It aches a bit.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[lljdma06]

You know, its a funny thing about this thread. I come over here every now and then to check on it and this currently last page of the thread starts off with Aaron's post with the two tank pictures. Well, I've always told myself that I'm sort of equally entertained by the whole range of things that happen in the aquarium world, by planted tanks and marine tanks and even beginners tanks with wacky decorations sometimes. But I'm having to face up to something. Deep down, all things are not created equal and I sure hope someday I get to do a real planted tank like all of you have, its really what I like the best.. by far. Somehow there's just nothing that quite equals a really good freshwater planted tank - I'm starting to feel a bias. It aches a bit.

~~waterdrop~~

The hairgrass is always greener...