Oops Forgot About The Lighting Part

[three-fingers]

K rating doesnt matter.

Actually, I'm not sure that's totally true yet, though in this case it doesn't matter. I have noticed plant's changing colour after switching bulbs (and this is not just due to the appearance under the new bulb).

For certain it's not really important to consider for the health of the plants (so doesn't matter much), but I think it could have an effect on the colours brought out in plants, because a different K means the tube puts out higher or lower percentages of the light at various different wavelengths, affecting which photosynthetic pigments the plant uses.

I'd love to test this, but am skint . I've been investigating it as a possible investigation to do for my adv higher biology course at school though. Could help people grow red plants under 'low light' T8 ballasts by choosing the right K rating of tubes off the web.

 

[SuperColey1]

You can test that one when you've got the cash. lol.

I would think (opinionated me of course) that if you got a 4500K, 6500K and 10000K which were all the same brand, all the same type, all the same wattage and of course all new. They would give the same results. Not to go back down the statement we've been going through earlier but I don't think the colour of the light would change colour. Maybe the quality of the light may.

You would of course have to have 3 tanks the same, same plants, same substrate, same everything and that would be quite hard to do.

AC

 

[Renate]

the plants do great with that kelven rating

Have you read the whole of this thread

K rating doesnt matter.

Yeh, I know but if the k rating is high then it is near sunlight and has some other colors besides green. For daylight is around 5500K.

Don't bother about any light with a Kelvin (K) rating below 5,000K as the colour of the light will look crap and it won't be that good for the plants. Natural sunlight has a Kelvin rating of about 5,700K so try to get lights with a Kelvin rating between 5,000 & 10,000K.
Colin_T

10,000k is very good for plants, possibly even better than 5500-6700. People are finding that the 9000-10,000 bulbs might actually be ideal. Amano stands behind a kelvin that is in the 9000's.
Tear-scar

A few notes about Kelvin:
* Plant chlorophyll absorbs light at wavelengths of 300 to 700 nm (a Kelvin rating of about 6400 strikes a good balance here)
* The lower the “K”, the more yellow the light appears, such as a 4500 K bulb.
* The higher the “K”, the bluer the light appears, such as a 20, 000 K bulb.
* The human eye sees mostly sees light around 5500K.
Botanists argue that blue light is the most important for leaf growth and that red light encourages flowering and general health, meaning you would need more ultraviolet for more plant growth. Generally lighting with a Kelvin output of 6400 K occupies region of peak PAR and are the most desirable for plant growth (which is Kelvin rating of the sun's light in the tropics at noon).
http/www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aq...m_Lighting.html

 

[SuperColey1]

No problem below 5000K. Most pink lights are 4-5000K. Mine is 4500K. Any lower than 4000K is a bit orangey/yellow to our eye.

It is true that many aquascapers at the moment especially in the US and asia are using the 10K lamps.

 

[aaronnorth]

look at this thread on the barr report, it is all about K rating and has a lot of science behind it, worth reading every page:

http/www.barrreport.com/general-plant-to...lbs-plants.html

As the subject often gets way over many aquarists and the Public's head, marketing seeks to take advantage (Unwittingly, or in full knowledge) of this lack of knowledge, they use lots of jargon, do not ask the right questions, make false claims with no support(actually the opposite) and keep getting away with it.

This is quackery in the market place.

At least they are not adding fertilizer to Chocolate or milk. Not nearly as bad, but similar.

Fragrance is unregulated and they do no test on these in beauty products. Really amazing, but unless someone does something, disproves them based on sound science, this crap keeps coming.

Takes longer to disprove than it does to come up with yet another snake oil.
Spend some $ in R&D and long term business goals, not quarterly marketing goals. The quick $ vs wise long term.

Light bulb companies will say all sorts of things to get you to try and buy, you know there is no regulation, but many wander off, think the companies are really on to some "new research" and plant growth/photosynthesis.
No, a plant scientist is going to know more about what makes a plant grow and how to measure that.

Show me the dry weight differences, with error bars under controlled methods for the species claimed. Otherwise, shut the heck up

 

[three-fingers]

look at this thread on the barr report, it is all about K rating and has a lot of science behind it, worth reading every page:

[URL="http/www.barrreport.com/general-plant-to...lbs-plants.html"]http/www.barrreport.com/general-plant-to...lbs-plants.html[/URL]

Thanks for that, very interesting read.

Basically I've gathered just what I thought before, it just needs testing .

Different K ratings put out different percentages of light at various wavelengths (though the graphs I've looked at aren't exactly easy to read). This is generally shown by the overall colour of the tube. So by using different K ratings, it is possible to change which photosynthetic pigment the plant is predominantly using. However, in commercially available bulbs, they only put the K rating on some bulbs within quite a small range of colours, and chlorophyll can work in all of these, so may mask the other pigments. Or may not - I've not tested it yet. I'd like to experiment with single phosphor bulbs like red, blue and green too though.

Some plant's just seem to have a preference as to what photosynthetic pigment they use.

 

[SuperColey1]

That thread gives the impression that Tom was reading it as it went on but finally said 'thats it, I've had enough, lets stop the theorists in their tracks'

I particularly liked this comment:

'If you want real pretty reds, just buy Tom Barr's "Red Plant Paint" and get a brush. I gar-untee it'll make your plants red'

For hose of you who haven't come across Tom Barr before, he hates people wheeling out theorys and not doing tests, preferably controlled tests.

For example in the thread linked to there is someone reeling off graphs of what light plants need, then one person detailing that plants will accept any kind of light. They don't meet in the middle nor do they try the test (of course money is often an objective having to have 3,4,5 controlled tanks to use for these sort of tests.)

I think to get a handle on what CEG was saying in that thread you can look through journals where some use 4500K 'plant specific' lights, some use 6500K 'daylight' lights. Some use 10,000K+ or Metal Halides. There are winners and losers in all cases. Therefore I would assume that as there are winners under each lighting that the losers are getting something else wrong!!!

AC

 

[Renate]

Okay so you are saying that most plants adjust to the light you have and flourish if they have the proper nutrients?

My goal is not red plants just bushy plants with algae.

 

[SuperColey1]

My goal is not red plants just bushy plants with algae.

bushy plants WITH algae. lol. I assume you mean no algae.

Yes what I have been saying (and for the most part that thread) is light is the driver. add sufficient (of any K or type) then ad sufficient nutrient and add sufficient CO2 then as long as you have good circulation within the tank then everything is delivered to the plants.

The trick is to look through journals and pick out the succesful things. Even top scapers that regularly produce quality scapes experiment with different equipment. Not necessarily just because ADA bring out something new. Some people find that a cheap part works wonders. Other MUST have everything ADA and can still struggle.

Its much like sport/music/life etc. Some get it right from day one. Some stumble across a 'defining' moment. Some research/practice for years. Some give it up.

AC

 

[Renate]

LOl, yeh I meant no algae. Oops!! I have a splitting headache at present and am trying to divert my attention from it. Supercorey your replies are helping me with my pain. You are so funny.

I think I aaron got fed up with this thread.

Its the manufactures fault that lights are so confusing. For they this is the perfect bulb for growing plants and say it is because of this or that.

 

[aaronnorth]

nope, still here just that i wasnt on when Andy posted his 1st reply after three fingers thats all!

 

[SuperColey1]

As Tom says in the excerpt that Aaron has copied. If all lights are good for plant growing then marketing hype can choose to sell a particular light at a premium price and everyone starts to buy it.

Its the same in any field. why do we buy a Sony TV for twice the price of a no name brand. They are most likely the same internals and the same quality the Sony won't last twice as long.

Which brand would you prefer from these: Goodmans, Grundig, Alba, Bush, Crown, Acoustic Solutions

Answer is that it doesn't matter, they are all owned by Albaplc. You can buy the Bush version of an item cheaper than the Goodmans version. Expensive little 2" badge on the front. The item is the same.

However from days gone by we have in our minds that Alba and Bush are cheap and nasty whereas Goodmans and Grundig are quite good so we pay the extra for the Goodmans believing it is better.


The marketing departments know this and that is why they haven't 'dumped' all the other names and made everything Alba.

So next time you want a TV buy the Alba, and with the stanley knife you have taken with you, prize off the Goodmans badge.

Similarly next time you get a bulb get a decent brand but without the label 'plant' or 'aquarium' and when you get home you can get your CD marker out and carefully design your own 'aquarium/plant' logo on it.

I bought a Goodmans 27" widescreen TV a few years ago. It was great and thought I'll get another of them as my PC monitor. Went to Argos and they said that they didn't have that model anymore. Looking through the catalogue I spotted an Acoustic Solutions one that looked the same but for £200 less so I ordered that. When it arrived it wasn't Acoustic Solutions, it was a Crown and it was identical to the Goodmans one in everyway!!!


AC

 

[Renate]

Since I see a lot of tanks with low light have injected co2, I wonder if without injecting co2 the plants need more nitrates. This is something I can run a test on and will do so soon.

 

[SuperColey1]

Since I see a lot of tanks with low light have injected co2, I wonder if without injecting co2 the plants need more nitrates. This is something I can run a test on and will do so soon.

Nope, exactly the opposite. The light drives the plants. then they use the CO2 that is supplied and take in enough nutrient to feed this growth.

Lower CO2 means lower nutrient and therefore lower Nitrate.

What people try to do by using pressurised CO2 is not necessarily to supply a huge amount but to maintain a constant level. No scientist as I said before but there is something (I think called Rubesco or similar) which adapts to the level of C available. therefore if you dose 10ppm it adpats to that and the plants grow at that speed, if you dose 30ppm then they adapt to this and grow a lot faster. If your CO2 is up and down (like 1 bottle yeast setups) then they have to keep stopping and adapting which means that algae then thrives.

This is why DIY setups are not liked by serious aquascapers as the plants struggle to adapt as fast as algae can.

This is also why no water changes are suggested with the non CO2 methods. The tap water is rich in dissolved CO2 and therefore each water change boosts the ppm causing fluctuations. If you don't do water changes then the natural gaseous exchange at the water's surface is consistent.

AC

 

[Renate]

Could it be if the the colors are not optimum for the plants to grow bushy that they need more potassium or other nutrients?