I've got about 1.7wpg. To start I was dosing very small amounts of carbon and tpn+ every other day, which practically did nothing in a 250L tank. I started to notice brown algae forming on the anubias leaves and now I am having to add 2 capfuls of liquid carbon and a capful of tpn+ everyday which seems to be halting the growth of brown algae. But it is a bit of a pain and really expensive when you work it out, so if you can take a tube out that might be the best option.
I guess some people just have the knack for planting and working out dosing regimes and producing lush tanks. My idea was to have low tech, no ferts, no nothing, just plants that'd grow without my intervention....i'll be so lucky!
The main biggie that causes problems with planted tanks is light. One of the most tinkered with aspects and upgraded all the time, not necessarily by the tank owner. Often by the manufacturers who seem to be well behind current thinking. That or just assuming latest tech is better so they upgrade.
Second is circulation. We suggest 10x or more but that is not because you need 10x or more. It is to make it more likely you get the full circulation of the tank going well. Think of that more like us adding excess amounts ferts to ensure that the 'needed' amount is supplied. I move up to 20x for hi tec but in low tec I let my 5.6x 2224 do the job on its own. Circaultion is not so important at such slow speed of growth. thats not to say you have to remove anything if you are at a higher turnover. Its just that I was reigning in all cost factors with this tank while I was quite bored with the hobby. While I was uninterested I let the experiment continue with minimal outlay.
Made £400 profit that year on this tank. lol
So the 'balance' is hard to achieve. With all other variables (nutrients, CO2, Turnover etc we can add excess to achieve a needed. With light we can't because if we add excess then the 'needed' of the other variables rises, therefore the excess rises and it would be a full circle thing.
This is why over a certain amount of light we have to inject CO2, add ferts etc or the problems accelerate faster than you can access or deal with them.
In a non CO2 tank we should be downgrading any modern lighting system. The older ones with 2 full length (or nearly full length) T8 tubes are about the perfect level @ circa 1WPG. The modern setups with T5HO and CF/PL (which is also T5HO bent to a shape) are a problem for non CO2 unless you can limit their output.
Some things you can try are to remove the reflectors. That will take you from 70% eficiency to circa 30%.
You can put a glass lid on the tank which will halve the light instantly (this is quite literally halve not just a word I'm using to exaggerate)
You can try T5NO tubes in a T5HO fixture if the ballast will allow it. Do not try this yet as there is a discussion on barrreport about this and I'm unsure whether it actually reduces output or overdrives the NOs to a HO level. I'll have to come back on that one.
If it is possible you can raise the lights up from the tank.
The preferable way would be to downgrade to what you want therefore reducing the power you use. All the methods above use the same power but manage the light levels by how much they can waste!!!
That means if you are into the 'environment' issues then you are wasting less power. If you don't care about the environment then it is still wasting you money. I'm not telling which side I am on. lol
This is interesting. I wonder if ianho and LL or other planted experts could comment on this? Can underfertilization somehow be a significant factor in a brown algae outbreak? I thought brown algae (diatoms) would basically come out of the spore state when triggered by enough ammonia and light, just like any other algae? I'd be very interested to hear how upping your ferts to a more correct level to match your plant load would help this. (?)
I've never experienced diatoms in anything other than a new setup. That is without Purigen, running non CO2 and no water changes so these untraceable ammonia spikes where there and no purigen to remove them!!!
I sometimes get GSA or GDA from under-fertilisation though
I guess some people just have the knack for planting and working out dosing regimes and producing lush tanks. My idea was to have low tech, no ferts, no nothing, just plants that'd grow without my intervention....i'll be so lucky!
In many cases it is more luck than knack. They know many of the reasons for something working, not all but most. And why alter it if it ain't broken. It worked once so on the next scape continue etc etc. We are all learning all the time so non of us know everything. I may have a strong understanding of X area but not as strong an understanding as someone else in another area however if I accidentally manage to get a situation where the part I don't understand is not causing a problem then I am not going to alter anything
I can vouch that low-tech can work. 1 w/g, with liquid carbon and "reduced EI dosing" has worked for me with a variety of low-light plants (java fern, swords, anubias, crypts and others
You'll hate me here Waterdrop. I think this statement is all wrong. IMO people assume hi-tec means all singing and dancing equipment wise. In my eyes a hi-tec tank is one where very regular additions are made. Meaning a C additive or DIY yeast and nutrients. Many disagree but onec that line is crossed then its a totally different ball game. even under low light you have upgraded the light because once the plants don't need to use so much energy to glean C and nutrients they redirect their energies to making the best out of light.
In effect you are increasing the light by making their nutrients easier to find. A little like an army will reposition its defences to where they are needed most
I also wouldn't call those plants low light plants because I don't believe there is such a thing. I think it is something to do with CO2 in that they are 'low CO2 uptake plants' People assume light because some plants won't grow under their low light. They do not ever suggest they won't grow under their low CO2. I wonder why they are so quick to assume it is the light. Once they add the light the plants grow BUT they started adding CO2 too
I think you can grow virtually anything and in nice condition under 1WPG with CO2 addition however that is not the point of the OPs post. Thats me digressing.
On the excess fish food and waste making a supply I think its more the other way around. Forget about trace. The name is not a brand it means only a trace is needed. There is trace in fish food because all living things need trace. Add excess food and there is excess trace. At the rate the plants grow in a 'real' non CO2 tank this is enough.
The only things likely ever to run out of in a non CO2 tank are NPK because these are the 3 biggies for the plants. They use many many times more of this than trace. Trace is like the pinch of salt in a loaf of bread.
i would have to agree with you here WD, even the top planted tank keepers encounter Diatoms. Diatoms has no bearing on C02 levels or ferts IMO/IME, it's caused by ammonia spikes.
Hmmm. lol
Dave Spencer used to talk about using Purigen to get that last (under zero ppm by the liquid tests) little extra bit of ammonia out of the water.
I remember Dave Spencer was the first I heard was using it. I was questioning him on what it was. Up came the subject of 'it makes the water crystal clear'. I replied. No use to me then. My water is already crystal clear (and indeed it was.) I ended up getting curious and bought a bag and my I was humbled. Yes my water was crystal clear. With Purigen it is invisible.
Supercoley also uses it for the same reasons and he also likes the product.
Not the same reasons. If I am running hi-tec I use it. I don't want the ammonia in there while the speed of growth is so high. In a non CO2 tank I wouldn't use it were it not for my addiction to invisible water.
In a non CO2 tank I WANT the ammonia there so I don't have to dose anything. However as I do have the Purigen in there I have to dose and I add 8% of EI levels weekly and remember no water changes.
When I ran the tank non CO2 from September 2009 to November 2010 (15 months) there was no Purigen in the filter and no water changes. dosing was only done every month or 2 if I saw GSA appearing on teh anubias (phosphate defficiency) and then it was only less than 1% of EI levels of macros. no traces were added through this 15 month period!!
Just overstocked with fish (circa 2" per gallon) a zillion shrimp eating whatever they eat (don't seem to touch any black algaes nor others that ever appeared. lol)
Another key factor in my setup is the substrate. The Tropica is clay, high CEC and now highly organic. 3 years old and stinks. lol. Decomposition provides CO2 right at the hardest level to get CO2 down to. The substrate.
Also Leonardite is a slow release carbon additive. It is effectively very old coal however it provides another source of C.
A non CO2 tank with no water changes for such a long time may strip the KH down. maybe as far as zero because again it is using the carbon source.
The key here is of course carbon, however I am not adding anything daily here. It goes in at the beginning and then the natural process is left to do the work. Were it not for the Purigen I would not need to add any nutrient either (or at least not worth mentioning as stated above)
So the key to a very healthy non CO2 tank:
Get the setup right at the beginning from the substrate to the circulation to the light levels. Even the discipline needed to not interfere let the tank go and leave it alone for 15 months!!!
Setup at the beginning is key
For me and the way I am, my mindset etc, patience is for hi tec users. Those who have to do loads of pruning adding this adding that etc. Its a chore (but one I will re-embark upon soon.)
The non CO2 non water change route for me is more ignorance than patience. I feed twice a day and nothing more apart from maybe top up from evaporation occasionally if the water splashing is annoying me. lol
The 'balance' so often spoken about is not so much about adding just enough.
It is more like a set of scales where light is on one end, everything else is on the other end and you need to get the other end to be heavier than the light.
Not really a balance. Its more like giving you guests more food on their plate so you know no-one is moaning. Doesn't matter if they can't eat all of it but don't give them the whole saucepan. lol
One word of warning though. I mentionede earlier that its not the knack. There may well be something I have stumbled on by accident that makes my setup work. Something I don't think of or something I don't even know about. It is only an asumption that I make that it is because I have got everything right where it may well be an unknown to me determining factor.
AC
