Shrimp Tank Questions

[L_Plates]

Im slightly worried about the idea of HC as im not sure it will survive if i use liquid carbon or am i worrying over nothing here ?

Is there any plants similar to hc that would be a better choice ?

Cheers
LP

 

[KittyKat]

If i was to go 3cm at front would that be ok for HC ? as the larger plants would be at the back with the wood and rocks.

It would only need enough to root, I assume, for which 1 cm or 3 cm should be fine: I only said 3 cm because it is physically impossible to plant something into 1 cm of substrate! There is a way you can do this with with 1cm of substrate though: lay out the substrate, add just enough water to barely cover the 1 cm part of the substrate, toss strands of H. callitrichoides onto the bits covered with water. They will take some time to attach to the substrate, 12-14+ hours of light per day at this point will help. Once they're attached, just plant the rest of the plants and fill the tank up. Apparently, if you take this further and wait for it to carpet, it will survive without CO[sub]2[/sub] even once covered in water (although won't spread further)… apparently.

 

[L_Plates]

I really going off the idea of HC to be honest. Thinking maybe some moss instead as it will be easier to look after without Co2, undecided.

If i can get my hands on another cheap reg/solenoid/needle valve i might change my mind

LP

 

[ian]

They will take some time to attach to the substrate, 12-14+ hours of light per day at this point will help.

Can i just ask where you found this info?? That is a ridiculously long photoperiod. HC melts as well, and with that length of light over the tank, you are guaranteed algae. HC like any plant will stop photosynthesising after about 4-6 hours max. After that the light we use becomes merely for our viewing pleasure.

I say, go for the HC, you'll only need a few pots and it's good to try new plants.

 

[ian]

also theres a small section on planting hc in this vid.

 

[L_Plates]

hmmmm, i just dont know. Read another thread where someone tried to use HC with liquid carbon in a nano and it just melted. Might keep my eyes open for a cheap reg/solenoid/needle valve as i have the rest of the equipment i would need.

LP

 

[Tizer]

I've been keeping an eye out for a cheap 30x30x30 tank to chuck on my computer desk and was going to do pretty much spot on what you are trying to achieve.

Im gonna let you blow your money on stuff and wait for the pictures now gogogo!

 

[L_Plates]

Already started to blow it, Columbo Florabase, Lancsacping Rock and Manzanita Wood is all ordered !

Journal will be started when they arrive

LP

 

[ian]

BTW LP, HC will melt what ever. It'll get used to it submerssed for as it's another plant thats grown emmersed. Mine is melting at the moment. HC actually likes Carbo.

 

[L_Plates]

Would 11w be enough for HC aswell nearly 2w per gallon?

My other choice if not HC would be Fissidens Fontanus, looks awesome as a carpet and the shrimp would love it.

LP

 

[KittyKat]

They will take some time to attach to the substrate, 12-14+ hours of light per day at this point will help.

Can i just ask where you found this info?? That is a ridiculously long photoperiod. HC melts as well, and with that length of light over the tank, you are guaranteed algae. HC like any plant will stop photosynthesising after about 4-6 hours max. After that the light we use becomes merely for our viewing pleasure.

And I would very much like to know where you found that the plants stop photosynthesising after 4-6 hours

This method was suggested in the Ecology of the Planted Aquarium, and I have read a couple of records of it working around the Internet. I have tried it myself as well, with success (although purely to grow the plant in a shallow basin, not in deep water that one would expect inside an aquarium).

As for the ridiculously long photo period, if it was not possible to have it that with success, how do all these plants survive in the wild without being killed off by algae? But regardless of that, the "ridiculously long" photo period has always worked for me and many other people (I am not saying for everyone, or even close to everyone) much better than 4-6 hours. In fact, ever time I have attempted to grow plants in 4-6 hours, for the sake of saving electricity, they have suffered (with the exception of duckweed). No, I am not talking about tanks which are overdosed on carbon and fertilisers (it wouldn't even be possible to dose anything when there are only a few cm of water in the aquarium). The only times I have ever had algae problems was when I tried dropping the lighting period to 4-6 hours or when there were only a small handful of plants in the aquarium, not when using long lighting periods.

Yes, I am suggesting this lighting period for this specific case in combination with the rest of the post, not as "this is the only way it will work" or "you have to do this once you fill the tank".

 

[ian]

You have to remember that aquatic plants are different to their terrestrial friends. We as aquatic plant tank keepers would never advise to keep you lights on for 14 hours. You need to check out some of the best planted tanks, that keep the lighting to a minimum to stop the algae growth. Fourteen hours is IMO a ridiculously long photoperiod to be suggesting to someone. It isn't needed. We know that from practice. Obviously the lower the light, the longer you leave the lights on for. But 12-14 hours is still IMO stretching it. You also run low light aquariums. The light that LP is talking with this shrimp tank isn't low light. Then you have to take into account that this is a new planted aquarium, again we as planted tank keepers would advise that you start with a lower photo period. Not 14 hours...this is were the 'ridiculously' long photoperiod comes from. You have to remember that people don't have the experience sometimes and would jump into your suggested 12-14 hour photoperiod, taking no regard of the light strength and end up with algae upon algae.

Regarding the length of time that plants photosynthesise for, Tom Barr has studied it alongside his boffs at the Barr Report. I think you may find that some of the data in the book you mentioned is a little out dated.

 

[fishyfeet]

what i do is 12 hours with a 2 hour break inbetween it seems to work for me, i have a timer from any hardware store like b & q or homebase, my lights are on from 7am to 1pm and 3pm - 9pm this works for me as i get up at 7 ish, and go to bed not long after 9 so the lights are on when im around to see them, and the algae is much reduced.

then again i have a 10 year old planted tank with fast growing plants and algae eaters and i still get a little algae di

 

[KittyKat]

You have to remember that aquatic plants are different to their terrestrial friends.

I was referring to aquatic plants, not terrestrial

We as aquatic plant tank keepers would never advise to keep you lights on for 14 hours. You need to check out some of the best planted tanks, that keep the lighting to a minimum to stop the algae growth. Fourteen hours is IMO a ridiculously long photoperiod to be suggesting to someone. It isn't needed. We know that from practice. Obviously the lower the light, the longer you leave the lights on for. But 12-14 hours is still IMO stretching it. You also run low light aquariums. The light that LP is talking with this shrimp tank isn't low light. Then you have to take into account that this is a new planted aquarium, again we as planted tank keepers would advise that you start with a lower photo period. Not 14 hours...this is were the 'ridiculously' long photoperiod comes from.

I have seen some of the best planted tanks and quite a few of them have very long lighting periods. Quite a few of them also have shorter ones. From practice I know that it is beneficial in certain circumstances. I assure you, I have run high light aquariums, unless you consider over 7 wpg of T5s over a 12" tank "low light"? I *currently* run only low light aquariums, but that does not mean my experience with other lighting conditions is meaningless.

You have to remember that people don't have the experience sometimes and would jump into your suggested 12-14 hour photoperiod, taking no regard of the light strength and end up with algae upon algae.

I agree that experience does play some part, but I can not agree that higher lighting periods guarantee algae as that has not been the case for me or for aquariums I have looked after through work for an LFS or for people I have helped set up aquariums.

Regarding the length of time that plants photosynthesise for, Tom Barr has studied it alongside his boffs at the Barr Report. I think you may find that some of the data in the book you mentioned is a little out dated.

Link about photosynthesis? But I cannot see how the author's experience with growing a specific plant can become outdated. If someone came up with a new theory, time does not turn back and their experiment does not fail because of new knowledge.

As far as I can see, we are both basing our arguments on personal experience so far.

 

[ian]

I'm not arguing Kat lol.

You don't need 12-14 hours of light to grow HC, that is a fact and given. This doesn't need to be an argument. I'm merely stating that to advise someone to have a photoperiod of this length is ime a silly thing to do, unless they are running really low light. If you can't agree with that then...*shrugs*

I assure you, I have run high light aquariums, unless you consider over 7 wpg of T5s over a 12" tank "low light"? I *currently* run only low light aquariums, but that does not mean my experience with other lighting conditions is meaningless.

again, this is not a 'who is the best, i have done this and that'. As above.

I agree that experience does play some part, but I can not agree that higher lighting periods guarantee algae as that has not been the case for me or for aquariums I have looked after through work for an LFS or for people I have helped set up aquariums.

again 'this is not a i'm the best'. But again, you cannot suggest that running stupidly high light leads to less algae that that with low light. Hightlight leaves you lest room to play with regarding C02 and fert dosing...again that is a given

Link about photosynthesis? But I cannot see how the author's experience with growing a specific plant can become outdated. If someone came up with a new theory, time does not turn back and their experiment does not fail because of new knowledge.

As far as I can see, we are both basing our arguments on personal experience so far.

I shall find the link somewhere, BTW i will just change my statement a little (when reading back), aquatic plants reach thier maximum photosynthesis at around 4-6 hours, not their maximum. And can you link me to your evidence ? You can quote me a book i don't have, but i still don't have the knowledge you have at hand. I will also add, that these experiments would have been done with the lighting thats around today, and not the old T12's im sure.

as i say Kat, this isn't an argument.