# High light low tech



## MeCasa (Apr 22, 2014)

Is the only negative with using high light without CO2 algae problems?

Thank you


----------



## tbarlow (Jun 23, 2014)

I believe that it is. It won't benefit your plants any unless you match the intensity of the light with ferts and co2, though.


----------



## MeCasa (Apr 22, 2014)

Doesn't a daily dosing of Florish Excel help take the place of the CO2?

I understand it's not as good as CO2 but I've been so concerned with providing enough light that I haven't given much thought (until now) about too much light.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

If your tank has a selection of plants, some fast growing, some not so fast growing, high light without adequate nutrients and CO2 may cause the not so fast growing plants to be starved for nutrients. The faster growing plants will tend to use up the limited nutrients leaving little for the slower growing plants. Plants do compete for nutrients.

Other than that I think the answer is yes, high light without CO2 and adequate fertilizing will likely cause algae problems more than anything else.


----------



## MeCasa (Apr 22, 2014)

So part of the balancing act to obtain a balanced low tech tank includes plant selection beyond 'which plant needs high light'

A well balanced low tech tank will have plants with similar growth and nutrient requirements

The more I learn the more I realize that no matter how much you read and study, hands on experience is king in this world. The studying simply helps you avoid obvious mistakes.

And on top of everything else, we all have different water.


----------



## Roshan8768 (Mar 18, 2009)

I think it depends on your definition of "high light" I have 2 x 24 watt t5HOs on my 20H and it's doing pretty well for about 1 year now with no CO2 and very little ferts to speak of


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

MeCasa said:


> So part of the balancing act to obtain a balanced low tech tank includes plant selection beyond 'which plant needs high light'
> 
> A well balanced low tech tank will have plants with similar growth and nutrient requirements


Well... sort of.

I think my favorite analogy for planted tanks is a three legged stool. One leg is light intensity, the next is carbon supply, and the third leg is the rest of the macros, micros, and trace. In general, you need to keep all three legs in proportion with each other or your stool is going to topple over- and you'll have unhealthy plants and favor algae.

"Low light" plants can grow even with a "short" stool. "Medium" and "high light" plants need everything in a little more abundance, so "taller" stools.

The main place where this analogy breaks down is with carbon supply. As long as you aren't poisoning/gassing your livestock, you really can't have too much carbon in a tank.

There are also many plant species that have been labeled "high light" over the years that in more recent years we have learned actually may do well under "low light" conditions WITH high CO2 levels.

But you're also very right that most advice is based on generalizations. When it comes down to every individual tank, there's no end to the actual variables at play and therefore no substitute for trial and error.


----------



## THE V (Nov 17, 2011)

Experimenting with different light levels and plants can lead to interesting results. I have three tanks that I am doing a long term test for light levels and plant before putting them into the show tank. On a 10 gallon tank I tested out high nutrients, high light, and no CO2. Surprisingly I only had a small algae outbreak when the plants got established. Once the tanks got more filled in the algae disappeared. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

One reason for the variety of experiences with "high light" is the lack of real knowledge about how much light we have. Unless we measure our light with a PAR meter, we can only make a guess at how much light we have, and guesses vary from good to very bad. Now, add to that the fact that there are several definitions of what "high light" means.


----------



## MeCasa (Apr 22, 2014)

Hoppy said:


> One reason for the variety of experiences with "high light" is the lack of real knowledge about how much light we have. Unless we measure our light with a PAR meter, we can only make a guess at how much light we have, and guesses vary from good to very bad. Now, add to that the fact that there are several definitions of what "high light" means.


I think your post hit the nail right on the head for me Hoppy. I have learned a lot about LED's for my 150 but this thread is not about that tank because that tank's usage is has little to do with PAR for plants. 

This thread is about a 20L I'm buying my granddaughter as a planted show guppy tank. For this tank I will probably use LED's and use a PAR meter to set my dimming to accepted norms and after that I can adjust up or down as conditions dictate.

Knowing my PAR will give me a starting point. People may not agree on what is high or low light but it will not be difficult to come up with a general accepted starting PAR for a low tech tank.

This is a good way to handle this since my experience is nonexistent and my personality is definitely tilted to overkill.

I am learning that overkill in a low tech tank can be counter productive at best.

.


----------



## Sparklescale (Nov 22, 2013)

interesting thread.


----------



## MeCasa (Apr 22, 2014)

lauraleellbp said:


> The main place where this analogy breaks down is with carbon supply. As long as you aren't poisoning/gassing your livestock, you really can't have too much carbon in a tank.


I guess this would be the next logical step in the equation and possibly the most important factor defining the difference between low tech and high tech. I understand that CO2 is not the only defining difference but it seems to loom as the largest.

If we add CO2 we officially cross over to high tech because we can now lengthen all legs of our stool but those of us that decide not to add CO2 still need to be aware of the importance of CO2 to get our short stool as high and/or stout as possible.

That brings us into the CO2 alternatives. My understanding is that products such as Flourish Excel or Metricide are methods of supplementing carbon in our tanks and as a welcome side effect they decrease algae. I can be a witness to that because I purposefully changed the legs of my stool to increase short term growth and created tons of algae in the process. I changed 80% of my water and acting upon Laura's advice I started dosing with Excel and my plants showed even more growth while the algae diminished.

However, I believe I have read that there are limitations on how much of this product we can add because it may be harmful to our fish in too large a dose.

The last leg of the stool and one I haven't finished investigating yet is ferts. I do know that plants can be broken down into two categories and those would be root feeders such as the Amazon Sword and water feeders such as the Java Fern.

We feed the root plants with Osmocote+ in gel tabs (or like product) pushed into the substrate under the plants. For the water feeders we buy water ferts (haven't investigated yet).

The problem with both is that we have to be careful not to overuse because the unused nutrients will feed algae because algae basically grows off of 'extras'. Extra fish food that deteriorates and/or extra fertilizer we're adding to the water. No extras, no algae.

Bottom line, only add what we need, do not exceed....including light. 

Hmmm 

.


----------



## MeCasa (Apr 22, 2014)

Suppose you have high lights for 12 hours a day and still no algae, does that mean that that many hours of light is acceptable?


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

The general answer is no because you are not accounting for the third leg, the nutrients. It might be 'acceptable' for a day or a month, but the moment the tank runs out of one nutrient, the chair will topple.

To keep the chair upright long term, you need to monitor the levels of the nutrients and supplement the ones that are about to run out.

That process becomes impractical rather quick - some nutrients are hard / impossible to test, some we don't even know about, the use and the rate of of different elements depends on the specific plant species. 

The idea of just in time nutrients / rebalancing is behind the PPS dosing method. Then the EI came in (popularised by Tom Barr) saying, the hell with it - just too much trouble, we will overdose everything and leave that leg alone and focus in the other 2 legs instead. This part of the history might explain why it is co2 now that is considered to be the 'limiting factor' (Tom Barr).

At least, the history as according to OVT .

v3


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

MeCasa said:


> Suppose you have high lights for 12 hours a day and still no algae, does that mean that that many hours of light is acceptable?


Compare it to planting a typical garden outside. To be a *really* successful gardener, you need to understand your soil chemistry and either select plants suitable to what you start out with, or prepare your soil with the correct amendments to achieve the targets required by the plants you want to keep. You also need to watch the sunlight patterns as it moves across your yard during the day to know which areas receive how much light at what time in the day, and place the appropriate plant species in spots that will receive the correct type of lighting throughout the day. Some can handle full sun all day, some require shade or dappled shade, some can handle morning sun only, some need afternoon sun, etc etc etc. Then, once you have the plants in the correct spots, you need to observe the plants for deficiencies and provide the correct fertilizers at the correct times of the year; whether the plants are flowering, fruiting, about to go dormant, etc.

In general, there are not as many *true* aquatic gardeners as there are terrestrial gardeners. We don't have huge databases and decades of scientific research and anecdotal experience to back up our aquatic plant cultivation like we do for so many fruiting and flowering terrestrial plants.

So we tend to work in generalities. 

It's entirely possible that you might find some plant species that will thrive in your tank under 12 hours/day even with very little water column dosing on your end. But for most species, that long a photoperiod will create a level of nutrient demand that it will be hard to keep up with indefinitely.

Light is literally the energy that drives the whole system.

Planted tanks are all about finding and maintaining balance.


----------



## MeCasa (Apr 22, 2014)

Thanks OVT and Laura,

I kind of thought it too good to be true but my ego wanted to believe that everything was doing well because of my skill.

I will cut back the light to 8 hours, continue dosing with Excel and start a light regimen of fertilizer. I'll start with Comprehensive but I'll eventually put together a package such as is suggested for the high tech tanks but I will cut the doses way down.

Thanks


----------

