# High light tanks, who has them and actually adores them?



## F22 (Sep 21, 2008)

Highlight tanks look great, I love the look of a glowing aquarium, but I'm lazy and my high light tanks usually end up looking like crap. For me its no tech, not even low tech.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Yeah, I love my low tech/no tech tanks as well, but it's the high light that I am enamored with. I was just wondering if there are other people out there too foolish or stubborn to pay attention to the masses and go for the high light like myself. Personally, I love the amount of pearling, and coloring that comes from the addition of the light.


----------



## MarkMc (Apr 27, 2007)

I used to have 2 175 watt MH pendents over my 55 gallon tank. I loved the looks of it but it was a lot more work and I had problems with algae and too much plant growth. If I ignored the pruning for a month the top of the tank would be over run with plants and plants underneath would suffer and shed leaves ect. I have a 2 bulb T5 HO fixture over it now and it _looks_ like a high light tank but the fixture is raised high enough that it's more of a medium light tank.


----------



## Cbwmn (Nov 30, 2007)

I have five tanks, smallest are two 10 gallon, the largest is a 46 gallon BF.
All have approx. 3 wpg. I also have a sixteen gallon (10 gallon footprint) with 5 WPG of cfl lighting.
I love that tank. I have M. Minuta, several crypts, some L. Repens X Arcuata and have just started a background of what I bought as “Rotala Indica 'singapore' (rare) Myriophyllum Mattogrossense”.
Whenever I try a new plant and want success, I use the high light sixteen gallon tank.
Charles


----------



## F22 (Sep 21, 2008)

I think personally if you are gonna go through all the work involved in highlight a reef is a better bet.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

I am against reef tanks in every since of the word. Just a personal decision, so that's definitely not the answer for me. Cbwmn, I am glad you know what I am talking about. There is nothing better than seeing a high lighted tank done successfully. I know it is common sense to have less light and for most of my tanks, I follow this method. However, for two of my tanks, I love the way the light sets off the plants. Even the algae that is present doesn't bother me because the plants are so pretty in these tanks. Is it a lot of work? Of course. But it's like getting a steak versus a bologna sandwich.


----------



## Noahma (Oct 18, 2009)

I have my low light 36 gal, and my highish light 10 gal. tank. I have fun equally with both tanks.


----------



## F22 (Sep 21, 2008)

Not to get tooooo far off topic, but why the strong opposition towards reef tanks?


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Oh, the topic is already somewhat off topic. It actually has a lot to do with the fact I'm a redhead and like to be the prettiest thing in my living room. LOL, not really, but it's a long boring reason, and I think my answer is more entertaining.


----------



## F22 (Sep 21, 2008)

Hahahaha good answer. Is the real answer the good old "I don't want to take marine animals out of the ocean" that's usually old faithful for the no reef setup.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Truthfully, I believe nothing does them justice like the ocean itself. However, my repulsion is for a super silly reason I developed as a kid watching the Little Mermaid.  Same reason that I don't eat fish or seafood. Strange creature, I am.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Been there done that, why do it again?

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

^ Too get plants looking like that. Do you remember your parameters on the tank? I'll admit my low tech tank is very beautiful, but sometimes I just like the challenge.


----------



## alan j t (Feb 13, 2008)

since ive gone with high lights co2 n ferts i might never go back. i had 4 tanks going high tech but now w 4 kids i kinda backed down to one . if i go back to low tech i think i would be miserable.
the fun in starting a high lighted tank and in one month your tank is full of plants and all the cool colors is something, plus all the trimming for my fellow fish friends that i turn into plant/ fish friends now, he he.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sewingalot said:


> ^ Too get plants looking like that. Do you remember your parameters on the tank? I'll admit my low tech tank is very beautiful, but sometimes I just like the challenge.


The rates of growth change, and become weedy and hassle.......more CO2.........but not much else

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Yeah, I will contend the growth rate does become unbearable at times. I am finding within a week, I have to toss out a lot of plants to keep things from getting overrun. Makes good compost, though. I did find cutting the lighting period back a couple hours still lets me have a nice tank with a little less growth.


----------



## willknowitall (Oct 3, 2010)

my 75 gal tank has high lighting 2 150w hqi 
i like that i can hang light higher above aquarium for access
one is on only for four hours over lower light plants on one side
the halides are only on part of the day
when turned off , the rest of day i have small halogens
that give a nice warm low light
i live in bc canada and it rains all winter
the highly lit tank is like a pocket of sunshine
plants look great and algae not a i issue
some plant do grow very fast though


----------



## spdskr (Nov 14, 2005)

I enjoy my high light 29 gallon (130 watts). It is high maintenance....sometimes I have to trim stem plants every 5 days or so. But I really enjoy the glow and all the pearling and tiny O2 bubbles suspended in the water after a few hours of the lights coming on.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sewingalot said:


> Yeah, I will contend the growth rate does become unbearable at times. I am finding within a week, I have to toss out a lot of plants to keep things from getting overrun. Makes good compost, though. I did find cutting the lighting period back a couple hours still lets me have a nice tank with a little less growth.


Plant species choices also make huge labor, scape differences. Some claimed the key was limiting nutrients to slow the rampant weedy growth, which is true.....but then you waste all that light you claim you "need"
Plants cannot fully use it if they are under nutrient stress. That's why it is called a limiting nutrient. :icon_redf

Same for CO2 limitation.

So you have a few factors occurring.

You might also use sediment ferts, but have no way to test/measure the bioavailabilty of nutrients over time to the plants, and the water column could be clean.

So folks mix themselves up good with these confounding factors, stew for a few months/years and then have a a heck of time making any sense.

Still, all you have to do is keep the other factors independent and vary light to falsify such claims. But.......you also need a decent comparative method to test and measure light as well.:icon_eek:

See some potential problems when folks claim plant requires high light?
"....but mean old Tom Barr say bad things when I claim it does and attacks me personally!"


Hehe, yea, I'm bad that way I suppose:tongue:

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

At least you cause people to think, Tom. I tried the EI method recently as you know, and it worked. I got really pretty pinks, reds and yellows with screened down lighting and had decent growth. However, I got bored of the water changes pretty quickly and decided to go back to relying on sediment fertilizing with an occasional pinch of macros when the plants start showing the need. More and more I am finding I really enjoy the sediment with the occasional water supplementation.

This allows all my other tanks to be on 'cruise control' while I get to experiment with nutrients, algae and blasting light on my main tank. By limiting nutrients, I was able to see exactly what happens with algae growth, plant growth, overall health and my patience. 

I am becoming an expert at growing different types of algae. What I find so fantastic about this is the fact I also learn how not to grow it in the process. I don't think plants require high light, but I do believe some plants will look their best under more light. 

How much is too much? I think that is when the hobby is no longer fun for the individual. Eventually, I'll get bored of trimming and back off like I did before. For now, I am having tons of fun


----------



## Cbwmn (Nov 30, 2007)

_


sewingalot said:



^ Too get plants looking like that. Do you remember your parameters on the tank? I'll admit my low tech tank is very beautiful, but sometimes I just like the challenge.

Click to expand...

_ 
_I forget where I got this reply:_
_"Originally Posted by *Minsc* http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/plants/89186-keeping-red-plants-red-please-share.html#post866677_
_If you are trying to get your plants as red as Skewlboy's, my advice would be... don't even try 

I'm pretty sure his methods involve witchcraft and possibly radiation. You don't want to mess with that stuff if you aren't a trained expert._

_Haha!

I can say similar things, many have long thought I was involved in Voodoo 

But most of the plants I have develop intense reds, I'm not that keen on garrish coloration though, I like deep greens and various textures, greens etc.

The reds just sort of come with good growth, excellent CO2 and some time for the plants to really get chugging along in their growth. Once that momentum starts, then you have excellent results, no algae and no issues.

I've never bought that baloney about super high light requirement or iron makes plants redder.

Simply adding all the ferts routinely, giving things time to settle, and really keeping on top of maintenance seems to be the key.

There is no trick, no witchcraft. Mostly just basic good old horticulture work.
That said, you can ramp up the color for a particular day, or open house, photo shoot etc.

But that means more work, tweaking some NO3 for a day or two, and adding more light for day of the water changes. Keeping things really clean, doing more water changes, mega dosing, tweaking CO2 really good, cleaning filters every week or two, vacuuming any detritus out, clean the glass more than it's needed, dribble excel on equipment, rock./wood when doing the water change to kill any algae etc etc etc.
Consider running needle wheel CO2 etc.

All these tweaks add up to a really healthy tank with massive pearling.
It's not any one, this also works for any plant, not just red ones.
Once the tank is really cooking, then you can slack off, the plants are way ahead and doing well.

Just keep up with pruning and observe closely as you stop doing so much and take note of how the responses affect the tank. You'll see a dramatic difference the day of a large water change/dose thereafter. This is mostly due to circulation, removal of organic matter, and of course, plenty of CO2.

Do a large water change in the morning, say 1 hour after the lights come on, leave the lights on while you do the water change. Do 50-80%.
Refill and dose thereafter.

If things are not off the hook growth wise, look at CO2.
Particularly if things do not look so hot the 2-3-4day after the water change.
that crazy pearling and growth is the reference, so you use that a reference standard to go for.

T5 light at 3W gal is insanely high light BTW.
You do not need this much.

I have the option to adjust my lighting and watch the color of the plants over a wide range. I can add HQI, I can add 3w/gal or T5, however, I have the same colors overall with the less lighting.
I do not use my HQI's any more(electric bill is much less)
I do not use 3W/gal of T5's unless I want to grow things out and prune lots(rare), so I stick with 1.8/gal instead.

If I want a redder color, I'll chose a different species instead.
I can also allow the plants to run across the surface for a few days and then trim.............(they gets lots of light + free air CO2- something to think about with respect to good CO2). Recall that all red pigment is mostly saturated or unsaturated long chain reduced carbon, there's no iron in red pigments in plants. Take a look sometime in a plant Biochem text book 
The info is there. Plants need Fe, but red color is not from the Fe itself.

Time to slowly develop the red color also helps:
Some species do very well in lower light like A reinickii:_








This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 851x836 and weights 319KB.











_Also, if you like redder colors, chose shallow tanks, and plant the red plants up higher on a slope, as the plants hit the surface, they often redden up (CO2) and have plenty of light.

Light is a two edge sword, you must have good CO2 with it, otherwise you never achieve the red. And never hit that good ranges for most of these issues, this is not just a red color issue, this is a growth in general issue.
We can all tweak and keep on top of things, it takes work, but once you do it and tweak the CO2, get good dense plant growth/momentum, then it's much easier thereafter.


Regards, 
Tom Barr_
I try to go by these guidelines (somewhat unsuccesfully)
Charles


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

I've come to find trimming 5-6 inches a week from all the stem plants to be a big pain. I've cut the lighting back from 2x54 for 10 hours a day to 2x54 for 6 hours and 1x54 for the other 4 hours on my 75 and all the plants are still healthy and growing, just not as fast plus I've replaced some of the stems with some slower growing species.


----------



## Centromochlus (May 19, 2008)

I don't understand what's with you and fast growing plants Tom, LOL. I don't know about everyone else, but i've always considered that to be a good thing.

You complain about ludwigia pantanal growing like a weed for you, which happens to be very difficult for most to grow... and it sells for like $5-$10 per stem too! Then you're just like nopeeeeeeee.. hell with this plant. HAHAH.


Anyway, i guess i'm considered low light right now.. but i'm going to be going into the high light range soon when i get my new fixture. I'm pretty excited considering that my sunset hygro isn't even that pink right now.


----------



## Da Plant Man (Apr 7, 2010)

Would a 10g tank with 30 watts on normal output count as high lit? Lol, I consider mines mid-light just because I really don't need c02 because there is no algae, when I see it I get a brew going for it and it disapears with a couple of _days_. I plan on fixing my lights so more of it shines on the tank because most of it just goes on the wall and then we will so some madness


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

If you want it to be high light, that's fine with me, Caton. LOL @ Azfishkid. If I could ever grow a $10 stem plant grow that quick and beautiful, I'd even chip in on CL's college fund.


----------



## Sharkfood (May 2, 2010)

I was planning to go to a higher light set up eventually, but I find myself being drawn more and more to rosetta type plants that are often considered lower light plants.

I'm kinda getting tired with stem plants. It's not just that they need trimmed or topped constantly, as I actually enjoy doing the "gardening". I think I just like the looks of the bushy, long leaved plants. Out of all the plants I've grown, my favorite is still that great big lutea I've had since day one. I've ripped most of the rotundifolia and macrandra out of my tank in favor of E. vesuvias and needle leaf java recently. Maybe I just like changing things up, who knows?

The biggest thing I like about high light tanks are the bright red colors of some of the plants. Low light red plants just aren't as vibrant.


----------



## Centromochlus (May 19, 2008)

sewingalot said:


> If you want it to be high light, that's fine with me, Caton. LOL @ Azfishkid. If I could ever grow a $10 stem plant grow that quick and beautiful, I'd even chip in on CL's college fund.


Yeah no kidding! You could make some good cash from just that one plant.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sewingalot said:


> At least you cause people to think, Tom. I tried the EI method recently as you know, and it worked. I got really pretty pinks, reds and yellows with screened down lighting and had decent growth. However, I got bored of the water changes pretty quickly and decided to go back to relying on sediment fertilizing with an occasional pinch of macros when the plants start showing the need. More and more I am finding I really enjoy the sediment with the occasional water supplementation.
> 
> This allows all my other tanks to be on 'cruise control' while I get to experiment with nutrients, algae and blasting light on my main tank. By limiting nutrients, I was able to see exactly what happens with algae growth, plant growth, overall health and my patience.
> 
> ...


Who the dang heck has the time to mess with it when they do not have to?
Why grow weedy growth rates?

Unless you are farming, an experiment.... it matters not.
Never understood why folks make life harder on themselves and want to believe the myths and everything that they think.....rather than actually questioning why something is or is not what they think(confirm, do not assume).

Well, perhaps we can save a few:thumbsup:


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

AzFishKid said:


> I don't understand what's with you and fast growing plants Tom, LOL. I don't know about everyone else, but i've always considered that to be a good thing.
> 
> You complain about ludwigia pantanal growing like a weed for you, which happens to be very difficult for most to grow... and it sells for like $5-$10 per stem too! Then you're just like nopeeeeeeee.. hell with this plant. HAHAH.
> 
> ...


Maybe 15-20 years of trimming burns most folks out eh?

I still have more Starougyne than I know what to do with, and it is far more profitable and easier to ship, looks nicer in the scape, causes less issues all the way around than L pantanal ever would. Trimming vertical vs more prostrate growth forms is far more hassle in other words.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## AoxomoxoA (Apr 22, 2010)

I <3 high light. It really depends on the plants (weeds) though...
When I had Hygro "Bold" in my high light, I had to trim it down every other day, _that_ was a PITA.
Blyxa, or 049 for instance are awesome in high light (tech). As is E tenellus, but it grows well in any light/tech. Lilies are awesome for it too.

I have a 20L I'm re-building right now. Only 049 with almost 5wpg of t5HO. We'll see how it goes... EI FTW!!! Oh yeah, root-tabs too


----------



## oldpunk78 (Nov 1, 2008)

dirtyhermit said:


> I have a 20L I'm re-building right now. Only 049 with almost 5wpg of t5HO. We'll see how it goes...


i have always wondered how some of you folks can pull that off.

for example:

i just asked a question about lighting my 29. turns out i was over doing with 3x24w. the only plants in my tank with algae problems were the tropica 049's. they were starting to pick up a considerable amount of bba at an alarming rate. so was the substrate right in front of them. i'm pretty sure i was to blame for some of it (under dosing micros) but you're talking about twice as much light there.


----------



## AoxomoxoA (Apr 22, 2010)

oldpunk78 said:


> i have always wondered how some of you folks can pull that off.
> 
> for example:
> 
> i just asked a question about lighting my 29. turns out i was over doing with 3x24w. the only plants in my tank with algae problems were the tropica 049's. they were starting to pick up a considerable amount of bba at an alarming rate. so was the substrate right in front of them. i'm pretty sure i was to blame for some of it (under dosing micros) but you're talking about twice as much light there.


You're going to get the standard answers to these questions from most... but not from me until I know & prove it to myself.

I'm thinking if I match CO2 & ferts to the high light, the triangle will be balanced. As I said though, we'll see lol
I think the BBA has a lot to do with not enough CO2, also you can't under dose if you want the "balance" to happen.
High light demands high CO2, & non-limiting ferts, right?:icon_ques:icon_idea:icon_ques


----------



## oldpunk78 (Nov 1, 2008)

ok, so... what you're saying is that sometimes ei may not be enough? that makes sense i guess. i think sometimes one of my major setbacks is under estimating my lighting and forgetting about the whole balance thing.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Well, I use less than 2w/gal at 1 meter over these same plants and I seem to do okay



















Yawn.......

So why do I need 2.5-4x as much light again?
So I can gas my fish and not have very much livestock?
Maybe I no longer care about fish for that matter.........

Maybe I add fish for the pic only........then sell them off or give them away when I rescape........

Then add only a few...........

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## NJAquaBarren (Sep 16, 2009)

Funny, when o started getting into this and was researching things 15 months or so ago, seemed high light and hi tech was "the" way. If you weren't lush and pearling, you weren't with it.

Expect individual experience changes opinions, but it seem the whole forum has done so.


----------



## AoxomoxoA (Apr 22, 2010)

plantbrain said:


> Well, I use less than 2w/gal at 1 meter over these same plants and I seem to do okay
> 
> Yawn.......
> 
> ...


Most of us have many years of trying & experimenting to get to your point knowledge-wise.
I know the 049 I got from you grows very well under 3wpg. I do not know how it will do under 5wpg, but I'll try instead of taking other's word for it. Isn't this what you encourage us to do?
I'm also aware of the fact that you have BBA on yours too, so we know limiting light isn't keeping it in check. Also you don't limit ferts, & pump CO2 (much more than me:wink, so what _is _the answer to BBA?

Obviously you aren't swapping out or replacing too many fish, but this is a plant (Church!) growing forum after all...


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

NJAquaBarren said:


> Funny, when o started getting into this and was researching things 15 months or so ago, seemed high light and hi tech was "the" way. If you weren't lush and pearling, you weren't with it.
> 
> Expect individual experience changes opinions, but it seem the whole forum has done so.


No, not at all, George Booth suggested 1.5-2w/gal some 15 years ago on the APD. He and others long argued for it.

I only used high light for experimental purposes, not because I wanted faster growth really. My rational was simple experimentally even a long time ago: I knew more light = more growth= more CO2 demand and more ......nutrient demand.

So if I have high light, I would also have the highest rates of nutrient uptake, which was my question: *what is the highest maximum rate of uptake for nutrients?*

By choosing the highest light folks typically might ever use........I would ensure that uptake would never go beyond this rate.

That is where EI took over.
Or, put another way........that is the highest nutrient demand that a tank that is independent of CO2 and highest ranges of light would ever occurring.

So adding that much light and the nutrients still where not depleted........would mean I would always provide non limiting nutrients at that rate. Now nutrients are independent. Next, focus on light and how it affects nutrients(CO2 must be independent).

And so on.........
This is very different than running around telling folks that we must have 4-5w/gal to grow Gloss, which most did/some still do.......our local club knew that 1.5W/gal was plenty..........some of them still would come onto boards and tell folks otherwise even though they knew with their own eyes........that was not true.

I have no clue why, perhaps just going along with the dogma/not wanting to really debate the issue or fully explain, just the quick fast easy response?

I do not know.

Later, Tropica also suggest the best management was low light + CO2.
http://www.tropica.com/advising/technical-articles/biology-of-aquatic-plants/co2-and-light.aspx

Around 2000 or so.
Over 10 years ago........

I measured some ADA fan boy tanks..........also, much lower light that many predicted or wanted to believe.

Yawn..........

How much do folks forget/simply want to believe some things vs what is really the case? Same deal with excess nutrients = algae, bad, waste etc.
When actually *excess* light is much more the REAL issue.
Same for toxicity and nutrients, the real issue is CO2/O2 ratios and toxicity.
I've tried in vain to convince some, they want to believe something, rather than see if it is really true/false.

So they keep saying it.
A good myth is hard to kill, the truth is easy.

Regards, 
Tom Barr







Tropica also later suggested


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

plantbrain said:


> Who the dang heck has the time to mess with it when they do not have to?
> Why grow weedy growth rates?
> 
> Unless you are farming, an experiment.... it matters not.
> ...


I am sure that when I go back to working full time at the end of this month, a lot of the experiments and weedy growth will not be appealing as much. In the meantime, I like the fact I am able to prove myself wrong just as much as I like to be right. 

For instance, I believed the key to no algae was limiting phosphates. Boy was I wrong. Works for some, others take it's place. Of course, I am learning what's already known to many experts, but I like to see the results first hand. 

Actually, the more I experiment, the more I find most of my assumptions are wrong. Don't tell my family. :icon_mrgr

Great conversations everyone has going. Keep it up!


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

For me personally I enjoy a high light burst. Keeping the tank low/mid (2wpg) most of the day and given it two hours or so of 'high light' (4wpg). I feel the plants get that little extra that some species need, but it doesn't adversly affect the organic/light/algae equation. 

If the plants are indeed getting a extra push from the mid-day burst and using up more of the organic load in the tank where does that put one algae-wise? I have never personally had issues with this. Even in a tank with predominately low-light plants:


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

houseofcards said:


> For me personally I enjoy a high light burst. Keeping the tank low/mid (2wpg) most of the day and given it two hours or so of 'high light' (4wpg). I feel the plants get that little extra that some species need, but it doesn't adversly affect the organic/light/algae equation.
> 
> If the plants are indeed getting a extra push from the mid-day burst and using up more of the organic load in the tank where does that put one algae-wise? I have never personally had issues with this. Even in a tank with predominately low-light plants:


Let me turn this question around, have you tried doing it *without* the high light burst in this same tank? Are the results significantly different?

Or is the high light burst just a crutch that high light junkies cannot quite let go of?

Better than going full blast high light, but the question is does it really help that much or not?

A small quick burst will suck up the CO2, but if it's just 1-2 hours....this will not cause too much issue midday. Question is.........do you need it to reproduce the results above?

Where is this philosophy that less is better, and that excess is bad?

Why is it only applied to Nutrients and not say.........CO2 or light?

Why not add a burst of nutrients, say 2x EI right before a large water change? Or more CO2 along with the high light burst?

No one disputes a high light but low light type plants type of tank cannot be done, but the real question is one of growth rates, do you want higher rates of growth?

The other question is if these same high light scapes cannot also be done with less light, "just enough light". So how much light is the tank being exposed too above?

Do you know?
What would be "just enough"?
Once grown into a nice scape, do you desire more weedy growth or would rather is stabilize and grow slower?

Regards, 
Tom Barr





Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> Let me turn this question around, have you tried doing it *without* the high light burst in this same tank? Are the results significantly different?
> 
> Or is the high light burst just a crutch that high light junkies cannot quite let go of?
> 
> ...


I haven't tried it (no burst) on this particular tank. As you suggested old habiats die hard for this high-light junkie, LOL, but I have no doubt the tank would 'work' either way it's just a matter of what are the advantages or disadvantages of the burst? Does the short afternoon intensity push the plants to utilize the organics in the tank, thereby reducing the likelihood of an algae outbreak or does the burst simply make the tank more susceptible to algae. For me the increased growth is worth it since the plants I have are very manageable and the tank seems more alive then some of my other moss/fern setups with less light. I don't have stem dominated tanks anymore. Just not realistic at this point for me to manage them in an attractive arrangement especially with multiple tanks. 

The tank in the pic is 72g with 260watts of cf light. Not the most advanced lighting system, but still pretty intense for this size tank with this type of setup. 

I think the burst really comes in handy if your setting up a very tall tank with limited plant mass. I have found even one hour of very intense light was enough to create a nice ground-hugging carpet when the rest of the light cycle was rather dim.

I should add that I treat all my tanks from an organics out concept. As long as your replacing the ferts, I'd rather take water out of any tank regardless of light, co2, etc. The one common factor all these tanks have is the build up of organics. Even in a dim tank the organics will still cause algae eventually.


----------



## deleted_user_7 (Jul 7, 2003)

High light tanks LOOK different, regardless of any rates of growth, how much you hate pruning, whether or not you need high light, they LOOK totally different in the amount of light they have. 


I'll take a brightly lit high light tank tat almost hurts to look at over a dimly lit shady tank with a couple of tubes a foot over it any day, thanks.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

houseofcards said:


> I haven't tried it (no burst) on this particular tank. As you suggested old habiats die hard for this high-light junkie, LOL, but I have no doubt the tank would 'work' either way it's just a matter of what are the advantages or disadvantages of the burst? Does the short afternoon intensity push the plants to utilize the organics in the tank, thereby reducing the likelihood of an algae outbreak or does the burst simply make the tank more susceptible to algae. For me the increased growth is worth it since the plants I have are very manageable and the tank seems more alive then some of my other moss/fern setups with less light. I don't have stem dominated tanks anymore. Just not realistic at this point for me to manage them in an attractive arrangement especially with multiple tanks.
> 
> The tank in the pic is 72g with 260watts of cf light. Not the most advanced lighting system, but still pretty intense for this size tank with this type of setup.
> 
> ...


As you might tell, I've been down this same path.

Took a leap of faith with some tanks, species etc....even though I knew I should be okay.

Light meter helps a lot.

So....when discussing anything light related.........it does help to have a comparative way to measure "said light"roud:

I have never found dim lit tanks to have organics build up or more ALGAE.
Algae are light limited more so than plants.

Again, how do you measure organics build up might I ask?

Does a non CO2 planted tank illustrate it?
No water change after 2 years?

Soil sediments?

Not cleaning filters?

Measurement of the water?

BTW, every tank save one is at least 24" deep and the height above the light to water surface is no less than 14" for any of my tanks. Some tanks are some 60-72" distance for clients. No issues there either.
I think I have the tall tank thing down? Know of anyone save Amano that has deeper planted tanks? Not many out there do. I still can find issue even with these "exceptions" to "less light is better".

Try testing it and measuring the PAR and see if you can go this low.
Why fear less light when so many fear too much ferts and have little issue going so low there?

Recovery is no different to the plants.

regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

sewingalot said:


> For now, I am having tons of fun


You go girl!

For me, a high light tank would cross the line from "fun" into "work." Ugh. :icon_mrgr


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Well a dim light tank can get away with more organics for a longer period of time. I think I've tested that enough. 

The short burst is just another mode of high light that seems to work. Or can I even define that as high light. If I have a one hour burst, but the other 8 hrs I'm at 1.5wpg is that still high light. I once setup a tank that was 36" tall and the light was suspended another 12". I had a combo PC/MH 250 light on top. The PC light at the distance was more or less so the client can view the tank. I only had the MH bulb on for 1 hr a day and it grow Blyxa Japonica beautifully. It didn't color up, but it was green and very healthy. 

Plantbrain how did you handle a tank that was 72" from substrate to light source?


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

sewingalot said:


> I'd even chip in on CL's college fund.


Now there's an idea!  HAHA :hihi:
The last time I had a really high light tank was my 20 gallon high a couple of years ago. 2x65W (If I remember correctly?) PC fixture. My CO2 was inconsistent due to a cheap regulator, and I was dumping in tons of ferts. I had no algae problems except for some pesky spirogyra (the worst fight with algae I've ever had) Wound up breaking the tank down and scrubbing with bleach- never got around to setting it back up. It was a pretty tank, though. The spirogyra just bothered me a lot.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

I was wondering when you'd pick up on that one, CL.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

sewingalot said:


> I was wondering when you'd pick up on that one, CL.


I hardly have time to visit the forum anymore 

Good thing my tank is still emersed, or it would be a mess.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Welcome to college! You'll be busy with lots of things there. Some more fun than others.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I was 5 years old running around Funkhouser hall as a brat. Welcome to UK.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

sewingalot said:


> Welcome to college! You'll be busy with lots of things there. Some more fun than others.


Really now?  I was pretty excited about our comeback victory against USC. I mean, storming the field for USC? Kinda odd, but a ton of fun (as if you couldn't tell by the look on my face HAH, though the picture is blurry) :hihi:











plantbrain said:


> I was 5 years old running around Funkhouser hall as a brat. Welcome to UK.
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Barr


I'm getting us somewhat off topic, but thanks guys. Small world, eh, Tom? My mom worked in funkhouser for a couple of years.

Dang, I didn't realize that building was so old. Must be ancient if you were running around in it as a kid 


But anyway, I'm loving my 4x39W T5HO running 16 hours/ day on my 3 foot tank. No maintenance at all aside from trimming (but I'm cheating- it's emersed :flick


----------



## snafu (Oct 9, 2004)

here's my case study. i have a similar tank which i've considered my high light, low maintenance (aka jungle) tank. i consider myself more of a fish guy superficially interested in plants, as opposed to the other way around. the tank has 260W over 60 gal, no ferts, low CO2 (10lb tank lasts 3 years), low temp low-mid 70s, water changes 1-2x per year. i've kept it this way for about 10+ years now. it houses lots of easy to grow plants. most of the tank is low to very low light. maintenance consists of trimmings whenever i get to it and regular water make up. i generally 'mow' down the tank in quarters, so there's always about 1/4 of the tank receiving high light. there is an over-population of fish mainly characins. i'm almost embarrassed to show it, but i will. :redface:


----------



## houstonhobby (Dec 12, 2008)

I personally just really like the look of my tanks when I crank the light way up high. Even though I have pressurized CO2 and dry ferts, I don't have the skills required to maintain the tanks for long at that level. If I leave it up there I will be eaten alive by BBA. So I use a short burst (on some tanks as short as 15 minutes) but I try to schedule the burst at a time when I will normally be there, so I can enjoy it, at least for a little while.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

houseofcards said:


> Plantbrain how did you handle a tank that was 72" from substrate to light source?












Or.........hang bat style from the top support

It's now low light and looks gorgeous.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Da Plant Man (Apr 7, 2010)

plantbrain said:


>


Dang! I wish I had your job, swimming with the fish...


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> Or.........hang bat style from the top support
> 
> It's now low light and looks gorgeous.
> 
> ...


Aren't you stepping on the ground cover, LOL. That's a great shot. I trust the water was at least warm (discus).


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I think the point is, you can have an awesome tank, without the high light.
As you age in the hobby, you see the significances of this reduction far more than the nutty folks that go about micromanagement to limit nutrients. Been there, done that a long long time ago.

*Light is by far..........the most stable parameter we have available to us to control rates of growth.* It is where all growth starts. 

If you subscribe to reduced weedy growth, or less is better for nutrients, or less CO2 stress on fish(maybe you actually care about your fish and want to reduce their stress or have fish that are lot more sensitive than a few tetras) then why not consider, measure and test light??

I looked at many of the ADA contest tanks and in general, most are seriously lacking any long term good communities of fish. We do not see the same fish year after year, we do not read of any breeding events..........Even most of these tanks, such as AFA's 20th ranking, have low light. So many scapers seem to use less light as well. Almost on every front, lower light makes more sense.

You might not see the light today, or perhaps you do but have yet to take that leap of faith? Some day you might get around to proving to yourself that you do not need such high light. Why take my word for it? Prove it to yourself. You have the free will to do so.

Or test your assumptions and see and learn more. I have not met many who done this path, who are not pleased, often amazed.........at the results.
Many of us, myself included.........have to gone down these hard bumpy roads before we see the light. Some are more accepting, never been one of those folks myself.:icon_wink

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## NickS (Oct 9, 2009)

Perhaps the fascination with high light is just the manifestation of the aquascaper's desire to see lush bushes and filled out new scapes? I know myself, being relatively new to this, that I feel impatience with all of the tanks I've started so far.

Though, since a friend turned me on to EI dosing with GLA's package, I have seen much better growth and my little 10 GL fills out jungle-style very fast between trimmings.

When I finally upgrade to a 110 Wide I know I will be experiencing this impatience at an order of magnitude higher than I do now unless I go out and spend the cash to fill the tank out with plants right away. I have not been able to bring myself to do that yet with any tank even though I've seen it recommended to start with a healthy size plant mass.

I'm considering starting out this setup with a high amount of light just to get it going and then dialing it down to reduce the amount of maintenance. Do you have much experience with this approach Tom?


----------



## mountaindew (Dec 10, 2008)

plantbrain said:


> Or.........hang bat style from the top support
> 
> It's now low light and looks gorgeous.
> 
> ...


 
Nice pic, but that is not 6 ft from lights to substrate in this picture.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

mountaindew said:


> Nice pic, but that is not 6 ft from lights to substrate in this picture.


And you somehow know this because you where there?
I obviously was.

The MH's are in fact, 72+ inches away from the bottom of this tank, which if you knew about it, would realize that the tank is 4ft deep, and then the lights are about tad over 2ft above that.

I assume adding 2ft+ 4 ft is not difficult.

So why and how do you think you can dispute this??
Do tell. Entertain me.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

NickS said:


> I'm considering starting out this setup with a high amount of light just to get it going and then dialing it down to reduce the amount of maintenance. Do you have much experience with this approach Tom?


I would suggest exactly the opposite approach, low light to start, then higher light. However, all submersed rooted aquatic plants in nature experience this anyway, they go from low light to high light.

As they grow, they get closer to the light through space and time.
This obviously has some effect on CO2, nutrient demand as well.
then increased biomass= more inter and intraspecific competition for these potentially and often the case.........limiting resources(light is often not one of them for aquarist, but can be if they chose).

This competition is due to plant= plant interactions, and has little to due with algae.

The light field changes as plants grow, and this has a very strong effect on growth and structure between species. While I have made mention of it extensively......... measuring light as a plant grows and expands is a good study for a PAR meter.

Lots of light + new unestablished bacterial colony(perhaps this, rather than some link to organics is a better metric) + little, low plant biomass is a bad combo.

Better to use lower light, high plant biomass, and well cycled bacterial colony(eg, DSM, or use mulm from an established filter, dirty old gravel mixed in with, mature filter etc). Once established and running well, then you can increase things if you so chose.

Once you get algae and have other issues, it takes a lot more energy and work to restore the system. Less light will limit algae much more than plant growth in general.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Or you can be like me, blast the tank with light, scrap the glass daily and wave hello to the bba as you feed the fish. I still love my high light. But in 15 years, I'll probably tire of it as well. I know that I do tire of the every other day of trimming plants.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

sewingalot said:


> Or you can be like me, blast the tank with light, scrap the glass daily and wave hello to the bba as you feed the fish. I still love my high light. But in 15 years, I'll probably tire of it as well. I know that I do tire of the every other day of trimming plants.


I'm actually converting my 60 Gal to a Tropheus and then a 120 gal to the emergent non CO2 method. This means I can use less light= nice aesthetic look, different look that most aquariums(clone wars anyone?), better environment for fish populations, more realistic biotopes/habitats for fish, little work, labor, water changes? Will not need to worry there much.

Ferts?
Spray the tops emergent growth once every week or maybe 2x a week etc is all.

Use less, have more.

I'll still keep the other 2 tanks with CO2.
Adds variety.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

You caused me to have to look up words like 'tropheus' just to get what you were saying.  What do you spray them with? A solution of dry ferts? It's very nice looking. Are some species better than others for this method? I was wondering if HM could work on a nano version of this.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Miracle Grow diluted.

No ferts go into the tank other than fish food.










But.....just much larger scale.

I've bred 3x in this tank so far........Red farowellas, cute little guys.
Will remove and move them esle where to get more of the fry. Snagged 3 of the Sturisoma, they are about 1' now.


The 60 cube will use rock, not wood. I've decided pretty much the design, not 100%, but pretty close, I know how I plan to make the caves and the type of rock color I'll use, and what to do to make it stable.

Since these tanks have the plants on the top, they qualify as high light tanks, even 2 T5's is plenty and the export of nutrients is intense, since there's no light constraint, nor CO2 constraint, *only nutrients.*
Fish health is awesome, complexity and fanaggling the CO2 is no longer an added cost or hassle/worry. 

The look is something new and has fewer negative trade offs

The Tropheus tank will likely have Vals, less emergent growth.
Why have emergent crypt growth is a terrarium when you you can still do it with an aqaurium???? Why fight something that lead you to your goal in the first place?

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

I'm guilty of having the crypts in terrariums all over the house. This is more for the fact that I am more smitten with them with the emersed growth. I tried the riparium but one thing that drove me bonkers was the little gnats that seems to love this setup. We live between a river and a creek with an older sewage system for the whole city. Those stupid drain gnats are awful enough without giving them a sweet jungle to play in.

Miracle grow, huh? Now that's a first. Whatever works, right?

Hmm....a tank without wood? I thought that was impossible for you. You seem to have stock in manzanita. :biggrin:

Do you think fish breed better without the presence of co2? Just curious on your thoughts.


----------



## NickS (Oct 9, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> I would suggest exactly the opposite approach, low light to start, then higher light. However, all submersed rooted aquatic plants in nature experience this anyway, they go from low light to high light.


Yea, I knew this. I'm letting my impatience get ahead of me again...  Thanks!


----------

