# Fluval 3.0 update



## TimP (Apr 18, 2018)

I've had the Fluval 3.0 for a couple weeks and it's been great. My plants are growing like crazy, although my tank is a 22g long so it's only 12" deep. I'm running the light at full intensity for 8-10hrs a day with a ramp up and ramp down, and moonlight (1-2% blue) all night long. I also do co2 injection.

My only issue so far with the Fluval 3.0 is that it needs to be raised higher. I have some stones that block out a large portion of the back of my tank, and I'd like to find/build some risers to lift it up 3-4 inches. Otherwise it's been a great investment.

Side note: I replaced a Finnex Planted+ 24/7 cc with the Fluval because I didn't like the limited programming capabilities with the Finnex. Looking back, I appreciate the Finnex for the risers it has and because I think it puts out a bit more PAR. Still, not going back. I love my Fluval 3.0.

EDIT: The Parva you have will not noticeably grow any faster in the week you've had the new light. Parva can take 12-18 months to do anything - they're extremely slow growing. Best to judge plant growth by the Ludwigia Repens or Moneywort you've got in there. I've got some Octopus in my tank and I have to trim that beast every few days!


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

TimP said:


> I've had the Fluval 3.0 for a couple weeks and it's been great. My plants are growing like crazy, although my tank is a 22g long so it's only 12" deep. I'm running the light at full intensity for 8-10hrs a day with a ramp up and ramp down, and moonlight (1-2% blue) all night long. I also do co2 injection.
> 
> My only issue so far with the Fluval 3.0 is that it needs to be raised higher. I have some stones that block out a large portion of the back of my tank, and I'd like to find/build some risers to lift it up 3-4 inches. Otherwise it's been a great investment.
> 
> ...


I'm Just noticing there's algae on my glass lids were there wasn't any before , also a friend of mine has the 3.0 and tested it with a li-cor, hers is the 36" model Mines the 48", her model was reading 51 umol at 18" so you're more close to 65-70+ umol @ 12", she could only estimate at the warmer look settings I'm Running with the power turned down im at she estimated 65-70 umol @ 18" as the 48" has more leds than the 36" @ 252 the 48 at 336. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

I'm thinking the limiting factor might be carbon. You've got enough light, probably enough ferts, good gH and a few fast growing stems. The higher PAR might be driving the plants hard enough that CO2 cannot keep up.


----------



## sdwindansea (Oct 28, 2016)

@TimP - I was under the impression the Fluval 3.0 puts out significantly more PAR than the Finnex Planted+ 24/7. I also agree that you may need to increase the CO2, assuming you are using it at all.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> I'm thinking the limiting factor might be carbon. You've got enough light, probably enough ferts, good gH and a few fast growing stems. The higher PAR might be driving the plants hard enough that CO2 cannot keep up.





sdwindansea said:


> @TimP - I was under the impression the Fluval 3.0 puts out significantly more PAR than the Finnex Planted+ 24/7. I also agree that you may need to increase the CO2, assuming you are using it at all.


I don't use co2 I simply don't want to use it and don't have the money for it if I did, Is there an alternative fix besides co2? 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

p0tluck said:


> I don't use co2
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Yes I know, hence why I was suggesting carbon is the limiting factor in plant growth with the extra PAR you are supplying with the new light. Ambient CO2 concentrations are not high enough to meet plant photosynthetic potential with the added light.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> Yes I know, hence why I was suggesting carbon is the limiting factor in plant growth with the extra PAR you are supplying with the new light. Ambient CO2 concentrations are not high enough to meet plant photosynthetic potential with the added light.


Do you think if i increased surface agitation I would be able to achieve more co2 per atmospheric pressure? 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

p0tluck said:


> Do you think if i increased surface agitation I would be able to achieve more co2 per atmospheric pressure?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Possibly, but any extra CO2 you may be adding can be just as easily off gassed with extra surface agitation.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> Possibly, but any extra CO2 you may be adding can be just as easily off gassed with extra surface agitation.


Sigh, well I was told I wouldn't need co2 with this new light hense why I bought it lol (insert mad face smiley here), I don't trust co2 abd I honestly don't have the money for it, what would you recommend me doing 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## kaldurak (May 2, 2010)

> I don't use co2 I simply don't want to use it and don't have the money for it if I did, Is there an alternative fix besides co2?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk



A low light tank.


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

p0tluck said:


> Sigh, well I was told I wouldn't need co2 with this new light hense why I bought it lol (insert mad face smiley here), I don't trust co2 abd I honestly don't have the money for it, what would you recommend me doing
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


You can try excel / metricide. 

You can also try a split photo period to allow CO2 levels to build back up. (CO2 builds up during the dark). 

Or try both  

Your plant selection is good, ludwigia is a fast grower.... I have it in a 90 gallon with a 2.0 and it isn't growing nearly as fast as yours does.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> You can try excel / metricide.
> 
> You can also try a split photo period to allow CO2 levels to build back up. (CO2 builds up during the dark).
> 
> ...


I was thinking of adding a lot more plants as that would build way more co2 than what I have currently (during night) like a few cryptocoryne balansae, a few C. Natans, Buce and another bushier plant or is my line of thinking different, and yes my L. Repens I have to trim every other week but it seems they have slowed down a bit with the stronger light. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

kaldurak said:


> A low light tank.


What do you mean a low light tank, no I'm not in the 100+ par club but I'm about 70

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

p0tluck said:


> I was thinking of adding a lot more plants as that would build way more co2 than what I have currently (during night) like a few cryptocoryne balansae, a few C. Natans, Buce and another bushier plant or is my line of thinking different, and yes my L. Repens I have to trim every other week but it seems they have slowed down a bit with the stronger light.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Maybe it is growing the same amount of leaves / nodes, just denser along the length of the stem making it seem like its growing slower? Does the stem between each set of leaves seem smaller?

I doubt the added plants will add any significant amounts of CO2 back into the water. Remember, lower tech tanks will have slower growth.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> Maybe it is growing the same amount of leaves / nodes, just denser along the length of the stem making it seem like its growing slower? Does the stem between each set of leaves seem smaller?
> 
> I doubt the added plants will add any significant amounts of CO2 back into the water. Remember, lower tech tanks will have slower growth.


About the leaves no as I just trimmed them so I actually have lower leaves dying off on the bottom. Portion of the stem but I heard that's common as they start to produce new stems, as far as the tops they are growing great I'll have to see if I'm getting more dense growth but on L. repens I've read that the leaves on them will always be Spaced out.

As far as your earlier post I dose 2 pumps thrive per week as with my old light if I dosed 3 I would get slight diatoms on the glass so I cut back to 2 pumps 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

p0tluck said:


> Sigh, well I was told I wouldn't need co2 with this new light hense why I bought it lol (insert mad face smiley here), I don't trust co2 abd I honestly don't have the money for it, what would you recommend me doing
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


 since it is fully adjustable. that is true. Just not in the sense you were thinking.. 

I'd decrease light to 50%..



Quagulator said:


> Maybe it is growing the same amount of leaves / nodes, just denser along the length of the stem making it seem like its growing slower? Does the stem between each set of leaves seem smaller?


From the settings I'd suspect not enough "just blue" to shorten internodes..
some plants just need time to adjust


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> since it is fully adjustable. that is true. Just not in the sense you were thinking..
> 
> I'd decrease light to 50%..
> 
> ...


This is super new to me, I thought my light was about 40%, was you saying I should raise the blue spectrum and lower the pure white and warm white? 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## kaldurak (May 2, 2010)

70 at the surface or the substrate? Even as 'low' as 50 par is considered high light for the purposes of co2 and ferts consumption by the plants. Algae issues can start to crop up with par over 50 and no co2, but not always and not for every tank.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

kaldurak said:


> 70 at the surface or the substrate? Even as 'low' as 50 par is considered high light for the purposes of co2 and ferts consumption by the plants. Algae issues can start to crop up with par over 50 and no co2, but not always and not for every tank.


I don't understand that concept as I are tasks running kessil at 100% (about 140 par) no co2 and their tanks are absolutely amazing, had a friend test their 3.0 with a li-cor they use, with the values I am using on her 36" it was 52 par at 18" I have the 48" model so it was estimated to be 65-70 @ 18", I don't see algae in the tank only on my lids, I'm thinking I might be burning the plants negate of lack of co2 which I did not know could happen 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

You won't be burning the plants, I think they are just at their limit without additional ferts and carbon. I was running 4 x T5-HO over a low tech 90 without any issues at all. Growth was steady, no algae and certainly no burning of plants. 

It all depends on the age of the tank IMO. A "new" tank will not appreciate a lot of light where as an older tank can run longer photo periods and more light without CO2 (in my personal experience). 

But like everyone is saying, each tank is different. Maybe it isn't CO2, but lack of ferts. What are you dosing again?


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> You won't be burning the plants, I think they are just at their limit without additional ferts and carbon. I was running 4 x T5-HO over a low tech 90 without any issues at all. Growth was steady, no algae and certainly no burning of plants.
> 
> It all depends on the age of the tank IMO. A "new" tank will not appreciate a lot of light where as an older tank can run longer photo periods and more light without CO2 (in my personal experience).
> 
> But like everyone is saying, each tank is different. Maybe it isn't CO2, but lack of ferts. What are you dosing again?


So this might be a valid point, I've only had the light for a approx a week, I dose thrive liquid @2 pumps a week, I was told the plants would go through a transition possibly but I didn't know my anubias would start turning yellow (the hardiest plant in my tank), I was also thinking that I should tweak my ferts to maybe 3 pumps 1 x weekly or 4 but I'm afraid I will get even more algae, I also have Lids as I do have jumpers in my tank and can't have them jumping out, I was advised to turn it down but I have absolutely no idea what colors I should keep higher while lowering the other ones to reduce intensity. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

p0tluck said:


> So this might be a valid point, I've only had the light for a approx a week, I dose thrive liquid @2 pumps a week, I was told the plants would go through a transition possibly but I didn't know my anubias would start turning yellow (the hardiest plant in my tank), I was also thinking that I should tweak my ferts to maybe 3 pumps 1 x weekly or 4 but I'm afraid I will get even more algae, I also have Lids as I do have jumpers in my tank and can't have them jumping out, I was advised to turn it down but I have absolutely no idea what colors I should keep higher while lowering the other ones to reduce intensity.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


From Thrive Website: 1 x 2mL pump per 10g will add 7ppm NO3, 1.3ppm PO4, 5ppm K, and 0.25ppm Fe

So 2 x 7ppm NO3 = 14ppm / 55 gallon tank = 2.5ppm NO3. Not nearly enough ferts IMO.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> From Thrive Website: 1 x 2mL pump per 10g will add 7ppm NO3, 1.3ppm PO4, 5ppm K, and 0.25ppm Fe
> 
> So 2 x 7ppm NO3 = 14ppm / 55 gallon tank = 2.5ppm NO3. Not nearly enough ferts IMO.


I actually have the whole list of what's being added from rotalabutterfly it didn't add 14 ppm for 55 gallons that's for 10 gallons it only adds these values















Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

p0tluck said:


> I actually have the whole list of what's being added from rotalabutterfly it didn't add 14 ppm for 55 gallons that's for 10 gallons it only adds these values
> View attachment 855682
> 
> 
> ...


yes, 14ppm (per 10 gals) divided into 55 gals (divided by 5.5) equals 2.5ppm per week  so way too little. I would up it 5x and see what happens if it was my tank.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> yes, 14ppm (per 10 gals) divided into 55 gals (divided by 5.5) equals 2.5ppm per week  so way too little. I would up it 5x and see what happens if it was my tank.


That worries me 🤣🤣🤣, okay I will do 4 pumps lol as that's 8 ml which is these values, I'm worried about an algae outbreak by dosing to Much as I Know thrive is strong, so I will up the dose by double I'm. Not contradicting your recommendation but I'm new so if I do get algae I won't know what to do where as you would. I already have green slime algae on my lids just from a week, any other thing you would do? I know you stated lower the intensity but I'm not sure on How to do such, right now I have pinks @ 100%, blue at 35%, cold white 35%,pure white 50% warm white 75%








Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

p0tluck said:


> That worries me &#55358;&#56611;&#55358;&#56611;&#55358;&#56611;, okay I will do 4 pumps lol as that's 8 ml which is these values, I'm worried about an algae outbreak by dosing to Much as I Know thrive is strong, so I will up the dose by double I'm. Not contradicting your recommendation but I'm new so if I do get algae I won't know what to do where as you would. I already have green slime algae on my lids just from a week, any other thing you would do? I know you stated lower the intensity but I'm not sure on How to do such, right now I have pinks @ 100%, blue at 35%, cold white 35%,pure white 50% warm white 75%
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Only change one thing at a time, that way if things go south we "sort of" know what caused it. 

Light looks good on those settings, if your lids are dirty you could probably crank them up a little. 75% intensity on all channels (plus or minus what pleases your eyes). 

What is your water change schedule like? With big 50% + weekly you can dose a lot more and not worry as much. Provide the plants with what they need and algae will have less chance of establishing. 

What green slime algae you got? pics?


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> Only change one thing at a time, that way if things go south we "sort of" know what caused it.
> 
> Light looks good on those settings, if your lids are dirty you could probably crank them up a little. 75% intensity on all channels (plus or minus what pleases your eyes).
> 
> ...


Yes I have pics this is on both lids but more primarily on the side with the aquaclear 70 compared to the side with the aquaclear 110, I know unhealthy plants are the main culprit for algae not nessessarily lights/ferts









Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

I do 50% pwc's every 7 days to reset my values 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

p0tluck said:


> I do 50% pwc's every 7 days to reset my values
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


I think you should be okay bumping up those dosing levels with that amount of water changed.

The algae looks like it might prefer the open air with constant splashing, might not even grow fully submerged which would be nice in your case. 


The daily dose for thrive based off 45 gals actual water is about 1.5 pumps per day


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> I think you should be okay bumping up those dosing levels with that amount of water changed.
> 
> The algae looks like it might prefer the open air with constant splashing, might not even grow fully submerged which would be nice in your case.
> 
> ...


So I should dose daily and not once a week? 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

p0tluck said:


> So I should dose daily and not once a week?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


I've recently started dosing micros with EI daily and its showing promising results. A lot of ferts precipitate out of the water making them plant unavailable, so by dosing a little every day you are ensuring there is always at least some in a plant available form. 

I find using a dosing schedule (pps-pro / ei / etc.) makes things easier to track and ensures plants are getting a tired and true method of fert delivery. that 1.5 pumps per day is based off pps-pro rotala butterfly recommendations.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> I've recently started dosing micros with EI daily and its showing promising results. A lot of ferts precipitate out of the water making them plant unavailable, so by dosing a little every day you are ensuring there is always at least some in a plant available form.
> 
> I find using a dosing schedule (pps-pro / ei / etc.) makes things easier to track and ensures plants are getting a tired and true method of fert delivery.


This makes me want to take up knitting 🤣🤣, okay so 1 pump a day for 6 days water change on the 7th

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

p0tluck said:


> This makes me want to take up knitting 🤣🤣, okay so 1 pump a day for 6 days water change on the 7th
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Watch TDS and NO3 levels throughout the week, if water changes are not resetting them back to "normal" (what your levels are now) then perhaps back off on the dosing or increase the water change frequency. 

Root tabs can also help supply a "constant" source of ferts, but by no means are they "measurable" like dry ferts.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Hmm Tapatalk keeps closing when I try to add to the previous post, or maybe 2 pumps on water change day(Saturday) 2 pumps Monday /Wed/ Thurs I feel. If I did Friday it would be a waste of ferts as I do my water change on Saturday 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> Watch TDS and NO3 levels throughout the week, if water changes are not resetting them back to "normal" (what your levels are now) then perhaps back off on the dosing or increase the water change frequency.
> 
> Root tabs can also help supply a "constant" source of ferts, but by no means are they "measurable" like dry ferts.


My tds on tank starts at 151 and ends at 165 on water change day at the dosing im doing right now

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Just tested it as my water change is tomorrow, my tds barely rises, I could reset my values with 30% but I do 50 % to keep my nitrates below 30









Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

It seems like this thread has really complicated what should be a simple matter. Too much light, too little fertilization, too little CO2 and plants don't do well. Below is a link to Dennis Wong's website and specifically the "Planted Tank 101" section. Careful reading and application of the information contained in it will be a great help.

https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/101-growth-plllars.html

The section on low tech tanks should prove helpful as well, especially the part on light levels when CO2 is not being added.

https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/101-lowtech.html


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Jeff5614 said:


> It seems like this thread has really complicated what should be a simple matter. Too much light, too little fertilization, too little CO2 and plants don't do well. Below is a link to Dennis Wong's website and specifically the "Planted Tank 101" section. Careful reading and application of the information contained in it will be a great help.
> 
> https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/101-growth-plllars.html


Yeah he just explained it to me, but I'm not well versed in genius [emoji23][emoji23], I understand what he says somewhat, I just don't understand the part about co2, it's like this light is forcing me to get it and I can't, simply put I've only had the light for approx 7 days I just need to let the plants adapt and go from there 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

If your PAR is truly 70 at the substrate and you don't want to use CO2 then you would have an easier time if you cut your light down by one third to one half.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Jeff5614 said:


> If your PAR is truly 70 at the substrate and you don't want to use CO2 then you would have an easier time if you cut your light down by one third to one half.


The issue is I don't know how to do so, there's 5 different colors, only one that's at 100% is pink, blue is at 35%, cool white 35%, pure white 50%, warm white 70%, I talked to Dennis a few times about the tank, I funny wasn't to use co2, I've seen higher PAR no co2 tanks than mine, I know i needed more plants like tall slim plants like C. Natans, C. Balansae that will over shadow the light a bit and flow along the top of the tank, I have no algae inside the tank only in the lids where the water splashes up Onto it. 


I know the plants need to acclimate to the stronger light, I increased my ferts from 4ml to 6 ml a week, I don't know what intensity the light is at right now but I know it's not 100%, there has to be ways to do a low tech no co2 tank with high light I see them posted all Over the place. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

p0tluck said:


> The issue is I don't know how to do so, there's 5 different colors, only one that's at 100% is pink, blue is at 35%, cool white 35%, pure white 50%, warm white 70%, I talked to Dennis a few times about the tank, I funny wasn't to use co2, I've seen higher PAR no co2 tanks than mine, I know i needed more plants like tall slim plants like C. Natans, C. Balansae that will over shadow the light a bit and flow along the top of the tank, I have no algae inside the tank only in the lids where the water splashes up Onto it.
> 
> 
> I know the plants need to acclimate to the stronger light, I increased my ferts from 4ml to 6 ml a week, I don't know what intensity the light is at right now but I know it's not 100%, there has to be ways to do a low tech no co2 tank with high light I see them posted all Over the place.
> ...


You can but you need a lot of plant mass and the tank needs to be established for a long time. Ferts and water changes need to be balanced out perfectly as well. I've done 2 high light, low tech tanks and both were 2+ years old and completely overgrown with plants.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> You can but you need a lot of plant mass and the tank needs to be established for a long time. Ferts and water changes need to be balanced out perfectly as well. I've done 2 high light, low tech tanks and both were 2+ years old and completely overgrown with plants.


My tanks Been running for 5 years but only 3 months with the extra plants, only had anubias prior to adding the crypts, Ludwigia, money wart. 

I sat down and read the low tech article by Dennis Wong very thoroughly last night and he states the tank needs to have at least 50% plant mass when starting a low tech med/high light tank so that the plants out compete algae, the issue is I have a hard time comprehending all the different scenarios for achieving the best results like minimal dosing compared to EI compared to poms compared to if I have this much par I need to do this and that, in his article he states minimum 35 par to 50+ for low tech no co2, I don't have a par meter so I can adjust my light to meet those criteria so I'm estimating at the moment. 

The friend that did the testing with her 36" model had higher values in the smart app like her blue was 40%, cool white 40%, pure white 60%, warm white 85%, and pinks 100% which on her test was 52 par at 18 inches I have the 48" so she says the par would be around 70+ umol at 18" so I cut her setting back for my light by 10%

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

If there's no algae IN the tank on the plants, then why are you obsessing? Just clean the lid glass after the water change. You seem to be such a conflicted soul. You want things to be simple, yet you needlessly worry over something that 'might' happen. 




So you start this thread which might or might not have been necessary in the first place, when people give you the pretty much expected "conventional" advice of needing to add CO2, you find yourself needing to defend your decision to not go that route. 

I believe a low tech tank is supposed to be a hands off thing in spirit. It takes a pretty decent balancing act to achieve what Dennis does in his tanks. Pushing things with a strong light, well, now you're dabbling in the realm of high tech along with its requirements. 

The equation is pretty simple and if you step back and look at everything that Dennis, @Jeff5614, or anyone else preaches around here, it's this.. "light is the gas pedal that drives the plant's growth" This means the plant requires more CO2 and nutrients. At the end of the day, it's just carbon, light, nutrients -- or as Dennis refers to the "three pillars" in balance. You want life to be easy? Then supply all three properly. You want to go on a limb and push two without the third? Well, you're going to have to get creative. Since you're focusing on Dennis' site so much, realize that even he preaches the importance of CO2 on this page: https://www.advancedplantedtank.com/choosing-co2-why.html. As he states, 40-50% of a plant's dry mass is made of carbon. As this is such a critical component of a plant, how can you ignore a plants requirement for it? Is your stated goal doable? Sure, but realize it's doable through what I consider as some "trickery." Even in his low tech page that you're focusing on, all the advice is geared towards maintaining this all important balance. Critical to the "six" facets is the lower light. This relaxes the requirement of everything else. He then suggests you use soil as the substrate in order to .. well, in a cheap way of saying it, cheat a little to supply the carbon. For the lighting, if I read it right, it doesn't say 'minimum' of 30-50 umols, but it is a 'starting point.' That is probably subject to up and down according to how well you can balance your tank. The lesser fertilization is just to cut down on chances of being unsuccessful. Whilst excess fertilization has been somewhat "proven" to NOT directly cause algae, people are sort of discovering that it can possibly cause weird interactions that may negatively affect the plants' growth. This is where the PPS method shines a little more. Again, without focusing on the specifics, at some point, if you reduce EI enough, you fall into a PPS type regimen and if you increase PPS enough, or work with PPS-Pro, you sort of achieve EI type techniques. It's just fancy ways of labeling "nutrients." 

There's also one more 'trick' to this high light, no co2 game I think that might work for you. You have the benefit of a programmable light. What you can do is spike a noontime burst of a couple hours to satisfy your leggy plant problems and dial it back to .. say, 20-25% the rest of the time for your viewing pleasure. This way, you essentially are running at the same algae free levels of light before while shooting some of that extra light down to solve your "not enough light" problems.

Anyway, I guess my point in all this rambling is if trying to comprehend the specifics is getting troublesome, step back a bit and just follow the mantra: light is the gas pedal that drives the plant's growth, feed and supply CO2 accordingly. This is all it really is.


----------



## Quagulator (May 4, 2015)

I agree,

I think you are worrying about something that really shouldn't be worried about. Green algae right on the lid is fine, that area is probably 5x more PAR than the actual tank will ever see. Once you add more plants and find a fert / water change balance, you can likely run the light wide open. I like the idea of a gradual increase, peak 2-3 hours and gradual decrease. 

At 50 PAR that is very doable without CO2, here is my messy 90 gal running a 48" 2.0 at full power for 10+ hours a day, light dosing daily+ metricide daily, 0 water changes in the last 2 months. Honestly, I want to add even more light, but I am seeing steady growth with little to no algae. 

As long as you are seeing steady growth of plants with minimal algae growth (some algae growth is fine/normal) than you are set. Remember, the PAR you are referring to is directly under the light. The glass / edges of the tank will drop off significantly.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

ipkiss said:


> If there's no algae IN the tank on the plants, then why are you obsessing? Just clean the lid glass after the water change. You seem to be such a conflicted soul. You want things to be simple, yet you needlessly worry over something that 'might' happen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay I've read your post very carefully and I appreciate the constructive criticism, here's where I got worried, firstly I thought the algae on the lids meant that algae was bound to Happen in the tank itself which I misunderstood and worried about for nothing, as far as me also creating this thread was because before I added the fluval my plants were growing great, everything was green/red, after I added the fluval my anubias started to get yellow leaves, C. Parva yellow leaves so I thought I was burning up The plants, my L. Repens aren't growing at a rapid rate as they were with my other light (I understand now that since I'm getting more light to the plants they will sometimes grow slower but more compact) as they aren't stretching anymore like they were doing, as far as ferts goes I was always under the impression that more ferts is not always the case as dennis said increasing my ferts won't fix my issue but I have learned in the past couple days by reading that dosing 1 time a week is not the way to do it, it should be done 2-3 times a week, so with that being saud I am increasing my ferts from 4 ml to 6 ml and dosing 2 ml 3x a week mon/wed/Fri water change on Sunday.


I do not have dirt substrate and I cannot do dirt atm for the fact is a 55 gallon tank and I honestly don't have the money to do so and I don't want to risk crashing my cycle.

As far as the light goes its programmable yes but not the way you make it sound, you can't do multiple intensities throughout the day like you stated, you can't do a burst then dial it back just like u can't add in a light break, it's on for however many hours you have it set at and at the intensity set, there's no way to program it to say be on @ 100 intensity for 2 hours then cut down to 25%, I could however do a 4 hour ramp time which would start off slow ramp in at 100% then set it for 2 hours to start the sunset ramp down so I guess I could do it that way if that's what you're referring to.

As far as co2, I simply do not have the money for it, nor the knowledge of it, as far as adding glutaraldehyde to my tank it does not add co2 in a high enough volume to Make a difference, let alone it starts damaging your plants and fish with every use, I would only use it for spot treatment and then would do a 50% water change 2-3 days later to remove most of it from the tank but traces will still be left over in a small quantity.

I read everyday from multiple articles not just dennis to try to educate myself better on this as I honestly hate asking for help, when there's so many different sources I can learn it myself, but I have a problem with comprehension to where I have to Read articles over and over to even begin to understand the complexity of this. 

To wrap this up I have 2 of the 3 pillars I have the light and nutrients and co2 that's provided by atmospheric pressure due to water agitation, I however do not have pressurized co2, adding glutaraldehyde isn't going to make a difference in anything what so ever besides harm to the plants and my fish. 

As far as fert dosing I might have to switch from thrive to dry and not add no3 as my tank runs at 20-40 with thrive only adding approx 5ppm now that I upped the dose to 6 ml to get a my Fe dosed at 0.1, I just don't know if I should do it like I am, 2 pumps every other day or 6 pumps all at once. 

Lastly I simply need more plant mass as in dennis article about low tech tanks he states 50% plant coverage to battle the possibility of algae, I have about 25% "if that" as most of my plants are anubias, stem plants (L. Repens 18 stems, 8 stems of money wart) 1 Amazon sword, and 10 C. Wendtii reds

Again I thank you for your reply and now maybe you can under stand why I made this thread (plants turning yellow, slowed growth rates, algae on lid which I though meant I was going to start getting algae in the tank) 



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

Quagulator said:


> I agree,
> 
> I think you are worrying about something that really shouldn't be worried about. Green algae right on the lid is fine, that area is probably 5x more PAR than the actual tank will ever see. Once you add more plants and find a fert / water change balance, you can likely run the light wide open. I like the idea of a gradual increase, peak 2-3 hours and gradual decrease.
> 
> ...


I agree with you, Jeff, ipkiss and everyone who posted EXCEPT adding glutaraldehyde to the tank, it simple does not add co2 to the tank in a high enough volume to actually call it an co2 addative as co2 does not come in liquid form.

Also glut starts harming your plants and fish with its first dose and even more if continued use. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

p0tluck said:


> As far as the light goes its programmable yes but not the way you make it sound, you can't do multiple intensities throughout the day like you stated, you can't do a burst then dial it back just like u can't add in a light break, it's on for however many hours you have it set at and at the intensity set, there's no way to program it to say be on @ 100 intensity for 2 hours then cut down to 25%, I could however do a 4 hour ramp time which would start off slow ramp in at 100% then set it for 2 hours to start the sunset ramp down so I guess I could do it that way if that's what you're referring to.


Ah, I see that you're missing an extra "stage." Perhaps you can trick it like so. It would depend on how the unit resumes, but you'd slap a manual timer on it. Silly, but it might achieve the goal. You set "moon" to be the low light range, then you can ramp to day of the high light range and then ramp back to moon. Then you'd have the timer to cut it off completely at night. You'd probably lose the cool ramp down to night. Ehh, maybe it's more trouble than its worth. 



> As far as co2, I simply do not have the money for it, nor the knowledge of it, as far as adding glutaraldehyde to my tank it does not add co2 in a high enough volume to Make a difference, let alone it starts damaging your plants and fish with every use, I would only use it for spot treatment and then would do a 50% water change 2-3 days later to remove most of it from the tank but traces will still be left over in a small quantity.
> 
> I read everyday from multiple articles not just dennis to try to educate myself better on this as I honestly hate asking for help, when there's so many different sources I can learn it myself, but I have a problem with comprehension to where I have to Read articles over and over to even begin to understand the complexity of this.


I appreciate the phobia and/or the hindrances of stepping up to CO2. I did not intend to trivialize your CO2 concerns. I do maintain that it is a pretty hard thing to properly implement as well and you're right to approach it with caution. There are many out there who just jump headlong into it, push the light irresponsibly after thinking just because they have CO2, and then trigger off mounds of BBA and then wonder what they did wrong *cough* me .. *cough*. However, at the same time, I wanted you to realize how important it is to not ignore its place. The people who got it working isn't via high light and 'no co2.' It's more like 'somewhat high' light and somehow provide enough carbon -- whether the plant needs less to begin with, through soil, through some "jury rig" for a lack of a better phrase. Otherwise, they just have to dial the light back downwards to not outpace the carbon supply. 



> To wrap this up I have 2 of the 3 pillars I have the light and nutrients and co2 that's provided by atmospheric pressure due to water agitation, I however do not have pressurized co2, adding glutaraldehyde isn't going to make a difference in anything what so ever besides harm to the plants and my fish.
> 
> As far as fert dosing I might have to switch from thrive to dry and not add no3 as my tank runs at 20-40 with thrive only adding approx 5ppm now that I upped the dose to 6 ml to get a my Fe dosed at 0.1, I just don't know if I should do it like I am, 2 pumps every other day or 6 pumps all at once.


I would suggest you to start doing DIY CO2, but then again, that's another frustration in itself and if you're not ready for that, no sense in having one more thing to worry. You're right to figure out your fertilizing and light first. Who knows, with the "proper fertilizing" now to match the light, you may actually still have enough carbon supply and it'll be stable. If not, then you know what you need to look at next. Ah, the complication of an all in one fertilizer. Now you know why others have resorted to make their own ferts so they can separate things out. I know you're probably looking for someone to provide you with specifics but that'll be truly hard. Everyone will tell you something "slightly" different. Which is why I try to tell you to not focus so hard on the specifics and pull back a little to look at 'why' it's being said. I'd suspect the 2 pumps every other day crowd would be focusing on the iron supply dissipating in 24 hours and hence you keep iron in the water column by constantly "feeding" throughout the week. 



> Lastly I simply need more plant mass as in dennis article about low tech tanks he states 50% plant coverage to battle the possibility of algae, I have about 25% "if that" as most of my plants are anubias, stem plants (L. Repens 18 stems, 8 stems of money wart) 1 Amazon sword, and 10 C. Wendtii reds



I'd argue that this 50%, too, is not a hard rule. If you have the right amount of light and if plants are sufficiently fed with nutrients and have enough carbon (please don't misread that as another nag on that you must inject co2), and you maintain the tank properly, they too might be happy with hardly any algae. 

NOT 50% planted

The only hard rule I feel that exists is that driven plants need to be fed. This is practically natural law. Imagine if I told you run around the block all day and refuse to feed you or worse, somehow restrict you from breathing heavily. Heck, imagine if I took you to a mountain range of sufficiently high altitude with thin air and make you run all day and not feed you. That's what you're asking these plants to do by pushing them with high light in your situation. Making them run without the proper resources. How you achieve the supply of proper resources in your situation IS the hard part isn't it?  Well, if it's that hard, then drive them less and they'll need to be fed less. Let them walk and they won't need to breathe as hard. It's really not that complex if you keep rephrasing and applying the three pillars/balance/light as a gas pedal principle. It all became much simpler to me when I kept applying everything I read back to it.

I can be like the Grandpa in Big Fat Greek Wedding where he links every possible word back to Greece  Never saw it? Nevermind then. 



> Again I thank you for your reply and now maybe you can under stand why I made this thread (plants turning yellow, slowed growth rates, algae on lid which I though meant I was going to start getting algae in the tank)


To apply my point to your situation, it'll probably rehash what was said earlier. Your new light is set too strong for what you were dosing .. both in nutrients and co2 (in which case you barely have any). Dial back the light as @Jeff5614 said or increase ferts as others have suggested, or do both. It's really that simple. I say it that way not to trivialize your frustrations, but more in hopes that you don't get too caught up in the specifics to lose sight of what it's all about


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

ipkiss said:


> Ah, I see that you're missing an extra "stage." Perhaps you can trick it like so. It would depend on how the unit resumes, but you'd slap a manual timer on it. Silly, but it might achieve the goal. You set "moon" to be the low light range, then you can ramp to day of the high light range and then ramp back to moon. Then you'd have the timer to cut it off completely at night. You'd probably lose the cool ramp down to night. Ehh, maybe it's more trouble than its worth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have upped the ferts (from 4 ml to 6 ml) and lowered the light (not sure at what intensity it's running at though) when it came to me everything was super high in the app I wish they would do something with the app where there's a option for strengths like say 25% 50% 75% 100% and you can adjust in between, but it doesn't have that option Only 5 colors you adjust separately, I am working on ordering more plants as I honestly only have stems, I have a track coming in a few months that I will dirt capped with gravel /sand, with a whole different scape than this one (all driftwood and river rock) not Texas holey rock m, this 55 will be my convicts new home with the THR and driftwood, I made a video trying to explain why it's so confusing to me when people say lower your light intensity, funny mind my child and soeech impediment lol.


I'm That guy that can explain computers, race cars, and all sorts of other things, but just being in this hobby (planted) for 3 months I'm one of those that need things drawn out in crayon for me to understand 🤣🤣, or flapped in the head and told hey listen relax, enjoy the hobby, try things out, add more plants/ferts, if something happens tweak it here and there till you find the correct balance lol.

I appreciate constructive criticism as it only makes me get better because it teaches me what I am doing right and what I am doing wrong, but I'm no botanist by all means lol

I took nothing you said offensively as I stated I greatly appreciate it I would rather someone say "hey guy, your doing this this and this wrong but this this and this right, fix these things and you'll get this", Rather than someone who says, yeah you're doing everything right when I'm not. Ty for that as well as Jeff, and all the others. 

Here's the video maybe you'll be able to say hey lower this color to this number that color to this and you'll have this lol. 

Also Im looking at tall growing bushier/grassy plants(no Vals please lol), I see on dennis website he lists a few but I really want a few C. Balanse, 1 Crinum Natan, some Buce but I'm not sure what ones I can grow or even if the balanse and natan will grow in My tank I know the Buce will. 
Here's my messy tank with wayyyy to many c Wendtii red 

https://youtu.be/W2TDdeDlMrg


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Ahh! I see. Thanks for the video. Again, I feel that you're zoning in too close to the scenario.  You're totally right in your concern, but I'm gonna try to physically pull you back a little from it. @jeffkrol might have more exacting measurements to satisfy the specifics, but I can tell you this. The "color" levels will probably be not that important in the grand scheme of things. When we or I say, lower to 50%, we mainly mean the white light level. That's the one that controls the majority of your leds and that's the one that will make the most difference in PAR. The next time you get the PAR meter, try adjusting just the whites and see what difference it makes. Then, try adjusting each other color separately .. or even altogether just to see what difference it makes. My guess is that the color adjustments won't make any serious change. 

Since you like specifics, let's dive into it a little. I don't have the luxury of having a Fluval 3.0 to try it out, but on my Satellite Pros, the color leds comprise only 9 out of 29 LEDs. They're mostly there for aesthetics. When I adjust any color, I get to change RGB, it really only affects those 9 LEDs. Only when I touch the white setting, does it really affect the other 20 LEDs. So, you can put your sunglasses on, or shine the light down at the water and look at the reflection, and figure out which of your LEDs are really being affected by the color settings. So, to apply this to yours, I suspect, blue and pink is neglible. Even cold white might not do much based on videos I watched. When you mess with pure or warm white, its when the serious light levels are adjusted. Granted, at full power with all the colors maxed out, they might add to the total light, but really, the workload is being carried by the white leds. 

But anyway, what if you don't have the luxury of a PAR meter? Here's where I like to tell you to not worry so closely. I don't have a PAR meter. Does it make life harder? Surrree. But I just would adjust all the colors equally. If I decided I need half the light, I'll merely dial everything down to half of what it was. 80 on whites would become 40, 90 on reds would become 45, etc. Further simplifying it is that I figured out only white matters so maybe I'll just reduce white. Tank looks a little weird afterwards so I play with the colors without worrying how much PAR they really contribute. Is it irresponsible? Ehh, depends on how close you look at the situation. If you really get into the nitty gritty of spectrum, maybe, but when you don't get so close, spectrum at this point for you, is more for your viewing pleasure. The plants probably don't care as much. 

In terms of computer speak, I don't know if you've ever looked at your windows event logs, but there's TONs of warning and error logs in the system log, but guess what, who really pays attention to those errors when your system is running decent? This is even more true with java logs. You're looking at verbose mode when you should dial back the log intensity  


And, to bring you back out to our unifying light pushes the co2 and fertilizer requirement mantra, I'll make a very loose computer analogy for you. Processor = light, RAM = CO2, and HDD = ferts. Your computer is slow, so you upgrade the processor, but guess what? You're processing faster, but computer is still slow because you realize now you're now experiencing I/O issues. So your HDD is thrashing to make up for the lack of RAM. You can upgrade it to an SSD, but really, it doesn't really equate increasing your RAM.

I don't need to remind you the light as a gas pedal analogy applies to race cars right?  

Understand the mantra, and you'll understand plants .. ehh.. somewhat 

Yea, this. 



> ....flapped in the head and told hey listen relax, enjoy the hobby, try things out, add more plants/ferts, if something happens tweak it here and there till you find the correct balance lol.


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

ipkiss said:


> Ahh! I see. Thanks for the video. Again, I feel that you're zoning in too close to the scenario.  You're totally right in your concern, but I'm gonna try to physically pull you back a little from it. @jeffkrol might have more exacting measurements to satisfy the specifics, but I can tell you this. The "color" levels will probably be not that important in the grand scheme of things. When we or I say, lower to 50%, we mainly mean the white light level. That's the one that controls the majority of your leds and that's the one that will make the most difference in PAR. The next time you get the PAR meter, try adjusting just the whites and see what difference it makes. Then, try adjusting each other color separately .. or even altogether just to see what difference it makes. My guess is that the color adjustments won't make any serious change.
> 
> Since you like specifics, let's dive into it a little. I don't have the luxury of having a Fluval 3.0 to try it out, but on my Satellite Pros, the color leds comprise only 9 out of 29 LEDs. They're mostly there for aesthetics. When I adjust any color, I get to change RGB, it really only affects those 9 LEDs. Only when I touch the white setting, does it really affect the other 20 LEDs. So, you can put your sunglasses on, or shine the light down at the water and look at the reflection, and figure out which of your LEDs are really being affected by the color settings. So, to apply this to yours, I suspect, blue and pink is neglible. Even cold white might not do much based on videos I watched. When you mess with pure or warm white, its when the serious light levels are adjusted. Granted, at full power with all the colors maxed out, they might add to the total light, but really, the workload is being carried by the white leds.
> 
> ...


Lol, I like the car and computer analogy, so if we're talking about cars you have the gas pedal as the light the engine which is the ferts and fuel is the co2, you can mash the gas and the car not go no where if you don't have the engine tuned correctly, once you have the engine tuned the car still isn't performing properly and you think oh wait I'm supposed to be running methanol (co2) , once you do that the car flies Roger that lol.

Now it makes sense 🤣🤣, my friend on fb is the one with the par meter, I know par is very important I believe the settings I have it now with the pure white (the main driving force for intensity) at 50% where pink and the blues really funny increase the intensity much to my eyes anyways, it however did make my fish look better if I do increase the blue more.

I've been up all darn night trying to find a reputable piece to buy Buce from, but I have so so many people recommending different places I'm half bald from pulling my hair out 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

ipkiss said:


> Ahh! I see. Thanks for the video. Again, I feel that you're zoning in too close to the scenario.  You're totally right in your concern, but I'm gonna try to physically pull you back a little from it. @*jeffkrol* might have more exacting measurements to satisfy the specifics, but I can tell you this. The "color" levels will probably be not that important in the grand scheme of things..


Depends ...

2013 May-- Guitarfish

Posted the results here but on further thought, there is a chance 65ooK's are dimmed in color modes..


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> Depends ...
> 
> 2013 May-- Guitarfish
> 
> Posted the results here but on further thought, there is a chance 65ooK's are dimmed in color modes..


So in short by decreasing each individual color spectrum in the 3.0 is how I decrease the actual intensity with the biggest contributor being pure white, at least that's my assumption because with that at 100 it feels like my eyes are burning looking at the tank. With my settings as I've posted what would you estimate my light to be running at
Blue 35%
Pink 100%
Cool white 35%
Pure white 50%
Warm white 70%

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Your eye is more sensitive to green ect.








Which is why it's "bright" to you.
Trick is other colors like blue/red can be bright to plants.
The 2 don't exactly correlate.. What you perceive and what the plants perceive..


Assuming Fluval uses "like" diodes for all .. (whites are just blue diodes w/ a phosphor btw)
you are at 60%...........

Bright to plants:


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> Your eye is more sensitive to green ect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay thank you for that information I was told when I first started 3 months ago what I like to look at plants are the exact opposite, like I don't like looking at red but plants love it, is there an app or a calculator I can download and input the light into it so that I can get the intensity that I'm running at by adjusting my color spectrums so I don't have to keep making you all go bald from explaining it to me lol?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Look at the RQE chart.. Only about a 30% difference in plant spectrum usage.. So in a broad sense "color" is irrelevant for photosynthesis.
It does have implications in other areas of plant physiology/morphology...

W/out a good "PAR" meter the exact photon flux per color isn't known.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

p0tluck said:


> Lol, I like the car and computer analogy, so if we're talking about cars you have the gas pedal as the light the engine which is the ferts and fuel is the co2, you can mash the gas and the car not go no where if you don't have the engine tuned correctly, once you have the engine tuned the car still isn't performing properly and you think oh wait I'm supposed to be running methanol (co2) , once you do that the car flies Roger that lol.


Hmm. What if I said CO2 is more akin to air supply for the engine and ferts are the fuel? Tuning is scaping, and maintenance is maintenance? Haha. Overthinking it


----------



## p0tluck (Feb 17, 2017)

ipkiss said:


> Hmm. What if I said CO2 is more akin to air supply for the engine and ferts are the fuel? Tuning is scaping, and maintenance is maintenance? Haha. Overthinking it


Don't you dare start lol jk 🤣🤣🤣, I just ordered 2 brownie blue, 4 cryptocoryne spiralis, 10 stems of bacopa caroliniana and 10 stems of rotala rotundifolia 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------

