|12-25-2012 07:48 PM|
I'd get one of these for a 5.5 gallon. 10 watts and about 15 bucks, you just have to slap a plug onto it.
|12-25-2012 03:13 PM|
I Suggest Adding A UV Sterilizer to Your Aquarium And Moving Your Light Closer
The hairgrass is alive, but quite thin compared to when the light was closer (When I set up the tank).
I do not want to have an algae outbreak again so I'm toying with dropping the light an inch to increase the PAR value at the substrate surface, alternatively, I can increase the photo period or the amount of light
I've read that dwarf hairgrass likes 2WPG or more. That being said, I know to focus on PAR vs WPG as a measure of effective light.
In my experience, Dwarf Hairgrass can survive in a lower light condition, however, does much better with higher lighting, CO2, fertilizer tabs and liquid fertilizer dosing at least once a week.
I have noticed that a number of people follow the EI dosing index which seems to work well for them. However, this can become very expensive over time.
I maintain a few planted aquariums with both dh and microsword and have found that it is nearly impossible to create the perfect chemical balance to achieve equilibrium in an aquarium. There are simply too many variables which affect the water column.
I have, however, found that using uv sterilization in my aquariums has not only ridded my tanks of green or cloudy water, but also allowed my plants to propagate more successfully, simply because there are less organisms in the water column which were feeding on the nutrients that my plants also required. This means that my plants no longer have to compete with these organisms as they did prior to the addition of the uv sterilizers.
Not only are my plants healthier than before, my fish are also much more active, and their colors are more vivid due to the better water quality.
I have been using uv sterilizers for the past year and half and cannot over emphasize their importance in helping to maintain a healthy water column.
As for lighting, I use Hagen GLO light fixtures with 6700 Kelvin bulbs in some tanks and a combination of 6700K and 18000K in others, and they work quite well.
I am presently setting up a 5.5 gallon nano aquarium to house some shrimp in, and looking for a good nano light. The Fluval CP mini is about 12 or 13 watts, which might work well, since I want to keep dh and microsword in this tank as well.
However, I am also considering the AquaTop Nano Type P for this aquarium. Yet, at only 7.5 watts, or about 1.3 watts per gallon in my 5.5 aquarium, I am not sure if this light will be powerful enough to grow these plants successfully, even if its 6500K spectrum is ideal for them.
I have been unable to find any independent reviews on the AquaTop Nano P light, so I may just have to purchase one to determine how well it works.
It's a very high tech and sleekly designed lighting system which usually sells for about $70 - two and a half times what the Fluval mini sells for.
And if I were to purchase two mini's that would equate to about 26 watts of light - roughly three times the power of the AquaTop.
Given this, at least on the surface, the AquaTop seems overpriced. However, when you consider the cost of some of the ADA lighting fixtures (and their low watts per gallon) the AquaTop may turn out to be good value if the light is capable of supporting plants like dh and microsword.
As for the importance of PAR over watts per gallon, Takashi Amano's planted tanks grow quite well under very low lighting conditions, so perhaps the AquaTop Type P will work fine.
I may try it and will update this post based on my experiences with the AquaTop light.
|11-20-2012 05:16 AM|
It's been 9 days and I'm holding at 28" from substrate.
I've gone down to 1 hour of burst 4x39W and 7 hours of 2x39W. I am at 4bps CO2 - I need to clean my inline diffuser before I drop the lights further - It's producing occasional bubbles and it's been 8 months since I cleaned it. Once that happens, I'll get better CO2 diffusion and I'll feel comfortable dropping the lights more.
Currently I've noticed a fine mist of hair algae on the glass after a week. I normally have very little visible algae on the glass after a week. I'm weary of dropping the light further for fear of a algae bloom. I trimmed the hair grass, which seemed to be growing thicker. I'm going to wait a week to see if it's any thicker coming back.
If the grass is growing thicker (albeit slowly), I may not need to drop the light further. If not I'll drop the light another 3" (to 25" from the substrate) remove the burst and keep it at 8 hours 2x39W and adjust the CO2 accordingly.
EDIT: When I trimmed the hair grass there is residual algae at the base (It's been there since the very first algae bloom) - I have a feeling that it may be the keeping the hair grass from growing thick...
|11-12-2012 10:39 PM|
|11-12-2012 10:34 PM|
|Hilde||Are you dosing with iron? It got my sags growing|
|11-12-2012 10:06 PM|
|sundragon||Here's a picture of the tank with the light at 28"|
|11-12-2012 09:37 PM|
Update: I lowered the lights to 30"-31" from the substrate last week. No algae issues. The increase CO2 has been making the plants grow a bit faster, I've been pruning. The hair grass is growing but not much thicker than the week before.
I just dropped it to 28"-29" from the substrate - I'm going to do a gradual 2-3" a week and watch. I've dropped the 4 bulb burst to 2 hours and 2 bulbs are on for 6 hours for a total of 8 hours photoperiod. Next week, I'll drop the light to 26" from the substrate and drop the 4 bulb burst to 1 hour so I don't over do the light.
|11-04-2012 11:30 PM|
|11-04-2012 11:08 PM|
Everyone's advice here has some probability of being wrong. That is just a given.
|11-04-2012 09:52 PM|
I appreciate you explaining it this way - will gradually move towards dropping the light and reducing the burst now that I've upped the flow and CO2.
|11-04-2012 09:45 PM|
There are many factors and I focused on light because everything else seems to be growing well save the hair grass.
As for light, I'm using medium-low light for 5 hours and medium-high for 3. I realized that my lights were too close and even after pulling them back it took a long time to get the algae under control (5-6 months). I have been told that I have a deep tank and the taller stemmed plants can decrease the light getting to the substrate so I posted my question here because most of you have more experience.
I have two questions about your tank? How deep is the tank and how far are your lights from substrate?
|11-04-2012 09:32 PM|
Actually I think most here agree that less light is usually better for many. In fact one of the more knowledgeable and well-known members here I'm pretty sure links that Tropica study you linked all the time.
I just don't agree with generalized, sweeping statements when it comes to home aquaria. Tanks to me are not controlled science experiments. There are simply to many variables tank to tank, light to light, substrate to substrate, etc. I do believe the Evans tank used MH lighting in addition to the T5, but I could be wrong.
|11-04-2012 08:18 PM|
OK then I am sorry if I made a misleading post! I will get back in my basket!!
I didn't really think for one second I could convince the hard core posters away from the general forum beliefs anyway.
And sorry about quoting Marks tank as a 100cm it is in fact a 120cm!
Incidentally I grew this scape myself with 2 x T5 on for 6 hours a day, note how the glosso actually grows downward & even the plants below the log grew as vigorously as he plant on top of the log...
|11-04-2012 06:23 PM|
Also the comment about the 2 x T5 being enough light for that depth was made before even knowing what kind of T5 the OP was using. As we know now this varies tremendously by model/manuf.
|11-04-2012 02:41 AM|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|