considering low tech, need advice - Page 2
Planted Tank Forums
Your Tanks Image Hosting *Tank Tracker * Plant Profiles Fish Profiles Planted Tank Guide Photo Gallery Articles

Go Back   The Planted Tank Forum > General Planted Tank Forums > Low Tech Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-17-2005, 08:44 PM   #16
Oqsy
Wannabe Guru
 
Oqsy's Avatar
 
PTrader: (8/100%)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 1,174
Send a message via AIM to Oqsy Send a message via MSN to Oqsy Send a message via Yahoo to Oqsy
Default

lysimachia, chain sword, rotala, and java fern are doing well...
thread algae is doing better
lileaopsis brasiliensis is staying green, but not really spreading.

i'm currently talking with someone about quite a few bronze wendtii crypts and also looking into other types of anubias(frazeri, afzelli, caladiifolia, congensis, coffeefolia, heterophylla, etc) then I'll most likely remove the lysimachia, rotala, and probably the chain sword and stick with the "easier" plants... ie crypts, anubias, java ferns... one high maintenance tank is enough for now

besides, this tank is less than 3" from my high-tech, high-light, high-fert, high-co2, high-energy bill, high-stakes 29 gallon. it should make an interesting contrast to have them side by side for comparison and contrast.

Oqsy
__________________
Eheim Pimp #171
55 gallon jungle in progress; Eheim 2217, TurboTwist UVS, Seachem Onyx / Black T-grade ColorQuartz, 2x55w AHS CF, BeverageFactory.com CO2 Regulator with Clippard accessories

"If you ask me, you've got too much imagination. Everything's all loop-de-loops and flibbertigibbets." - Hank Hill
Oqsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-18-2005, 01:41 PM   #17
ceg4048
Algae Grower
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Spain
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaverde
I don't fully understand what you're disagreeing with.
OK, it's so easy to trip over one's own shoelacese so let's see if we can clarify. I'm fundamentally disagreeing with this statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaverde
[That in an ecosystem] Light is not the driver. CO2 is.
Put aside any dosing schemes for the moment in order to examine the system dynamics. First of all, plants exist (can we use the expression "evolve"?) fundamentally in the form that they do primarily because of the existence of light, not because of the existence of CO2. The entire planet's ecosystem is driven by the sun. Since there happens to be an abundance of carbon, nitrogen etc. the light engine is fueled by the elements such as carbon. Plants photosynthesize, remember? The process of Photosynthesis involve using light energy to convert CO2 and other compounds into sugars. Please read The Barr Report Newsletter March 2005:

"1. Light is the major energy input to aquatic ecosystems.
2. Photosynthesis and metabolism is driven by the amount of light energy.
3. Light plays a dominate role in lakes and a streams with respect to aquatic Macrophytes.
4. Most aquatic Macrophytes exist in the top two meters of the water column....."

If we use this analogy of a light engine fueled by the ambient elements it's easy to see that if we are low on fuel the engine stalls. What I'm saying therefore is that the primary difference between low tech and high tech is functionally low light versus high light. At low light and thus low photosynthesis we need less fuel, therefore we can get away with less dosing and less carbon. Adding more carbon and more nutrients helps to some extent but the effect will max out proportionally to the light level.

You accurately quote from the EI article that: "...This method is specific for CO2 enriched systems with higher light but works even better with lower light CO2 enriched tanks..." but I believe you mistakenly draw the conclusion that CO2 is primary. In fact, the very next sentence in that paragraph from which you quoted states
"...I suggest 30ppm of CO2, while a tank with 2 w/gal might be okay with 15-20ppm, many with power compact bulbs and reflectors need to have their CO2 levels higher, 20-30ppm range is optimal for the lighting period. This was found by adding more CO2 until there was no net gain in plant growth while keeping the nutrient and lighting levels consistent during the testing period..." This clearly shows that higher light levels require more fuel (carbon) while lower light levels require less. I suppose you could argue that the reverse is true, i.e, that lowering the CO2 level requires a drop in the light level, but really, the engine analogy holds here in that you are lowering the fuel level so he engine slows.

Furthermore, the EI article goes on to say:

"Returning back to non CO2 planted tanks after gaining this knowledge at high light and CO2 enrichment allows some fairly good predictions/correlations of uptake rates for non CO2 planted tanks as well. The rate of uptake is reduced due to less light and less CO2. I generally use about 6 to 1 slower uptake rate ratio for non CO2 tanks but the fish loading can change this ratio. Basically the non CO2 tank grows 6-10x slower than a CO2 enriched tank."

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaverde
Filamentous algae just loves high CO2. Where did you get the idea CO2 level triggers algae dormancy?
Wrong. Filamentous algae just love NH4 and light. I got the idea from Mr. Barr himself. Also I stated that CO2 s one of the main factors. Please review the following thread: http://www.barrreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=387
Where did you get the idea that filamentous algae loves high CO2? People following EI claim a reduction in all types of algae with the suggested 20-30ppm CO2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaverde
Quote:
Huh??? Stems do just as well as other crypts in low tech. They just don't grow as fast as stems in a high tech environment. Hygros, for example can dominate any setup if you allow them to. Of course that's assuming you dose the water column. If you don't dose, then yes, root feeders will have an advantage. You still dose with a low tech, you just don't have to dose nearly as often as with high powered laser beam setups.

I was stating my personal preference. Didnít actually go into why, did I?
That's right, you didn't and you should have. Your response was within the context of answering Oqsy's question regarding CO2 and dosing in a low tech environment, remember? It was impossible to determine from the context that you were stating a general aesthetic prefererence of crypts to stems. Apologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaverde
If you are expecting to get 2-6x growth rate and you donít dose N and P, please explain where it is coming from to sustain that kind of growth.
Yes, I'm sorry, I made the same error as I did not clarify that I assume that all other dosing was in effect. It is pointless to stop dosing, either macros or micros. In a low tech tank everything is simply scaled back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaverde
...Setting a max is based upon the revelation, ďAn important aspect of this method is the knowledge that excess nutrients do not cause algae bloomsĒ (The Estimative Index). We donít want to under-dose, so we set a max uptake level. ďOverdosingĒ is not a problem. This is opposite to the approach that was taken for so many years (e.g. Conlin-Sears). Besides, this light level is not the max. There are some running 7 and 8wpg. They have a second mortgage to pay for the tanker truck of Flourish in the front yard, though (almost a joke).
You know, I re-read the article and I found this statement:

"...The reason I chose this high light intensity was to reduce the time before an algae bloom would occur and prevent competition for light. If algae was to occur due to higher nutrient levels, if would occur when the light, CO2 and nutrients were non limiting for both sets of variables. With less light, down to a point (Light compensation point, the LCP), we can assume less uptake and less issue maintaining a ďstable rangeĒ of nutrients. It is much more difficult to tease apart the relationships when the rate of growth is slower (e.g. less light), it takes more time to note differences in plant growth and places less stress/growth rate on the system..."

You can see that although the parameters used to develop the EI dosing was high light, high CO2 and high everything else, it was in a way a technique of normalization in which everything can be scaled down proportionally from the top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaverde
Iím curious. What would you advise for a low light CO2-injected setup that is nitrogen limited?
Well, I mean..um..add nitrogen? (is this a trick question?) Again, I think we lost sight of the context here. Remember that Oqsy was asking whether adding CO2 to a tank suffering from nutrient dificiency would cause additional damage (at least I thought that's what was being asked). I was trying to explain that whatever limitations were in effect, whether it be N, P or K, the damage would be as a result of that limitation, not due to any CO2 addition. Perhaps that was what you were trying to say in your response but I found it confusing.

I think everyone agrees to avoid nutrient deficiency but the question I perceived in this thread was how to accomplish that in a lower maintenance tank and whether CO2 addition is relevant in such a tank. I apologize if I misread the posts but others reading the posts may have the same confusion. FYI there is an EI scheme for non-CO2 tanks here: http://www.barrreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=395

In Oqsy's case with 3wpg and injected CO2, this doesn't really qualify as low tech though.

The discussion about whether light is the driver versus CO2 is important only in the sense of understanding the tank dynamics and in order to help troubleshoot problems that arise. If algae is a problem for example it's better to understand that lowering the light is a more reliable solution than lowering the CO2, and that increasing the CO2 is a better bet than increasing the light. That's why the driver question is important.

Cheers,
ceg4048 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2005, 04:34 PM   #18
aquaverde
Wannabe Guru
 
aquaverde's Avatar
 
PTrader: (4/100%)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Mid-Hudson Valley, New York
Posts: 1,409
Default

Quote:
OK, it's so easy to trip over one's own shoelacese so let's see if we can clarify. I'm fundamentally disagreeing with this statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaverde
[That in an ecosystem] Light is not the driver. CO2 is.
Put aside any dosing schemes for the moment in order to examine the system dynamics. (snipping explanation of role of light in photosynthesis)
Aha. Now I see the problem. You are trying to tell me about ecosystem dynamics and photosynthesis. I was talking about what determines EI.

First, you quoted me here and disagreed with me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaverde
The basic thing that drives EI is CO2 enrichment, not high light. If you want to stop dosing, pull the CO2 off the tank as well. With the plants you have, I think you donít need CO2 anyway.
My statement, ďThe basic thing that drives EI is CO2 enrichmentĒ would have been clearer if I had said ďThe basic thing that drives the use of EI is CO2 enrichment.Ē

Does that make it any clearer? Here is what I am saying: if you use CO2, use EI. Or, again: if you inject CO2, you will have to continue dosing.

Usually Iím articulate enough to get my point across, but in this case twice I failed.

The point on EI is that it is designed for CO2-enriched systems. Non-CO2 is a completely different method. If you want to define high tech exclusively as high light, you give the impression you donít include CO2 injection. In fact, light intensity high enough to be termed ďhigh lightĒ will necessitate CO2 injection, ergo ďhigh techĒ.

By the way, I am not arguing the mechanics of, or importance of, or physiology of either light or photosynthesis. I was arguing the importance of CO2 as the determining factor in using EI. I used to think high light was it, but Tom told me himself not to confuse the methods. CO2 enrichment was the determiner for the method, not light level.

Here's Tom's response to me on APD on the subject:
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plant.../msg00027.html

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaverde
Filamentous algae just loves high CO2. Where did you get the idea CO2 level triggers algae dormancy?
Wrong. Filamentous algae just love NH4 and light. I got the idea from Mr. Barr himself. Also I stated that CO2 s one of the main factors. Please review the following thread: http://www.barrreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=387
Where did you get the idea that filamentous algae loves high CO2? People following EI claim a reduction in all types of algae with the suggested 20-30ppm CO2.
I think things got generalized somewhere, because neither EI nor CO2 levels will inhibit all algae types. To be fair, itís a distinction Tom does not make very often, and I almost think he doesnít like to mention it. Iím talking chladophora, spirogyra, that sort of algae. I read the thread you posted and I know itís early in the morning here, but I donít see Tom saying anywhere in it that CO2 will suppress this type of algae. I have asked Tom directly if changing water parameters will get rid of this algae the way it will other types and he said ďnoĒ. Also, I believe it gets into the tank through infection on a new plant and not through airborne spores. Some other types can be controlled through CO2 and EI, but not this.

Youíre a barrreport.com member. Check this out with Tom.

Quote:
I think everyone agrees to avoid nutrient deficiency but the question I perceived in this thread was how to accomplish that in a lower maintenance tank and whether CO2 addition is relevant in such a tank. I apologize if I misread the posts but others reading the posts may have the same confusion. FYI there is an EI scheme for non-CO2 tanks here: http://www.barrreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=395

In Oqsy's case with 3wpg and injected CO2, this doesn't really qualify as low tech though.

The discussion about whether light is the driver versus CO2 is important only in the sense of understanding the tank dynamics and in order to help troubleshoot problems that arise. If algae is a problem for example it's better to understand that lowering the light is a more reliable solution than lowering the CO2, and that increasing the CO2 is a better bet than increasing the light. That's why the driver question is important.
I have two non-CO2 tanks at this point, and they are a real pleasure. One is and always has been 90% low light plants. I have 2.25wpg over that tank and it is pristine.

Just on a side note, I ran this tank with no fish at all, and I also ran a CO2-injected tank with no fish at all. Both were cleaner looking tanks algae-wise than anything Iíve ever had. I ran into a problem and had to put a half dozen fish into one of them and boy, did I get an algae bloom for that. I reckon there was so little NH4 in the tank prior to adding the fish that I had lost my nitrifying bacterial colony and the result was a mess.
__________________
James
aquaverde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2005, 06:41 PM   #19
aquaverde
Wannabe Guru
 
aquaverde's Avatar
 
PTrader: (4/100%)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Mid-Hudson Valley, New York
Posts: 1,409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oqsy
lysimachia, chain sword, rotala, and java fern are doing well...
thread algae is doing better
lileaopsis brasiliensis is staying green, but not really spreading.

i'm currently talking with someone about quite a few bronze wendtii crypts and also looking into other types of anubias(frazeri, afzelli, caladiifolia, congensis, coffeefolia, heterophylla, etc) then I'll most likely remove the lysimachia, rotala, and probably the chain sword and stick with the "easier" plants... ie crypts, anubias, java ferns... one high maintenance tank is enough for now

besides, this tank is less than 3" from my high-tech, high-light, high-fert, high-co2, high-energy bill, high-stakes 29 gallon. it should make an interesting contrast to have them side by side for comparison and contrast.

Oqsy
I couldn't be happier with my non-CO2 20g. It almost takes care of itself. the aquascape lasts months, not a week. The most maintenance I do is scraping dust off the glass from time to time. And trimming moss. ceg4048 is right about some of the typically high-light plants doing OK in the lower lighting, too. When it comes right down to it, my 65 fast tank satifies all my tinkerlust.
__________________
James
aquaverde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2005, 02:22 PM   #20
equinecpa
Algae Grower
 
PTrader: (0/0%)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gainesville, TX
Posts: 135
Default

James;

I have a tank that I want to convert to low-tech: It's a 30G Hex with 56w of PC over it. I've been plagued with every kind of algae imaginable trying to achieve balance between C02 and ferts. I even have a UV on the tank - but that just knocks out the GW the algae on the plants, glass etc keep on growing- I give up...going low tech.

What plants do you have in your 20? What seems to do well? I'd love to go the fish poop method of fertilizing. What is your substrate?

Carolyn
equinecpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2005, 06:38 PM   #21
aquaverde
Wannabe Guru
 
aquaverde's Avatar
 
PTrader: (4/100%)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Mid-Hudson Valley, New York
Posts: 1,409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by equinecpa
James;

I have a tank that I want to convert to low-tech: It's a 30G Hex with 56w of PC over it. I've been plagued with every kind of algae imaginable trying to achieve balance between C02 and ferts. I even have a UV on the tank - but that just knocks out the GW the algae on the plants, glass etc keep on growing- I give up...going low tech.

What plants do you have in your 20? What seems to do well? I'd love to go the fish poop method of fertilizing. What is your substrate?

Carolyn
Carolyn,

Quick couple of questions- how long ago did you set up your 30, are you using pressurized or DIY CO2, what and how much are you dosing? You sound like youíve already pretty much decided to drop the CO2, but Iím curious whatís going on in the tank. Also, what plants do you have? And how are you lighting it? Hex tanks arenít easy to light.

To answer your question, I have about half a dozen types of Cryptocorynes, Anubias, Java ferns, some sort of Ludwigia cross, some tennelus and thatís about it [edit: how could I forget the Java moss?]. The last two were just kind of a recent experiment since this has always been my crypt tank. All do well, but they are really more low light plants anyway. The Ludwigia and tennelus do OK, but grow slow.

Iíve changed the substrate several times in this tank over the two years it has been up. Right now I have about 5Ē, the bottom inch is soil, capped in mostly Onyx sand. I used to have a journal up, but the pics didnít transfer from the old board, so I canít point you to anything useful right now. I think Iíll finally post it up again instead of littering the site with odd pics here and there. This is an older pic of it:
__________________
James
aquaverde is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Planted Tank LLC 2012