The Planted Tank Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ive noticed that with most of my plants, they are much fuller and healthier looking starting at about 3-4 inches from the surface. Toward the bottom the leaves are much more spaced out on the stem.

They seem to reach for the top very quickly, but never develop properly in the middle where I see most of the plant from my seating position.

Is this a matter of not enough light? I have a 75g covered by a 3x54 t5ho catalina. I thought this would be plently of light, but now that things are growing like crazy, pearling like mad, Im not so sure.

Another issue has been the light spread. I notice that the plants directly under the light grow much better than those that are not. I have the light positioned toward the back to give the most lighting to the most plants. Bringing it forward, I definately notice a loss of growth towards the rear. I suppose I could raise the lighting, but then Im worried about loosing the intensity.

Point being, maybe I should have went with a 4x54 for more light and better spread. Anyone else agree with this assessment?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
I think you should've gone with 3 1x54w lights, giving you full control over how you distribute your lighting over the tank. 4x54 would be complete overkill with T5.

Either raise the light, or first try moving it forward on your tank; the plants in the back are tall; they don't need more light.

-Philosophos
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,062 Posts
Did you just add new lights? Stem plants grow up more than they do out, so if they were leggy from an inadequate light, they likely won't fill in thicker in the middle. (ok, it CAN and DOES happen, but it's not the primary way stem plants grow). The best way to combat that is to do an aggressive trim the next time you are trimming, and cut out any sections that are too leggy for your taste. replant the thick bushy tops, and your plants should grow nice and bushy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I've had the lighting for about 4 months now I think. After doing some reading, it looks like my problem may be too much lighting as opposed to too little. The idea being the plants grow so fast that they dont never have a chance to compact.

I used to have this fixture raised on legs, but I noticed only plants that were above a certain height did well. Plants lower in the tank never took off. AFter lowering the light, all plants did begin to grow better, albeit "leggy".

Still doesn't help my light spread problem though, Ill have to do some more experimenting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Plants don't compact. I think you are narrowing in on your answer... has something to do with light levels at substrate level. Although more details are needed such as water params, co2, light hrs, plant names... all would be helpful.
 
G

·
I've had the lighting for about 4 months now I think. After doing some reading, it looks like my problem may be too much lighting as opposed to too little. The idea being the plants grow so fast that they dont never have a chance to compact.
to much light? it would seem to me it wouldnt be enough if there stretching then they bush when they finally have enough.

I used to have this fixture raised on legs, but I noticed only plants that were above a certain height did well. Plants lower in the tank never took off. AFter lowering the light, all plants did begin to grow better, albeit "leggy".
you answered your own question right here....

I used to have this fixture raised on legs, but I noticed only plants that were above a certain height did well.

I bet cause that is where the light levels were stronger and they took off finally.

Still doesn't help my light spread problem though, Ill have to do some more experimenting.
keep your lights low (off the legs) if you have co2 turn it up some and go from there...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
to much light? it would seem to me it wouldnt be enough if there stretching then they bush when they finally have enough.
Under 2wpg of T5HO? Why is it then that I can grow plants densely without CO2 under <1wpg of T8 then? What about the fact that interspecies competition will cause some plants to grow leggy while others stay compact and autofragment? How is blaring more light down from the same source going to get better quality of lighting than creating a better angle for the lighting to come from?

Just some thoughts; I'm running 2wpg of CF that would be considered far inferior lighting to this tank, and yet I've got no problem growing anything I want. The same is true for very, very many others in this hobby. Can you think of a reasonable justification for the difference?

-Philosophos
 
G

·
You can grow Cabomba furcata and have it stay nice and pink without CO2 under <1wpg of T8?? Please inform me how then...

No two lights are ever same. What you can grow with your lights he might not be able to ever grow. You say "4x54 would be complete overkill with T5" well im running that now fine without a problem along with many others here and have nice compact growth in just about every plant in my tank.. It all depends what your looking for thats the bottom line..

IMO your light intensity is not strong where they are leggy which is causing them to be leggy... But then they reach a spot where the light intensity is strong and well suited for them and they take off get much fuller and healthier looking.

Perfect example same bulbs same co2 levels everything is the same only thing that changed was the reflector...

I bought a 4 x 54 tek and I changed from a current usa my plants are so compact now that I had to shut two bulbs down and use them as noon burst..

Get a light meter do your test. I have done mine. You will see why they are like they are. I had the same problems which made me switch reflectors to increase my light intensity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
You can grow Cabomba furcata and have it stay nice and pink without CO2 under <1wpg of T8?? Please inform me how then...
I haven't bothered with C. furcata in years. I do however have some nice L repens growing under these conditions with about half an inch between the nodes. Nothing but aquasoil, fish food, and some light dosing of good ferts.

No two lights are ever same. What you can grow with your lights he might not be able to ever grow. You say "4x54 would be complete overkill with T5" well im running that now fine without a problem along with many others here and have nice compact growth in just about every plant in my tank.. It all depends what your looking for thats the bottom line..
I'm not saying you can't get good growth, just that it's unnecessary. The fact that you have compact growth under your light does not mean that your light is necessary; the fact that others can do it without high light shows that. Do you have any idea how little light Takashi Amano uses on all of his setups? His lights are even miserable in terms of being in spectrum.

Just saying that the light is different between two bulbs without identifying why in this specific case is a bit of a cop-out. I could create conjecture that says my fish like gravy, and it's only coincidence that they aren't surviving. Burden of proof is not something you can skip out on when it suits your needs.

Perfect example same bulbs same co2 levels everything is the same only thing that changed was the reflector...
I'm talking about <1wpg of T8 with a white plastic reflector well over 6 months old on an old magnetic start ballast. This is not 2wpg of T5 with CO2, nowhere close. I'm not sure how you'd even compare 2wpg of CF over 6 months old vs. an at least equivalent reflector with T5; the restrike rate is nowhere near the same, and the distribution should be better as well. HC grows under 40mmol PAR; that's extremely low lighting.

Get a light meter do your test. I have done mine. You will see why they are like they are. I had the same problems which made me switch reflectors to increase my light intensity.
Haven't bothered with the light meter yet; I'm waiting on a PAR meter group buy. On the other hand, I've done plenty of reading on light within the planted tank. If you disagree with what I'm saying on this thread, you can go talk to Hoppy or Supercoley about it; you'll hear the same thing from both of them. They've both spent plenty of time working on light.

Go talk to one of the big names in the hobby if you like; you'll get the same feedback telling you that 2wpg of T5HO is plenty, and that the issue is likely more related to CO2 and spread than it is pure intensity.

I'll bet a bit of current pushing CO2 and nutrients into the lower growth would go a long ways towards fixing the problem. A high nutrient substrate would also help.

Just for the fun of it; I've got an emersed dry start 48 gal growing HC, glosso and E. triandra under 2wpg of T5HO with good spread. Light is being lost at a greater rate than other tanks because of the lack of water in it meaning poor lensing effects off the glass. Why is my HC (allegedly but not actually a high light plant) not light deficient? It seems to be growing beautifully.

-Philosophos
 
G

·
I'm not saying you can't get good growth, just that it's unnecessary. The fact that you have compact growth under your light does not mean that your light is necessary; the fact that others can do it without high light shows that. Do you have any idea how little light Takashi Amano uses on all of his setups? His lights are even miserable in terms of being in spectrum.
Indeed I do. Its called reading what Tom wrote when he did his test on them. Glad to see you read them to. But it still dont point out that its unnecessary. Has test been done on every plant to say its unnecessary? Until it has been then I guess its safe to say it might be or it might not be unnecessary to have that much light..

Just saying that the light is different between two bulbs without identifying why in this specific case is a bit of a cop-out. I could create conjecture that says my fish like gravy, and it's only coincidence that they aren't surviving. Burden of proof is not something you can skip out on when it suits your needs.
Please explain to me why this is a cop out. I have never seen two bulbs come up with the same spot on readings.

I'm talking about <1wpg of T8 with a white plastic reflector well over 6 months old on an old magnetic start ballast. This is not 2wpg of T5 with CO2, nowhere close. I'm not sure how you'd even compare 2wpg of CF over 6 months old vs. an at least equivalent reflector with T5; the restrike rate is nowhere near the same, and the distribution should be better as well. HC grows under 40mmol PAR; that's extremely low lighting.
I have about 4 wpg of t5HO if you follow the rule of wpg with co2 so you cant really compare and I didnt compare it to yours at all if you read it again.... Who is talking about HC? I didnt talk about it. Yeah HC may be able to grow under "40mmol PAR" but have studies been done on it for months or years to say that is the best for it? Until they have its all talk..

Haven't bothered with the light meter yet; I'm waiting on a PAR meter group buy. On the other hand, I've done plenty of reading on light within the planted tank. If you disagree with what I'm saying on this thread, you can go talk to Hoppy or Supercoley about it; you'll hear the same thing from both of them. They've both spent plenty of time working on light.
I have read alot of there post. I didnt just join here 5 months ago. I agree and disagree alot on some of the things here but its a public forum everyone is allowed to. Like I said IMO its his light intensity. More light would raise that since he has pretty good reflectors.

Go talk to one of the big names in the hobby if you like; you'll get the same feedback telling you that 2wpg of T5HO is plenty, and that the issue is likely more related to CO2 and spread than it is pure intensity.
You can listen to alot of people all your life but until you do real world test you never know for yourself. How do there real world test match mine? How would it be co2 and spread if his plants are pearling nicely and growing like crazy? If it was spread how are you going to fix that when he already has quality reflectors? If it was co2 then why are his plants pearling nicely?

I'll bet a bit of current pushing CO2 and nutrients into the lower growth would go a long ways towards fixing the problem. A high nutrient substrate would also help.
Maybe it would be if he didnt have flow on the lower growth of the plants.
High nutrient substrate may or may not be necessary. I have never had a high nutrient substrate and everything seems to be fine here.

Just for the fun of it; I've got an emersed dry start 48 gal growing HC, glosso and E. triandra under 2wpg of T5HO with good spread. Light is being lost at a greater rate than other tanks because of the lack of water in it meaning poor lensing effects off the glass. Why is my HC (allegedly but not actually a high light plant) not light deficient? It seems to be growing beautifully.
I have never done a dry start so I cant say for sure. I never had a need to dry start. It may be listed as a high light plant but have test been done on it to say what kinda light levels are best for it? How do we know if it would grow better with even lower levels or even much higher? We really dont cause no one has studied it that much to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Indeed I do. Its called reading what Tom wrote when he did his test on them. Glad to see you read them to. But it still dont point out that its unnecessary. Has test been done on every plant to say its unnecessary? Until it has been then I guess its safe to say it might be or it might not be unnecessary to have that much light.
Not only has HC been tested, but piles of other plants have flourished under the same level of lighting from the same brand and bulbs. Again, Amano's tanks are infamously low light, and he has kept a wide variety of plants and taken tons of good photos of them to show that high light isn't necessary for many, many species.

You can check over Oliver Knott's work too; he does both high and low light, and many species of plant flourish in both.

Overall I would say that 2wpg of T5 takes care of every species of plant I've seen put under it when the spread is correct and the reflectors are at least present.

Would you care to list some exceptions?

Please explain to me why this is a cop out. I have never seen two bulbs come up with the same spot on readings.
Because you're trying to tell me that a bulb receiving fewer watts, that is known to have less efficiency per watt, is not

I have about 4 wpg of t5HO if you follow the rule of wpg with co2 so you cant really compare and I didnt compare it to yours at all if you read it again.... Who is talking about HC? I didnt talk about it. Yeah HC may be able to grow under "40mmol PAR" but have studies been done on it for months or years to say that is the best for it? Until they have its all talk..
But it has been kept for years; I've seen pictures of the tank over the span of years. It's been entered in competition and existed later when Tom took the readings. Right now it's something else; I saw the new setup. It's nice.

I'm confused as to why it would matter if it caries on for years anyhow; months should be enough to prove sustainability under those lighting conditions. Years would prove sediment at most within the tank.

I have read alot of there post. I didnt just join here 5 months ago. I agree and disagree alot on some of the things here but its a public forum everyone is allowed to. Like I said IMO its his light intensity. More light would raise that since he has pretty good reflectors.
I don't care if you joined here last week or were here from day one; stating either is an argumentum ad verecundium. Talking about how long someone has on a forum or has been keeping plants as a statement of quality is much like saying a janitor that's worked for a hospital 20 years is as qualified as any doctor. Good debate should drive the hobby to verify some ideas and discard others, much as decent peer review does. I don't believe any statement is immune from criticism, but I don't see the point in debating the individual as a whole to indicate the merit of their statement; ad homs aren't my thing.

You can listen to alot of people all your life but until you do real world test you never know for yourself. How do there real world test match mine? How would it be co2 and spread if his plants are pearling nicely and growing like crazy? If it was spread how are you going to fix that when he already has quality reflectors? If it was co2 then why are his plants pearling nicely?
Good spread is more than quality reflectors; it's proper height and placement. Pearling is an indicator that the plants are getting plenty of light, since pearling is not a requirement of health. Good pearling at the top of a plant does not necessarily mean good CO2 distribution to the lower parts of the plant either.

Maybe it would be if he didnt have flow on the lower growth of the plants. High nutrient substrate may or may not be necessary. I have never had a high nutrient substrate and everything seems to be fine here.
I didn't say it was necessary; only helpful. Any read over growth from sediment with limiting column will show that.

I have never done a dry start so I cant say for sure. I never had a need to dry start. It may be listed as a high light plant but have test been done on it to say what kinda light levels are best for it? How do we know if it would grow better with even lower levels or even much higher? We really dont cause no one has studied it that much to say.
I've been growing it for almost a year now under 65w of CF in a 20 gal emersed tray as well. It's reproduced from perhaps a 4x4 inch mat to enough to dry start 1/3 of the 48 gal and grow to fill half of the 20 gal over again from the leftovers. Nutrients have varied between potting mix, rock wool and ADA aquasoil.

Where exactly are you placing your point of reasonable doubt here? Anecdote from other hobbyists? A good study? Many good studies? Direct empirical evidence sitting in front of you?

-Philosophos
 
G

·
Not only has HC been tested, but piles of other plants have flourished under the same level of lighting from the same brand and bulbs. Again, Amano's tanks are infamously low light, and he has kept a wide variety of plants and taken tons of good photos of them to show that high light isn't necessary for many, many species.
Can you point me to threads where its been tested with just HC? Where they used the same tanks the same lights and reduced the overall levels and tested it for long periods of time?

I dont care about Amano's tanks. You keep going back to him like he means something to me.. I know what Tom posted on his tanks but I never used a meter on them myself or saw what tanks were tested so it means nothing to me.

You can check over Oliver Knott's work too; he does both high and low light, and many species of plant flourish in both.

Overall I would say that 2wpg of T5 takes care of every species of plant I've seen put under it when the spread is correct and the reflectors are at least present.

Would you care to list some exceptions?
Once again they can say they are high light and low light who cares? Cause none of them tell you the truth but only try and sell there product..

Maybe 2wpg of t5 with quality reflectors you could get away with on some tanks but on others you might not be able to.. I know the current usa light I had was junk well I should say it was the reflector they used. The before and after with a tek light was night and day.

Because you're trying to tell me that a bulb receiving fewer watts, that is known to have less efficiency per watt, is not
Do me a favor reread where I said that? I was talking about my bulbs my reflector that I just bought nothing you own.. That part had nothing to do with you as much as it seems you want it to.. You need to read things for what they are not what you wanna see them as...

But it has been kept for years; I've seen pictures of the tank over the span of years. It's been entered in competition and existed later when Tom took the readings. Right now it's something else; I saw the new setup. It's nice.

I'm confused as to why it would matter if it caries on for years anyhow; months should be enough to prove sustainability under those lighting conditions. Years would prove sediment at most within the tank.
First of all it didnt matter until you wanted to bring HC up. I simply asked if test were done to compare it. Who knows if it will grow better in higher light or lower light until the same two fixtures are used and everything is matched to tell.. Until that is done no one can say what will happen. I have never seen two test done like that yet.

I don't care if you joined here last week or were here from day one; stating either is an argumentum ad verecundium. Talking about how long someone has on a forum or has been keeping plants as a statement of quality is much like saying a janitor that's worked for a hospital 20 years is as qualified as any doctor. Good debate should drive the hobby to verify some ideas and discard others, much as decent peer review does. I don't believe any statement is immune from criticism, but I don't see the point in debating the individual as a whole to indicate the merit of their statement; ad homs aren't my thing.
Janitor and hospital have nothing to do with this so dont jump off topic... Indeed good debate should drive the hobby when the topic stays on track. I was simply stating I didnt join 6 months ago I been reading what they wrote for a bit now even though I agree and disagree on things. Nothing more nothing less..

Good spread is more than quality reflectors; it's proper height and placement. Pearling is an indicator that the plants are getting plenty of light, since pearling is not a requirement of health. Good pearling at the top of a plant does not necessarily mean good CO2 distribution to the lower parts of the plant either.
Ok so if you have a ****ty fixture and your not getting proper spread you raise it up what happens next? your plants get leggy cause the light levels went down.. so how can you correct this? lower the light back down its like a fight back and forth. why not add a bulb when needed and correct the issue right away? If hes not getting good co2 distribution all around his tank I would think he would have alot of algae so if its not that then you could skip that off the list as well....

I didn't say it was necessary; only helpful. Any read over growth from sediment with limiting column will show that.
Once again dont put word in my mouth I didnt say it was necessary. I said it may or may not be necessary.

I've been growing it for almost a year now under 65w of CF in a 20 gal emersed tray as well. It's reproduced from perhaps a 4x4 inch mat to enough to dry start 1/3 of the 48 gal and grow to fill half of the 20 gal over again from the leftovers. Nutrients have varied between potting mix, rock wool and ADA aquasoil.

Where exactly are you placing your point of reasonable doubt here? Anecdote from other hobbyists? A good study? Many good studies? Direct empirical evidence sitting in front of you?
Congrats thats a long time to be waiting to fill in a 48 gal. I just bought plants off someone here for my 55 and I almost have a carpet of glosso in less then a month from less then maybe 20 small shoots.. So you got your nutrients from rock wool? How often do you get them from rock wool?

Who is doubting? No one here but things you say are necessary and unnecessary might be that way from your point of view and not others. In the end either could be wrong or right but its not good to tell someone that its unnecessary or necessary when your tank wont match theres.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
I dont care about Amano's tanks. You keep going back to him like he means something to me.. I know what Tom posted on his tanks but I never used a meter on them myself or saw what tanks were tested so it means nothing to me.
I go back to clear examples of where low light has been used to grow plants, and you're acting as if they don't exist. What if I told you that PAR isn't accurate either? What if I said that each plant has it's own PUR, and that your meters mean nothing?

Seriously... it's me growing plants with bulbs that by every known variable are inferior to this lighting system mentioned in this thread, growing plants with the reputation for high light. Others have done it, more will do it, and your complaints of not using a light meter aren't going to change the fact that it worked. The burden of proof here is on you to show why these lights may have higher values than a T5 Catalina system, when all the existing evidence indicates otherwise.

Once again they can say they are high light and low light who cares? Cause none of them tell you the truth but only try and sell there product..
Again you're using an ad homenim here, and one that doesn't work in this case. Why would anyone sell the concept of less light? It doesn't make as much money. Also, what does it matter what their interest is? I could be doing this to fund killing infants for personal entertainment, but my motive wouldn't invalidate my point.

Maybe 2wpg of t5 with quality reflectors you could get away with on some tanks but on others you might not be able to.. I know the current usa light I had was junk well I should say it was the reflector they used. The before and after with a tek light was night and day.
Guess what? I'm using 2wpg of CF current right now and their crappy lighting is growing every plant I've put in there when every other parameter was in line. 2 things haven't made it; some hygro that died in transport, and some bacopa that went through the same transport and got exposed to tainted ferts.

Do me a favor reread where I said that? I was talking about my bulbs my reflector that I just bought nothing you own.. That part had nothing to do with you as much as it seems you want it to.. You need to read things for what they are not what you wanna see them as...
What you said was:
No two lights are ever same. What you can grow with your lights he might not be able to ever grow.
And I pointed out the fact that by all known empirical evidence, I can grow any plant I know of with LESS light than his.

Please stop appealing to my motives or those of other, it's a subset of the ad hom fallacy by way of red herring. Just assume that I've got the worst intentions in the world, and that if I win so do the terrorists. It won't make me any more right or wrong ;)

First of all it didnt matter until you wanted to bring HC up. I simply asked if test were done to compare it. Who knows if it will grow better in higher light or lower light until the same two fixtures are used and everything is matched to tell.. Until that is done no one can say what will happen. I have never seen two test done like that yet.
You're telling me that you can't look at a bulb and tell what sort of potential it has for light levels compare to others without a direct reading? Again, I say your light meter readings are no good because they don't encompass PUR.

Better yet, how about you tell the next 10 people who come on this forum with 6wpg of T5HO that their lighting may or may not be high enough; it's impossible to tell.

There are factors that consistently limit or improve lighting. Saying you can't tell because you don't know all of the variables is an inevitability of the human condition and it's subjective nature.

Janitor and hospital have nothing to do with this so dont jump off topic... Indeed good debate should drive the hobby when the topic stays on track. I was simply stating I didnt join 6 months ago I been reading what they wrote for a bit now even though I agree and disagree on things. Nothing more nothing less..
If you're going to say that a comparison is bad, please discredit it properly rather than dismissing it with a bare assertion fallacy.

It doesn't matter how long ago you joined, it doesn't matter what your motives are, and it doesn't matter who you agree or disagree with. It doesn't matter if you think for your self or behave as a parrot either. All of these things are 100% confirmed logical fallacies when it comes to determining the truth of a subject.

Ok so if you have a ****ty fixture and your not getting proper spread you raise it up what happens next? your plants get leggy cause the light levels went down.. so how can you correct this? lower the light back down its like a fight back and forth. why not add a bulb when needed and correct the issue right away? If hes not getting good co2 distribution all around his tank I would think he would have alot of algae so if its not that then you could skip that off the list as well....
I'm going to answer this with two different arguments.

First I'm going to say that based on the strenuous level of evidence you have placed on me, I will return the favor and ask for multi-year studies with full PAR readings. I will request this simply to give you a little perspective on what you're demanding of others.

Next I'm going to state what has been said repeatedly on the subject of lighting. Light lenses off the glass, plants don't all require 100mmol PAR, and you can sacrifice excessive light for better spread to achieve more light where it was needed. None of this necessitates an extra bulb. If anything, adding an extra bulb is going to increase CO2 demand.

A lack of good CO2 distribution does not instantly cause algae everywhere that it is not. If CO2 at the base of the plant is low, as well as lighting, why would the plant stay there when the top of the plant has several times more of both?

Try bringing lighting down low on some glosso then increase it; repeat for a while. Let me know what the glosso does in response. Other plants can respond in a similar way.

Once again dont put word in my mouth I didnt say it was
In that case you needlessly told me that a high nutrient substrate isn't necessary, and you weren't implying that I said it either. Why would you bother to say this, then?

Congrats thats a long time to be waiting to fill in a 48 gal. I just bought plants off someone here for my 55 and I almost have a carpet of glosso in less then a month from less then maybe 20 small shoots.. So you got your nutrients from rock wool? How often do you get them from rock wool?
I wasn't waiting all that time; I just had a growth tray running with a pile of plants, got the 48, and happened to have a ton of HC around. The tray was overgrown. It's filling in tremendously fast in the 48 now.

The rock wool I use is from fairly inert stone. I simply stuck it in the tray and kept it partially filled with a nutrient bath; misted as necessary.

Who is doubting? No one here but things you say are necessary and unnecessary might be that way from your point of view and not others. In the end either could be wrong or right but its not good to tell someone that its unnecessary or necessary when your tank wont match theres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt - this concept is used in formal debates as well. You can always say that there is insufficient evidence until you know everything that is going on in the universe. That is the nature of our existence; subjectively speaking, you can't disprove anything, meaning all assertions are possible. There is a certain level of proof that is demanded to satisfy reasonable doubt so that we don't start in with obscure antithesis about which way we gripped the forceps while planting. It helps to prevent the informal fallacy of moving the goal posts.

-Philosophos
 
G

·
I go back to clear examples of where low light has been used to grow plants, and you're acting as if they don't exist. What if I told you that PAR isn't accurate either? What if I said that each plant has it's own PUR, and that your meters mean nothing?

Seriously... it's me growing plants with bulbs that by every known variable are inferior to this lighting system mentioned in this thread, growing plants with the reputation for high light. Others have done it, more will do it, and your complaints of not using a light meter aren't going to change the fact that it worked. The burden of proof here is on you to show why these lights may have higher values than a T5 Catalina system, when all the existing evidence indicates otherwise.


Again you're using an ad homenim here, and one that doesn't work in this case. Why would anyone sell the concept of less light? It doesn't make as much money. Also, what does it matter what their interest is? I could be doing this to fund killing infants for personal entertainment, but my motive wouldn't invalidate my point.


Guess what? I'm using 2wpg of CF current right now and their crappy lighting is growing every plant I've put in there when every other parameter was in line. 2 things haven't made it; some hygro that died in transport, and some bacopa that went through the same transport and got exposed to tainted ferts.



What you said was:

And I pointed out the fact that by all known empirical evidence, I can grow any plant I know of with LESS light than his.

Please stop appealing to my motives or those of other, it's a subset of the ad hom fallacy by way of red herring. Just assume that I've got the worst intentions in the world, and that if I win so do the terrorists. It won't make me any more right or wrong ;)


You're telling me that you can't look at a bulb and tell what sort of potential it has for light levels compare to others without a direct reading? Again, I say your light meter readings are no good because they don't encompass PUR.

Better yet, how about you tell the next 10 people who come on this forum with 6wpg of T5HO that their lighting may or may not be high enough; it's impossible to tell.

There are factors that consistently limit or improve lighting. Saying you can't tell because you don't know all of the variables is an inevitability of the human condition and it's subjective nature.


If you're going to say that a comparison is bad, please discredit it properly rather than dismissing it with a bare assertion fallacy.

It doesn't matter how long ago you joined, it doesn't matter what your motives are, and it doesn't matter who you agree or disagree with. It doesn't matter if you think for your self or behave as a parrot either. All of these things are 100% confirmed logical fallacies when it comes to determining the truth of a subject.


I'm going to answer this with two different arguments.

First I'm going to say that based on the strenuous level of evidence you have placed on me, I will return the favor and ask for multi-year studies with full PAR readings. I will request this simply to give you a little perspective on what you're demanding of others.

Next I'm going to state what has been said repeatedly on the subject of lighting. Light lenses off the glass, plants don't all require 100mmol PAR, and you can sacrifice excessive light for better spread to achieve more light where it was needed. None of this necessitates an extra bulb. If anything, adding an extra bulb is going to increase CO2 demand.

A lack of good CO2 distribution does not instantly cause algae everywhere that it is not. If CO2 at the base of the plant is low, as well as lighting, why would the plant stay there when the top of the plant has several times more of both?

Try bringing lighting down low on some glosso then increase it; repeat for a while. Let me know what the glosso does in response. Other plants can respond in a similar way.

In that case you needlessly told me that a high nutrient substrate isn't necessary, and you weren't implying that I said it either. Why would you bother to say this, then?


I wasn't waiting all that time; I just had a growth tray running with a pile of plants, got the 48, and happened to have a ton of HC around. The tray was overgrown. It's filling in tremendously fast in the 48 now.

The rock wool I use is from fairly inert stone. I simply stuck it in the tray and kept it partially filled with a nutrient bath; misted as necessary.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt - this concept is used in formal debates as well. You can always say that there is insufficient evidence until you know everything that is going on in the universe. That is the nature of our existence; subjectively speaking, you can't disprove anything, meaning all assertions are possible. There is a certain level of proof that is demanded to satisfy reasonable doubt so that we don't start in with obscure antithesis about which way we gripped the forceps while planting. It helps to prevent the informal fallacy of moving the goal posts.

-Philosophos

Indeed even though I didnt read it. I am done posting. No matter what is said the sky is red to you. We started talking about something then it turned to hc all kinds of other stuff as well now. I will quit so it can get back on topic. If you wanna debate it you can write me but I wont spam his thread no more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Well Im thinking that my light levels near the substrate are just not efficient enough. Its crazy how you could almost draw a line right across the tank- everything above is nice, compact, thriving, and then everything below could use some work. I did a massive trim yesterday and chopped the tops off everything and pulled the bottoms. We'll see how this goes. I'll compare pics from now and then in about 2 weeks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
283 Posts
I had something similar with Wisteria in my first 10G. It was thin at the bottom, but when it got close to the surface it spread out so much it dominated the entire left side of the tank.

Being that I use the 2x10W CF fixture it may be insufficient light on my tank as well. The only plants I have are Wisteria (Hygro Diffomis), Java Ferns, and moss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,628 Posts
Without reading the novel before these posts, I will jump in and say, I have had similar issues. Especially with Ludwigia species and other plants with large thick leaf structure. The shading created to the lower stem levels will almost deform the undergrowth.

For what its worth, alot of people that create the "bushy" stem plant stands will also eventually undergo very similar growth problems as the base of the plant gets more and more shaded.

Ultimatly, almost every stem plant "stand" will have to be pulled and topped as the base of the plant dies off. Its just a question of how frequently you need to do it.

I have found that a larger spread (bulbs further apart), do help. For example, I run (2) 54 watt HO T5 in a retrofitted coralife metal halide fixture (i don't run the halides anymore) and since the bulbs are very far apart, I get a very nice even spread on my 72 gallon bowfront.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,062 Posts
the question that comes to mind is "how do we fix the growth problems?" because i'm lazy and all, and don't want to have to cut my plants down if i can create an easy fix. :hihi: Would a light pointing in the front help?
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top