Caliban07
Aquarium Advice Addict
So this thread really got me thinking about everything I'm doing with my tank. Today I found my Anubias starting to brown and curl a little bit. The only way I can describe the way it looked is "burnt". So going back to the basics - when I first set up my tank, my basis was the age old wpg rule and it felt like the 2 T5 HO tubes that I have were the right choice for my low tech low light tank. But after Caliban's diagnosis of carbon deficiency, I started to think why that should happen in the first place. The simple answer is that I have way too much light. In following the links in one of the threads here, I calculate the PAR at 20 inches from the light source to be about 60. General guidelines I've come across suggest I can't have that much light without injected co2. So I plan to cut my light intensity in half by removing one of the T5s. This gives me a more manageable 30 PAR. I'll still dose liquid carbon but feel I have some room to experiment.
Any flaws you see here?
Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice
Nope not from me. The only reason i a push carbon over less light is because the light has often just been purchased and no one likes to be told it's not fit for their goal and b) you can grow a larger variety of plants with more light and adequate carbon and c) obtaining enough co2 is the biggest challenge submerged plants face.
Everyone starts low tech. Some stay low tech because it fits in with their goals but others progressively add more light and want to keep a variety of different plant species in the same tank.
I've always said people have too much light. If you can provide enough carbon and nutrients and are happy with the rate of growth and can keep up with the demands of a high tech tank then great. But the first thing people tend to do is upgrade their light to 'plant lights' they don't even think about co2.
I think this is a good plan. ?
Edit: I include myself in all this too by the way.
Sent from my iPhone using Aquarium Advice