# stupid high lighting...



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

but its working. three 48" T5HO 10000K bulbs and three 48" T5HO actinic bulbs, for a the perfect mix to grow my plants under. in my wifes 55 gallon. i guess that makes them her plants... and her light... and her fish... bleh! i just like looking at it.

i know many of you would tell me that the actinics do nothing for the plants, but i would tell you i disagree. it may not make them grow faster(though i think it does make them fill in better), but it sure does make them color up!

we leave the lights on 24/7, haven't turned them off in over a month. and no, its not an algae farm, although i do have some crazy hair algae that i put in there(which looks fantastic i might add).

yeah, we used composted cow manure as a substrate(with a little kitty litter), blast way too much light into the tank, the wrong kind of light, never turn our lights off, and run DIY CO2. we just goofy.
But, no real algae problems. every once in a while i go hunting for stray strands of hair algae that sometimes try to grow. i DO usually find one or two tiny tufts a week. if i didnt really look for it though, i would never see it.

when you all come to lock me away, remember that my wife is innocent. i masterminded the whole atrocity before you.











all that blue in the lights and i can still see red in the L. glandulosa...
ill have to take a photo of it with the actinics turned off to show how vibrant and deep the red really is.


----------



## James0816 (Jun 19, 2009)

Nice looking tank.

That said, it seems you nearly have a perfect balance in there considering only minimal algae issues.

Like they say...if it ain't broke...don't fix it.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

Nice,and thanks.I'm one of those who also runs actinic(now blue LED) mostly because I dig what it does in coloring up my fish, and tank in general.Without doing what you want(instead of what everyone says) we would never LEARN anything.I even fall prey to the saying;actinics won't do anything for your plants,do we Really know?Good looking tank and wicked plants!


----------



## James0816 (Jun 19, 2009)

Well...I really wasn't going to say it but....

It is true that the Actinic bulbs will not promote plant growth. Actinic's in the freshwater aquarium are pretty much just for asthetics. I use them for night lighting for my nocturnal fishies.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

i still dont buy that actinics do nothing for plants. i stole the idea of using actinics to augment vegetative growth from pot growers. those guys dont play around... they put far more research into lighting than i ever have into lighting a fish tank.

anyway, like i said, i dont think it makes them grow any faster, BUT, it does make my plants have larger,thicker leaves. also, the actinics bring out shades of red in the plants that i never see without them. switching over to red causes the plants to grow longer stems and promotes flowering. i dont like the way my plants grow under bright red light, so i go with high blue light. 

i have also grown plants under straight 450nm blue LEDs and the plants grew just fine. i just had issues with being able to step up the intensity enough with the LEDs, so i switched them back out for T5s.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

They(dopers)do take light to the most serious level.and as you said even switch to mecury vapor(red end of spectrum) for budding(flowering).I just read a link from Oldpunk(on 75g light thread) that placed my Current True lumen Pros pretty high on PAR,it seemed to (obviously{or not so much}) basically double the PAR for each additional strip.I was running 6 48" but have cut back to 2 white and 1 blue now and think their running my 180 fine(a little expensive and have killed a transformer in 1 year,but it cost less than new bulbs{of almost any kind} and had no "fade".)Thanks for sharing.


----------



## James0816 (Jun 19, 2009)

Well....I'm sure it's a completely different science from weed growing to growing aquatic plants. The former in which I know absolutely nothing about. 

When you start talking actinics, you're dealing with different spectrums and wave lengths as that compared to say your standard daylight bulbs. I won't go into the nitty gritty of it, but in a nutshell, aquatic plants use very little of the spectrum that actinics have to offer.

I'm not saying don't use them at all, because I myself have them. I just don't use/depend on them for any type of aquatic plant growth.


----------



## Brian757 (Sep 24, 2012)

Oh yeah! Well, I guess you could say ANY hydroponics enthusiast is crazy about their lighting; whether it be tomatoes, soybean or what-have-you. I have a hydroponics shop down the road and went in the building one day just to take a gander. They have some serious lighting systems in there. Hanging halides and quick-disconnect extensions for longer plant systems. But yes, marijuana growers must take lighting seriously, mary jane is sensitive and very finicky to light(Not an experienced grower , nor an inexperienced grower, okay, ill shut up). I did not however see many hyper white or blueish bulbs. They seemed to use a lot of yellowish-white light(3000-4300K). However, these were just their display units and I'm sure they use 10,000-12,000K bulbs.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

Going off topic "a little" but PAR and lighting in general travels differently through air then water.Lights can be raised higher above the aquarium with less loss of PAR ,than going through the same distance of water.I'll also SPECULATE that water changes the wave lenghts of light more than air?


----------



## rtmaston (Jul 14, 2012)

very nice tank.are you running your blue lights with your others lights?i have only been running my blue lights at night
.is its better to run both at the same time.thanks all


----------



## FishFlow (Sep 13, 2011)

I am super interested in how you're keeping 3 t5ho's over a 55 24/7 and no algae issues to speak of! 

How long have the lights been ontop of the tank? How long has the tank been established? Where did the plants come from? (your other tanks?) 

I too can get no algae with *stupid high* light, but it also requires keeping the co2 levels *stupid high* as well.

Tank looks great! More pics!


----------



## Brian757 (Sep 24, 2012)

I seem to never get algae problems. I do have a 6" pleco but in a 90 gallon, I am sure he is not cleaning that thing up THAT sufficiently.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

i dont believe that plants grown out of the water need much different lighting than plants grown under water. the PAR is pretty much the same. the biggest reason i started using a lot of blue in my lights is because i noticed that it made a difference in my plants. my question is, if natural sunlight has a lot of UV and deep blue light in it, then we are not growing them under the most natural lighting if we exclude the light that we consider useless. maybe my plants cannot use most of the light produced by my actinics for photosynthesis, but does that mean they are not affected by it? do you see where i am going with this? even if it does not translate into faster growth, it is still worth it if my plants look better in the long run.
i think my plants look better... thats just my opinion though.

my point is, calling an actinic useless just because it doesnt produce X amount of micromols of PAR or what not pretty much just ignores whatever affect the other colors may have. to me, if it makes it look good or produces good results, its good. regardless of the reason for the results.

take the color of the plants for instance. some of the plants are turning a deep purple, like my(wifes) A. criptus in the back. i have not seen it do that before, but i certainly like it.


----------



## Summer (Oct 3, 2011)

Such a beautiful tank!


----------



## Akinaura (Nov 8, 2010)

@Fishflow: The lights have been on the tank for close to two months now. Plants are mostly new additions from a pet store, with a few from Auban's tank mixed in. We have seen the BBA that was attacking our little piece of Anubis Nana completely disappear.

We did see some initial algae growth that was related to new tank syndrome, but once we got the CO2 on there, it completely went away.

We aren't running super high CO2...we tried that and gassed the shrimp that were in the tank. (OOPS!) I don't know what we currently have on it...but I know that the 2 Liter, 3 Liter, and Gallon reactors are right by the tank at the moment.

Oh, and the tank has been running since September. I used a cycle starter (Kinda thought what the heck) and then proceeded to let it run for another couple of weeks before putting anything in there. So I still can't say for sure if it helped or not...but it at least gave me a head start on helping my plants have the nutrients they needed.


----------



## rift lake (Nov 8, 2012)

you dont want to grow aquatic plants like pot plants. For pot plants you want MH for growth and HPS for flowering. only one I seen work on aquariums id the 1000w MH on a light track that moves the light 6 ft every 5 minutes. works great for corals


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

rift lake said:


> you dont want to grow aquatic plants like pot plants. For pot plants you want MH for growth and HPS for flowering. only one I seen work on aquariums id the 1000w MH on a light track that moves the light 6 ft every 5 minutes. works great for corals


if i were trying to grow my plants out as fast as possible and flower them, i would be using the exact same lights...

if i ever decide to get into producing aquatic plants as a business, those are the lights i will go with. if im not flowering anything though, i may not get the HPS.

regardless, i didnt mean that aquatic plants are similar to pot plants, i just referenced where i first got the idea from. i have been squeezing blue and red into my tanks for years now. i just like the way the extra blue makes the plants color up.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

For you guys that believe that Actinics do so well with plants, then if you feel so strongly on that, take out those 3 plant bulbs and just run your actinics. Let us know how it goes. Very difficult to have an objective opinion on it when you've mixed in more than enough lighting (based on size of tank) to literally grow any type of plant.

It is also evident that the light fixture quality is not very high. If it was, it most definitely would be an algae machine. 2X54W just over a 75g tank is enough to grow anything you'd ever want. Given you're above that even with no problems and only using DIY CO2 (will help but never get to any appreciable levels), that is proof enough of the fixture.

I don't agree that PAR is different through the air and water. It is different for sure, but the differences are negligible in my tanks and using my PAR meter. The difference comes in where the light is over the tank in relation to the sensor, plants that may deflect or block some of the light considering it comes from multiple angles and not just straight down, or what ever else that can deflect the light. So what I am saying is...it is different in a tank, but not because of the water. I also use all plant light spectrums, 5500k, 6700k or 10000k. I can't speak for if actinics or any other typical SW light may respond differently through variying depths of water.


----------



## pyroteck1 (Nov 29, 2012)

I'd be curious as to how 6700K vs Actinics compare for growth.
Anyone out there wish to make the comparison?
2 tanks one with each.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

i just want to be clear, i add the actinic lights as a supplement because i like the affect they have on my plants. there are three other lights that are more than enough, but they wont give the plants a nice "tan" like they do with actinics added.

i get the impression that a lot of people are focusing too much on the actinics. 
its a side dish with a nice affect, not the whole meal.

on a side note, i have grown plants under 450nm blue LED lights before, so im pretty sure that plants would still grow under pure actinic also, although probably not as well. all of the plants, however, were pure lime green, even plants that are always red, and had pretty weak stems. they did grow pretty fast though.

when properly applied, DIY CO2 can easily gas a tank to death. i have played around with it for a long time, had several accidents, and have learned to use it quite well. your wrong if you assume that DIY CO2 cant work for larger tanks. it can raise CO2 levels to more than an "appreciable level". 
fill a 2 liter with 2-3 inches of sugar and about a teaspoon of bakers yeast. run the line from the bottle to 20oz coke bottle with the bottom cut off. attach an atomizer to the line and attach the 20oz bottle to a maxijet 400 aimed from the top down across the tank. one bottle will make your plants very happy. two bottles will send your snails running, and three bottles will start killing everything. on a 65g tank.

my lights are not poor quality. they weren't cheap either. 


another thing i want to throw out there: this tank was set up as a bit of an experiment, combining everything i know about growing plants. i came up with a plan and then sent about putting my plan into action, and these lights are what i chose to meet the requirements of the special type of tank i wanted to set up. as such, i would expect different results than normal. my plants are growing pretty darn fast, with my rotala indica growing nearly two feet in a month. it was set up to grow plants. and grow plants it does.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

I understood why you added actinics, but you can't claim that they do a lot for plants other than add looks. It is the same thing as adding a 6500k bulb vs 10000k bulb, it is all in the look and the preference as plants will look entirely different under each. The colors seen are more of a color seen under the light and much less the actual color. A low light plant would probably do okay under those type of lights. The plants are able to use some of the spectrum, just not that much of it. So on the other side of that, take a plant that requires fairly high amounts of light and it is likely to die a fairly quick death under them. Low light plants can get a lot of their light just from ambient lighting.

DIY CO2, if only using one bottle, cannot even come close to gassing a 75g tank to dangerous levels. That could possibly occur on a 10-15g. Take a few bottles and gang them together and maybe you'd have a better shot. When I said appreciable levels I was referring close to the 30ppm of CO2 that most planted tank aquarists strive for when they have pressurized CO2. You can always express your opnion about a DIY system capability on a planted tank site like TPT.com and see how they feel of your opinion. Don't think you'll get many to agree. Take a drop checker and put on there with 4dkh fluid in it and run it for 24/7 and I would be very surprised if it ever changed from dark blue. Also considering if you are using a diffuser, which is what most DIY users use, you're losing some CO2 since if you see any bubbles at all you have lost efficiency.

I wasn't trying to give ridicule about the quality of the light you bought. What I said nearly has to be true if you can get away with what you are doing. If you go to the big lighting thread on TPT.com and read PAR data where they have taken data across different brands and see the differences, you'll see what I mean. You didn't give the brand of light, but if it were of a standard like a company called Catalina Aquariums or something along those lines I don't think you'd be able to leave them on 24/7. Read up on the quality of lights and it is very easy to see looking from the outside and you'll understand what I mean.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Also, I could possibly let you use my PAR meter if you really want to see what your light is putting out. You could pass the data to the guy on TPT that started the thread (Hoppy) and he can place your data with you brand and let your know how well your light places among manufacturers.

Cost of the light means very little when comparing its PAR rating.


----------



## Akinaura (Nov 8, 2010)

I can see this thread delving into bickering rather quickly.

Let's see...One bottle on a 55g is just enough CO2 to see a small difference with the plants. To see the kind of growth we are talking about, then we have to use two bottles, with a gang valve to really see the plants' growth explode. Three bottles? Then everything is at the surface gasping for air.

As for the lights, in order to say whether they are helping or not, I propose this: We currently have them every other bulb on the tank. We can take the light down and re-arrange the bulbs so that all the Actinics are grouped together. Then we replace the light and run the lights on the built in timer. We have enough fabric to ensure the only light going into the tank is from the fixture. If after a week, the plants are still growing (with 75% of the plants needing high light), then the Actinics helped the plants. If we see either no growth or indications of the plants having problems, then the Actinics are there solely for their appeal. How does this sound to everyone?

As for the PAR rating, Auban and I will be looking into either the rating already available for our lights or getting a PAR meter to measure it. This information is always good to have.


----------



## James0816 (Jun 19, 2009)

Your lighting experiment unfortunately will be skewed. That is unless of course I read it wrong. By grouping the bulbs over the same tank, you're still exposing the tank to both types of light. In order to fully test the actinic theory, you're going to need two seperate tanks in the same environment to include or even exclude ambient lighting. That's the only way the hypothesis can be tested.

As for the DIY CO2 item, one bottle on a 55g alone will net you zero to extreme minimal results. And I'm being generous by saying extreme minimal. I think to show any "true" results, you will need to start with a minimum of (3). This is based on the "typical" DIY CO2 recipe.


----------



## FishFlow (Sep 13, 2011)

I believe the light fixture has two switches, so the proposal is to group the blues on one switch and then only have that switch on. (ie no white light.) Should be fine for week experiment??


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Nobody ever said you couldn't gang a bunch of bottles together, whatever number that may be, and couldn't get to some useful level. If you have been running multiple bottles then you could be getting to some level where it could be useful....and also adds to the ability of leaving your lights on 24/7 without issues. When people say I'm running DIY CO2 and don't let everyone know that you mean more than just a standard setup, then the assumption is one bottle. 

Okay, so now we know close to everything about your CO2 now and you say that fish are gasping...which is very hard to tell between that and normal activity because I see my fish up top everyday and it sort of looks like gasping....what does your drop checker look like - color? This is the ONLY true way to see what level of CO2 you're at. One bottle would not even come close to changing the color on it, same as James commented on.

Your experiment is not long enough. In one week you would not likely see many changes. Make two weeks and maybe. But if you did it on that tank you put it all at risk. You can believe what we say or just do 5 seconds of looking on the internet. Truth is, I didn't see any plants that required a lot of light. Even the Glandlusa that was posted is sort of low-light plant as many of the Ludwidgias are. 

As I said earlier, I don't think a tank full of low-light plants would be affected too much by just actinics. If they were to die it would a very slow death and growth rates would decline. Can you list your plants?

All the growth that you currently get out of your plants you do with the 3 plants bulbs. Most people only run 2X54W. 3 is more than enough to grow ANYTHING you wanted, although some may require more CO2 or pressurized. So if you removed your actinics you would see ZERO growth loss or difference in plant health.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

FishFlow said:


> I believe the light fixture has two switches, so the proposal is to group the blues on one switch and then only have that switch on. (ie no white light.) Should be fine for week experiment??


One week would not show much for low-light plants. Not all actinic light is useless, so the light they would get that would be useful would be enough for those plants.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

jrman83 said:


> Not all actinic light is useless, so the light they would get that would be useful would be enough for those plants.


Possibly enough to be beneficial in a small way,with additional adequate lighting?I dig the color blue(actinics) give my tank,and they certainly do count for something in marine with corals.I can't think(or believe) they are totally useless.They are important to photosynthectic corals.
I also do think that our aquarium light(possibly excluding MH) do travel through (penetrate) air much (much) more efficeintly than water.Marine tanks have salt that once was solid and "cut" (reduce) the light.Although to a much lesser degree most FW has TDS which would be solid (Totall Disolved SOLIDS) without the water.Hoppys' test show that depth of water has a significant effect on PAR ,where as raising your light 12,18,even 24 inches above tank does not have same reduction.
I dig what my blue(I use LED,{actinic}) lights do to my tank,maybe they don't add a lot,but I have hard time believing they're useless.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

ok, let me try again...

the benefit from the actinic has nothing to do with the growth. if anything, it may actually slow it down a bit because of the presence of more UV. the benefit is from the affect on color and the thickness of dermal tissue. 

the affect the light has on color is not just due to the color of the light it is exposed to. a ludwigia or just about any other plant grown under an actinic T5HO will be a different color than the same type grown under HPS. similarly, MH will produce a different colored plant. in some plants the differences will be subtle, but in others it is profound. why? not because they look different in different colored light(which is obvious), but because light at the higher end of the spectrum stimulates the production of flavonoids in the upper mesophyll. these red and purple color pigments exist in the same place where chlorophyll does, and can eventually become more visible than the green pigment. part of their function is to prevent damage to the leaves due to UV. thats pretty much the whole reason i like these the actinics, they produce the light that will produce this affect. 

this also means that the light will be overall less effective, since the flavonoids also block some of the PAR from reaching chlorophyll, which is why i need more NORMAL light than i would otherwise. it effectively reduces the amount of light the plant can use, which is probably part of the reason that UV usually reduces growth rates in plants.

another affect of UV is that it kills most forms of free floating algae as well as cyanobacteria. even just a little UV will inhibit algae quite a bit. what it does NOT kill is hair algae, which is the one type of algae i decided to grow in my tank. it grows pretty fast, but it doesn't spread very fast. it grows just like a marimo ball, only faster.

for my red plants, i don't think a PAR meter will be able to tell me very much. i already know that it wont be able to use all of the PAR reaching it. as for the DIY CO2, i still disagree. i wont go over three bottles because i will kill my fish, and i rarely go over two. the tank has had no more than two bottles since we added shrimp, and about half that time it has had only one. i dont have a drop checker, but i will go ahead and order one. that way at least i can show pictures.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Sounds like you've changed the argument or certainly not the way you argued it before. Maybe you did some research....

If it works for you....so be it. I never understand why someone would want to leave a light on 24/7 anyway. Another reason I'll never own a SW setup. You're fish don't need it and I guarantee you your plants don't either. But hey...your tank. Coincidentally, when my tank had higher light than it does now, my Glandu looked the same as the pic you posted with all 6700K.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

i didn't explain what i meant by the light changing the color of the plants. it seems that what i was saying was coming across meaning that i liked the appearance of the blue light. 

and yes, i did do research, over the past several years. volume three of G. Evelyn Hutchinsons "A Treatise On Limnology" and the third edition of Wetzels "Limnology, Lake and River Ecosystems" were of much help. 

the glandulosa i have looked completely different when i bought it, and it is still deepening in color. it will always be the new growth that shows the changes...


----------



## James0816 (Jun 19, 2009)

Like I said before...if it ain't broke...don't fix it. I've grown plants in just about every type of lighting you can think of. Even using so called "specialty" bulbs. Everytime I always go back to a standard daylight 65-67k bulb. With the proper nutrients, I don't need anything further. I believe your substrate has much to be doing with what you are seeing.

Back on the CO2, you can branch this out into another thread to discuss, but I'm very doubtfull you are gassing a 55g with only (3) bottles of a DIY mix. Even with my blend, I will occassionally glow a DC yellow on a 10g with a single bottle.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

my substrate should be driving me to insanity with algae issues. I tried it out in a different tank and ended up with more cyano than I knee what to do with. if my CO2 is not the reason for the lack of algae problems in the 55, then the next logical thing would be the lights. I have a hard time believing that the lights are just of such poor quality that they don't produce enough par for me to see algae issues. I have seen cyano grow with nothing but ambient room light, so I SHOULD be overrun in the over-lit tank, but I am not. there WAS cyano in the 55 before we got the new lights. it went away though. I still believe that it was just a new tank problem. on a side note, I have been neglecting my 65g bluefin killifish tank and it is overun with cyano. it has four T8s on it, from walmart, but usually only one is turned on. the plants have been growing pretty well in there too, but not very fast.


----------



## James0816 (Jun 19, 2009)

Just don't over think the algae (or lack there of) issue.

Algae is a common sign of an imbalance in the tank. That's why I said you nearly have the perfect balance going on between plants and nutrients. That fact that you have some algae in there is a sign that you have just a bit more than what the plants can consume. This as well can probably also be attributed to the 24/7 ligthing. Hit that sweet spot on the tank and the algae goes bye-bye.


----------



## Gizmo (Dec 6, 2010)

So let me get this straight: We're conducting an experiment, yes? To observe the benefits/drawbacks of actinic mixed with regular bulbs, and DIY CO2, all run 24/7?

Excellent! Now, let's get into the reasons this CANNOT be a good experiment:
#1. There are no measurements being taken. No PAR meter and no 4dKH drop checker, so we don't even know what intensity of light, nor what concentration of CO2 is in the water.

#2. No details on equipment being used. No brand name of light fixture, no details on yeast fermentation system (# of bottles ganged together, bps, etc.), not even a list of plants being used.

#3. No control tank. What are we supposed to compare this "experiment" to?

Answer those questions, and I'll be able to rest a bit more easily on this subject. Otherwise, all I see here is a waste of electricity and an algae outbreak waiting to happen.

Oh, and using "I believe" in a post where "experiment" is involved completely debunks anything I might have considered scientific about the endeavor.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

at no point did I present this as an experiment to determine anything. I put it together to create a type of environment that I had envisioned. i had a feeling it would work based on the things I have read, and so far it is progressing as I expected it to. if it were not, I would spend my time trying to figure out why.


----------



## Gizmo (Dec 6, 2010)

Good to know  Hope it continues to work out for you.

What about the psychological effects to the fish from not having a natural day/night cycle?


----------



## FishFlow (Sep 13, 2011)

Are you suggesting the mad scientist may now have crazy fish? Interesting.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

that's one of the things I have been interested in. generally speaking, they seem to return to normal behavior after a while. fish that only breed in the morning in the wild will still breed in the morning for me, but only after a month or so. my blue fin killifish don't seem to care at all though. they never stopped breeding. now, as for the crazy lighting setup affects them, with the actinics and all, I don't know yet.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

for my next trick, ill raise stomatopods from egg to post larvae. ;o

seriously though, i have been looking into that for a while now. ill figure it out.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Why do have so much issue with cyano? I can't recall a fw aquarist speak of having so much issue with it. Most I think get in their tanks early, only time is ever have seen it, and then never see it again. I've only seen in one of my tanks, ever.

Coralbandit - did hoppy start doing water testing? I haven't been to his thread in a while. I gave him a batch of his data and he wanted the testing outside a tank. A tank will cause more of a decrease in PAR than just water.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

A link to hoppys test was up in zwanged thread on light.He did not test different heights(air) only depths of water.
A outdoor pond par test I read leads me to my belief ;par test outdoors at noon-above surface of pond/1,700 ,12" below surface/1,200 ,24" below/800".
I see where your coming from as many lights actually seemed to gain par in some instances due to reflectivity of the glass.
Possibly my line of thinking is more natural lighting applicable and not correct for aquarium lights,but I don't think (if light was focused properly) that 12" of air would have the same impact as 12" of water? You got par meter check,possibly?One was on my list till I read Hoppys' info and saw where my leds were at.No need now,I'm happy.
Oldpunk has link to Hoppys info if you can't find it.
I'll add that raising my lights from 2" above surface to14" above surface made no observable difference in my tank.The only thing that helped get things under control was eliminating 1/2 of my strips(went from 6 to 3{currentTrue Lumen Pro).
Also the source link provided by aquanerd used the 12kwhite/453nm actinic led with a apogee quantum mq-200 meter.
I had cyano when I kept tang. cichlids.It had a pretty good grip,but I didn't have my leds then(can't remember what light I had then{probably very low powered P.O.S.})


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

I don't recall saying I had problems with cyano...
it does show up in every tank I set up, but it always goes away on its own within a week or two. this may seem like a big problem to others, but it doesn't bother me a bit. 

on tanks I neglect, leave the lights on, and do nothing to prevent it, it does grow. I don't see the problem with that. my blue fin killifish tank is set up to breed the fish. the plants in that tank are really only there for them. I just put a bottle of CO2 on it though, so the cyano will disappear soon.

the tank I set up for my E. Gilberti fry will continue to have cyano as well as diatoms, green water, hair algae, etc. I set it up for the fry, to mimic their natural environment. the tank is not filtered, no moving water, just a whole lot of ugly and thick with plants. looks exactly like the waters they live in.
the only difference is the photoperiod. I don't have the room to give them the surface area they would have in the wild, so instead I leave the lights on to prevent it from going anoxic. it works quite well. the tank will support them until they are about 1/3 inch long. at that point I move them to another tank and start feeding them foods I can see without magnification.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

I guess I just see any presence of cyano as not good. It really isn't an algae and caused by a lack of nitrates and adding CO2 doesn't always fix the.problem.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

OK,I'll bite since as of september(cyano discussion continued) no-one had mentioned this(although you(jrman)had mentioned fw/sw cyano were totally different) but;cyano is caused by the lack of nitrates? I know I'm about to speak of sw, but since bioplastics and incredibly lowering my nitrAtes I haven't even heard rumors of cyano in my sw.As for my fw my nitrAtes hover in the 30-40(sometimes less,never more and don't have cyano either).When I had cynao in fw it was with tang. cichlids and it was red(like sw).I know it's bacteria not algae, but does nitrAtes really have anything to do with it?We never really cured or found a way to eliminate cyano from popping up, so I'm not questioning what you say just curious where the link to nitrAtes and cyano is in fw.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

cyano is not caused by a lack of nitrates. cyano is capable of nitrogen fixation, so they can use atmospheric nitrogen, but they grow fastest with ammonia, followed by nitrates, nitrite, followed by atmospheric nitrogen. yes, that means that cyano is capable of nitrification as well as denitrification. a more accurate statement is that cyano is caused by excess phosphorus and iron, since those are the two most limiting factors for cyano. not all cyano is the same, and it is only the ones that form long trichromes that have special cells to deal with nitrogen, but those are the types that plague our fish tanks. when you add nitrates, most planted tanks can quickly use up phosphorus, as well as another important element for cyano, molybnenum. without it, cyano cannot produce the special cells for nitrification, which so just happen to be the fastest reproducing cell in the trichrome. so, adding nitrates can dramatically slash its ability to spread in a tank full of healthy plants.

take away the plants however, and adding nitrates has very little affect. it may even make it worse.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

I guess it is just a matter of what and where you read, and whom you believe. Neither of us have tested the water enough to know on our own and only go by various sources of literature out there. The presence or lack of nitrates can play a significant part, although it is just not one imbalance in the tank that causes it to occur. Same as CO2...adding more has shown to improve chances of keeping it away....but it is not a condition of a lack of CO2 - as you imply above.

Regardless of the causes, it is something that most don't like. I view algae as a norm in tanks, some say it is an imbalance of sorts - some worse than others. I say it is completely normal and healthy to have algae but do understand that the abundance of it can be the cause of something else going on that could be dangerous to inhabitants - ie phosphates. Cyano however, is something that would cause me to perform an action to try and fix whatever it is that is wrong....algae wouldn't cause this in most people unless excessive. This is how most aqaurists react to cyano. If you see it as normal or suitable because all of your fish have in their natural environment, then I guess this would not trigger the reaction that most have.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

jrman, for the most part I have no issues with the things you say, but I didn't imply that the lack of CO2 is a condition for the presence of cyano, but rather that CO2 is the method I will use to get rid of it. I say I will do a lot of things in order to elicit a specific result a lot, usually without an explanation.

for instance, I could say that cyano can be caused by a lack of sulfur, but without explaining that sulfur competes with molybdenum in uptake and metabolisis without performing the same function, nobody would have a clue why I said it.
if you think about it, what I have said about cyano falls in line with most aquarists observations and experience. I understand that what I say could be misinterpreted, but you seem to put words in my mouth a lot. I don't really see how "ill add CO2 and my cyano will go away" implies that a lack of CO2 is a condition for the appearance of cyano. CO2 wont help without high lights and a supportive nutrient load, but must I say that every time?

anyway, there are just about as many remedies for cyano as there are supposed causes. each one has it's merits, but if there is no underlying understanding of WHY it works,it will leave the aquarist pulling his or her hair out when cyano strikes next, when conditions within the tank have changed.

generally speaking, those who attempt more than one approach at a time are successful in ridding it, ieCO2 AND nitrates...


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

If I have put words in your mouth, it certainly hasn't happened a lot as you say. If I have offended you or how you view cyano, sorry. I simply choose to not have it in my tanks. I succumb to your vast experience in that area and am glad to not have reached that level quite yet.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

just an update, the tank is still going strong, still no problems with algae. still haven't turned the lights off. I have been getting insane growth out of the ludwigia glandulosa, between 3-5 inches per week. the stems are growing so fast that they are splitting down the side. so fare only the older stems are showing this, new growth shows no splitting. the incredibly fast growth coincided with the addition of a decent amount of aragonite, which I suspect the plant uses, even in the presence of a lot of CO2, when forced into a vegetative state(as mine are). ill have pictures soon. either way, three to five inches per week from ludwigia glandulosa is abnormal in any case... not that I'm complaining.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Not a huge surprise with Glandu. Grows 2-4 inches per week in my high light tank with only 7hrs per day.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

i just got home and had to trim another four inches off the top... i just trimmed them two days ago. i just dosed some a microfert mix the other day, when i sent some out to a couple people, so that may have something to do with it. its not the only thing that shot up over night. everything liked the ferts 
the only down side is that the grows a bit leggy compared to a couple stems i put in another tank. the stems are also expanding, they grow in pretty thick. 

anyway, pics:

overall tank shot. we got rid of the myrio and bacopa. both were taking over the tank. there is a drop checker in the middle, but it normally hangs out in the lower left corner. i moved it so i could plant some ludwigia clippings. 









the rotala rotundifolia in the back left. we have cut it in half and sent the tops of twice, its getting close to being time to cut it in half again...









my mystery ludwigia i pulled from the lumber river system in north carolina. i found a single stem that survived the move, less than an inch long. it didnt even have any leaves... lol. well, its doing great now and i have begun sending pieces off. 
it is just starting to get some good leaf color. in this tank, it branches out before the leaves it has are even finished growing. strangely enough, it grows along the bottom, out more than up. ground cover ludwigia anyone? 









about one weeks worth of L. glandulosa clippings. thinking about it, i dont know exactly how fast they are growing. i get this much every week. its a lot...









no for the odd part... the stems of the glandulosa are exploding. none of the new growth does this, but all the older growth has splits all down the side, as if the stems are outgrowing their own skin. 

















i wonder how fast i can get these plants to grow? i dont dose much in the way of ferts, just some colloidal mixes i have made out of dissolved rocks. i think ill start actually dosing it and see what happens...


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

almost forgot to mention, i DO get algae in this tank, but it seems to only grow on the driftwood. my guess is that the shade helps the algae out a bit. not that i mind it being there, its a great place for some green spot algae to grow.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

i was trimming the hybrid ludwigia last night, and was inspecting the clippings for algae and snails(i like snails) and came across something interesting.



















all in all, i found four stems(clippings) that had flowers on them. i found another one that i had not yet trimmed, which i am going to leave be and see what it does.

the interesting part is that they have been completely submerged, i always trim them before they grow out of the water. i didnt know they could do that.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

There are many stems and quite a few rosette type plants that will grow blooms if allowed to grow out of your tank or more so if that is the way you start them. In the water the buds will form but usually never flower. In plants like Swords, if the plant is grown out of the tank it will bloom like any other plant, but if you submerge it what grows in place of the flower is a baby Sword. Of all the plants I own, only my Anubias blooms in the tank.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm just going to let these go and see what happens. I have had several plants bloom in a tank, but never a ludwigia while submerged. I have only had them flower before when they reach the top, and only from the emergent growth.


----------



## FishFlow (Sep 13, 2011)

When ya sending me some? 

Looking good! Keep it up!


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

flower is opening.

under water.

awesome.


----------



## ionix (Oct 11, 2012)

Great thread, it left me wondering about the actinic lighting and its effects on growth.

For trials, a simple modification would be to have the plants in a pot (out of the water lol), in dark areas (apart from light hours). Watch for growth (specific areas), type of growth, quality.

Though I think your tank looks great. An awesome display.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

i have started a new test with this tank. i will be adding a "fertilizer" that contains the following:

Alanine
Arginine
Ascorbic acid
Allantoin 
Amino acids
Bicarbonate
Biotin 
Calcium
Creatinine
Cystine 
Dopamine 
Epinephrine 
Folic acid 
Glucose 
Glutamic acid 
Glycine 
Inositol 
Iodine 
Iron 
Lysine
Magnesium 
Manganese
Methionine
Nitrogen
Ornithine 
Pantothenic acid
Phenylalanine 
Phosphorus, organic 
Potassium
Proteins
Riboflavin 
Tryptophan
Tyrosine
Urea 
Vitamin B6 
Vitamin B12 
Zinc 

Urea nitrogen 
Urea 
Creatinin nitrogen 
Creatinin 
Uric acid nitrogen 
Uric acid 
Amino nitrogen 
Ammonia nitrogen 
Sodium 
Potassium 
Calcium 
Magnesium 
Chloride 
Inorganic sulphate 
Inorganic phosphate 
N/10 acid 

Enzymes:
Amylase (diastase).
Lactic dehydrogenate (L. D. H.).
Leucine amino-peptidase (L. A. P.).
Urokinase.
Hormones
Catechol amines.
Hydroxy-steroids.
17-Catosteroids.
Erythropoietine.
Adenylate cyclase.
Prostaglandin's.
Sex hormones.



so far so good, no fish dead. plants seem to have responded positively.

no, i didnt buy it, yes i made it myself, and..........
.......now that you have googled the ingredients.....

yes i am crazy.


----------



## ionix (Oct 11, 2012)

I am pretty positive that is one concoction that would require a prescription. "Epinephrine" would not be something you put in your plants? It is an artificial adrenaline meant for human use and has no other uses that I have ever heard of. And apparently neither has google (in terms of use with plants).

Amino acids too? I didn't think plants uptook that.  

Okay, did you seriously just grind up a multi-vitamin, and a bunch of prescriptions, plus god knows what, to make a fertilizer? Lol.

Now that you've done that, I would love to see the effects of a soluble hypnotic on fish. Come on, you could probably mix it up using the ingredients already within. xD

P.S.: Yes, I typed as I read, hence my messages becoming more "wtf" by the paragraph. Lol.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

epinephrine is produced by the human body. 


thats all the hint im going to give you.


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

Are you using blood,or blood meal?


----------



## Reefing Madness (Aug 12, 2011)

Auban said:


> epinephrine is produced by the human body.
> 
> 
> thats all the hint im going to give you.


Im dissappointed Auban:
Complete Epinephrine information from Drugs.com


----------



## ionix (Oct 11, 2012)

Reefing Madness said:


> Im dissappointed Auban:
> Complete Epinephrine information from Drugs.com


Lol. I thought something was up.:fish5::fish5::fish5:


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

you guys realize that i dont actually take epinephrine right?


----------



## Reefing Madness (Aug 12, 2011)

Auban said:


> you guys realize that i dont actually take epinephrine right?


Was reacting on your explanation of it.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

its sterilized urine(not that urine isnt already sterile...)

i mentioned it on another forum, but the thread was deleted.
-it seems that drinking your own urine during survival scenarios is an offensive topic... i guess i can see that.

anyway, the components of urine make it a pretty comprehensive fertilizer. with all the urea and uric acid, its pretty good stuff. the only downside is that its hard to dose without concentrating it, and its full of salt. salt isnt really good for your plants.

as for the fish, i cant see the expelled hormones doing the fish any good... i remember reading they used to inject african clawed frogs with urine from a pregnant woman to get them to lay eggs. no eggs equaled no pregnancy.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

I can see this thread has taken a serious down-turn.

Curious what it is that you think a new fert will do for your plants that the proven ferts can't?


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

i dont think there is any extra benefit, but considering that one of my life goals is to do conservation work in some third world countries, any and all possible uses of whatever resources are available will have to be explored. here in our grand first world country, such an idea is absurd. in a place where they dont have access to conventional planted aquarium fertilizers produced in a lab, or cannot afford it, animal waste may be the only option. 

besides, i like to answer questions that everyone else refuses to think about. when it comes to such taboo topics, armchair theory abounds. real world experience however, is hard to find.


----------



## ionix (Oct 11, 2012)

Auban said:


> i dont think there is any extra benefit, but considering that one of my life goals is to do conservation work in some third world countries, any and all possible uses of whatever resources are available will have to be explored. here in our grand first world country, such an idea is absurd. in a place where they dont have access to conventional planted aquarium fertilizers produced in a lab, or cannot afford it, animal waste may be the only option.
> 
> besides, i like to answer questions that everyone else refuses to think about. when it comes to such taboo topics, armchair theory abounds. real world experience however, is hard to find.


Interesting. 



> "Urine is 95 per cent water, 2.5 per cent of which is urea, and a further 2.5 per cent of which is a mixture of minerals, salts, hormones and enzymes. It is a blood byproduct but despite containing some bodily waste is non-toxic.
> 
> In 1975, Dr A. H. Free published his book Urinalysis in Clinical Laboratory Practice, presenting a few of the critical nutrients found in urine, including urea nitrogen, urea, creatinin nitrogen, creatinin, uric acid nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, amino nitrogen, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, inorganic sulphate and inorganic phosphate.
> 
> ...He says that applying urine to growing vegetables once every week for at least two months will more than double the yield."


Same thing apparently for the other end but some people apparently have problems understanding why it isn't okay to use on plants growing currently.. Lol.

In any case, still a pretty interesting read though I am still wondering about the epinephrine lol.


----------

