FishProfiles.com Message Forums

Yup, go for the stronger lighting. The more watts per gallon in your tank (to a point), the healthier your plants will be, and the more likely they will be to thrive.

---

And when he gets to Heaven, to Saint Peter he will tell: "One more Marine reporting, Sir! I've served my time in Hell."

I agree with Babel, though the swords can be pretty fast growers in high light/CO2 enriched tanks. I'd put in some sunset hygro (I love this plant), even if they aren't red at the bottom, they will get red as they near the surface and will still be healthy. At least this is my experience. Mine have shot up over 4 inches in the past 5 days. They would also contrast in color/shape with everything else you have, it would be a good eye-catcher.

Other hygro or water sprite (stem plants) will help with nutrients and algea.

Last edited by mattyboombatty at 30-Nov-2004 21:55

---

Critical Fertilator: The Micromanager of Macronutrients

One other suggestion, might add them then remove them, is some good nutrient suckers ( that sound funny to anyone else) with as much light as you'll be adding and the CO2 you might need something till the other plants get more firmly established....looking over the diagram/list it seems that most of them are slow growers/slow consumers...someone of course correct me if I'm wrong.

^_^
[link=H2g2]http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/upgrade.html" style="COLOR: #EB4288[/link] 2005 Don't Leave Home Without it[/font]

You just skipped over the whole thing didn't ya . One of the posts up here ^^ talks about me getting 2.45wpg instead, which I have already orderd and are currently on their way to me.

Last edited by john.stone at 30-Nov-2004 16:53

Keep in mind that a 55 gallon is a fairly tall tank, and you will probably need even more than 1.45wpg.

If you do DIY, NEVER use the lighting directly over the water. Use a glass canopy or something. The LFS I used to work at had a devastating fire due to a sparking ballast that was directly over open water.

I'd move the vals into the background. You don't really have any "foreground" plants, so I'm with ben no the nana---better yet, several nana petite flowers or even a nan petite carpet.

John,

Looks good. The only thing I'd say is that you almost only have one leaf shape in there. The sword and fern and pretty similar in shape.

Something small with a different formation in front or around the ferns and swords would highlight and show them off nicely.

Keeping in with the look of the tank and what you seem to be looking for I would strongly reccomend some Anubias, like Barteri Nana. These will stay small, only a few inches tall, so they will keep their shape and keep doing their job as a highlighter, low maintenance and almost indestructible. They always look well with swords and ferns IMO, got that same natural, unpretentious, but nonetheless attractive look.

---

Some days you're the pigeon and some days you're the statue.

Remember that age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

FRANK: I'll definitely look into that book, thanks .

Bensaf: WoW! Those pictures are amazing! I think I'll definitely be getting c02, those results are just too impressive not to.

I'm planning on putting most of the plants on the back and just a few in the middle with the java moss being my foreground-cover (if it cooperates). I'm really looking for a nice random (but clean) jungle. Here is a horrible picture of what I'm planning on.



Last edited by john.stone at 28-Nov-2004 09:17[/font]

John,
Can't give you any scietific statistics or data. But Co2 combined with over 2 wpg makes aHUGE diference ingrowth rate. I have an amazon sword turn into a 2 foot tall monster in a month

If you are interested I posted a thread showing comparison of the tank before and after Co2 supplementation.

http://www.fishprofiles.com/files/forums/Photo%20Booth/50538.html?200411262055

Just be careful what you plant and where you plant - otherwise you may end up with a big plant squashed against the front glass.

BTW.Yes, your question is impossible to- answer depends on the plant type etc. Give you an idea:
Hygro Polysperma before Co2 - 2-3" a week, after Co2 about 1-2" a day (needs to be trimmed a least once a week sometimes twice.)
Amazon grew about 1 leaf a week. Now grows I 2' tall leaf every 2-3 days.
Anubias a new leaf every week. And on it goes.
Actually I didn't go into Co2 for the extra growth (had enough already) but because the plant is much more healthier looking, more and larger foliage, much more lush and colorful looking. Also it makes it pretty darn impossible for algae to get a look in. With the plants that healthy the algae doesn't stand a chance.

Last edited by bensaf at 28-Nov-2004 08:24

---

Some days you're the pigeon and some days you're the statue.

Remember that age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

Hi,
See if you can get to the library or better yet,
purchase a copy of the ECOLOGY of the PLANTED AQUARIUM,
written by Diana Walstad. You can get a new or used
copy from Amazon.com.
In Chapter VI, CARBON, p96, she has a table showing
growth rates for various plants shown in
"units biomass/day". The entire chapter is devoted to
carbon, how plants use it, how they obtain it, and
how it is found in aquariums. Carbon is one of the
limiting factors (some say THE limiting factor)
in plant growth.

Frank


-->>> The Confidence of Amateurs, is the Envy of Professionals <<<--

Well... To be honest... I am one of the most impatient people to have ever existed in the world, impressive I know .

So if I need to spend a bit more money on c02 and ferts to get them to grow faster and look beautiful sooner, I'm more then willing to do that.

The big question that I have... that I'm sure no one can answer exactly, but I'm going to ask anyway is...

Comparing the growth rate between .5, 1.45 and 2.4 (with ferts and c02), how fast will the plants grow at each of these levels? I know it's probably like fish and there are way to many factors for an exact answer, but even a ballpark figure would be awesome.

John,

Frank is aboslutely correct (as always). Been down the same road. While extra light is always welcome it does bring it's own issues to deal with. With 2.5 WPG you will have the capability to grow pretty much anything you want - lightwise. But the additional light will bring it's own issues/challenges, especially as 2.5 wpg is more then the plants you listed require to grow well.

It's all about balance of light and nutrients. By going to higher light you will basically disturb that balance. Once you go above 2 wpg it's time to start thinking of supplementing nutrients and if possible Co2.Certainly when I increased my lighting to 2.3 wpg in a heavily planted tank, the algae issues started popping up pretty quickly. Only got rid of the algae completely with the addition of Co2 and trace elemnt suuplementation.

While getting the extra watts at the same price is a good deal you have to consider do you really want to deal with that light ? Or would you rather have a low light easy maintenance set -up ( which I would hasten to add can be just as beautiful and stunning as any high tech set-up).

If you do choose to go with the higher light set up it may be worth while putting in some faster growing stem plants that use the light and suck up nutrients. In a new set up with a lot of light it's best to add as many plants as possible.

Let us know what you choose

---

Some days you're the pigeon and some days you're the statue.

Remember that age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

Thanks Frank, your posts are always so detailed and informative, and I appreciate them immensely.

I don't plan to get any plants other then the ones above, and I am prepared to add ferts if needed. I'm really not trying to get a setup for hight requirement plants. I'm really just trying to get a decent growth rate out of the low demand plants I'm already getting.

Last edited by john.stone at 26-Nov-2004 11:59

Hi,
Let me put a damper on things a little bit.

If you move from the low demand plants to medium or
high, you will find that you will eventually (sooner
than later) need to add fertilizers to the water.
You are accellerating the plants' growth process, and
therefore their needs.
Up to a point, the bacterial colonies, and bioload
can supply the nutrients needed, but soon they will
be outstripped and you will have to dose the tank.

This can be delayed, by using substrates such as
flourite, laterite, onyx complete, etc, but in the
long run you will probably need to add nutrients.
At some point, with the excessive watts per gallon
you may need to add CO2.

What I'm saying is that driving the plants with more
light, can allow you to have more variety, but also
can complicate things too. Sometimes, its better
to take things a step at a time. Perhaps set up
a low light tank and turn it into a thriving jungle.
Then set up another tank, a medium light tank
with low and medium demand plants, master it, and
then move on to a third, a high light tank and use
all three categories of plants in it.
With each step up the "light ladder" you will find
new problems to master, and be revisited by some
old ones.

Frank


Last edited by FRANK at 26-Nov-2004 12:33

-->>> The Confidence of Amateurs, is the Envy of Professionals <<<--

Thank you all so much for your help on my first post.

Currently I have no plants and .5WPG in my 55g(208L) aquarium, I've put out an order for the following...
4 Amazon Sword
5 Java Fern
2 Java Moss
1 Corkscrew Vallisneria
1 Mixed Aponogeton
1 Vallisneria (Unknown Type)

I've been looking online and I've found an [link=80Watt 48" compact flourecent light]http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=11420&amp;N=2004+113345" style="COLOR: #87B8DF[/link] which by my calculations would give me 1.45 WPG. Would this make a big difference in the growth of my plants? Or would it be a waste of $80?

Yes you can assume that and your right that would widen up the range even more and would help the plants you ordered to be even healthier.

Ok... I've found another light... It's a bit better and about the same price. It's 130Watts which would give me 2.36WPG, I can assume that thats even better then 1.45WPG?

[link=Current USA Satellite 48" 2 x 65 Watt Power Compact-Single Strip W/2 Lunar Lights]http://www.bigalsonline.com/catalog/product.xml?product_id=29605;category_id=1843;pcid1=;pcid2=" style="COLOR: #87B8DF[/link]

Thanks everyone, I'm definitely going to get it (or something like it). I'll check those sites out for a better deal.

is this new light *replacing* the old light? why not use both, then you'd have almost 2wpg

Because the current lights are part of an All-Glass (Brand) hood, I have to remove the two "Boxes" to be able to use the new light, and I have loaches, so leaving a small portion of the tank open is a wee bit to risky for me.

Definitly worth the while. Your plant will thrive with it. You will widen your selection. GOod luck w/ da plants

Thanks joe fishy that's the one I always forget :%).

[link=AH supply]http://www.ahsupply.com/" style="COLOR: #EB4288[/link]
[link=AH supply]http://www.ahsupply.com/" style="COLOR: #EB4288[/link]
[link=AH supply]http://www.ahsupply.com/" style="COLOR: #EB4288[/link]

maybe now I'll remember it &gt;.&lt;

^_^
[link=H2g2]http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/upgrade.html" style="COLOR: #EB4288[/link] 2005 Don't Leave Home Without it[/font]