[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[APD] Re: lighting intensity issues


...and Craig Morrison rebuts: [<<<]

John Wheeler wrote: [<<]
Hey gang,

Tom Barr offers: [<]
>Or be willing to pay the price of the ticket.
Less light should be the trend hopefully, 1.5-3w

>>Why on Earth would we do that?<< 

>>>Because you don't need to have a high light tank to
grow plants?<<<

Easy tiger. I never said anything like that. A trend
would be a majority movement, and I don't think that's
the way we need to move as a majority. I've grown a
*ton* of plants at very moderate levels-- <2wpg and no
CO2. Where we are now as a group is probably right on
until someone figures out magic tap water. BUT, high
light works.

Every method is easier if you use less light.<

>>Horse feathers. Maybe your method, but you're not
going to sell that to many hobbyists who are doing
other stuff and being very successful at it at *high*
light levels. These kinds of broad statements hinder,
not help. <<

>>>And you know, there are just as many out there that
want a low-tech, "low" light tank that has plants

>>>I would be one among many here.<<<

Fine, but you're not lecturing everyone about the
evils of hight light. Frankly, I don't care if you
shine a flashlight on your plants while blowing air
through a straw. You do whatever you want and decide
from there if that's right for you. For all I know,
your flashlight works great. (I hope my sarcasm isn't

I'm not sure what your argument is except to rush to
the aid of someone who is condemmning, or at least
poo-pooing, something that works!  

>More % of the nutrients can come from the substrate
and the fish waste.<

>>Rich substrates combined with high light are all the
rage now-- Much more diverse in material and content
than were used before without being "dirt", and it's
bolstering the higher lighting not suppressing.<<

>>>For your case yes, not for my case nor those that
just want decent growth from plants to give a nice

So what does that mean? I was talking about high
light, obviously not your current habits. I bet some
manner of soil would work great in your tank if you're
not already using one. 

>>Actually dirt (soil more accurately) and high light
have been proven to be a winning combo for plant
growth and algae suppression by the Brazilians who
showed very well in this year's AGA showcase and also
some well read Americans. Less dependence on the water
column, especially for Macros, is the key to higher
lighting. In this respect, we're finally catching up
to the folks in the East.... <<

>>>It isn't all about winning awards.<<<


>>>I have a 20 gallon tank that is chocked full of
anubias and crpyts that won't win any awards but is
damn nice to look at and the fish love it.<<<

That's great. So, what does that have to do with high

>>Yeah, yeah... We know you're lazy, but not all of us
are. That car analogy is tired and irrelevant for<<

>>>Why make it personal? That is _totally_ uncalled

Well, I was not only addressing Tom personally, but
also refering to a trait that I've read him, not only
alude to, but state flat out. Please don't make me
search the archives for them or likely I'd fill a
whole digest. His whole "method" is based around
minimizing the amount of work (dosing) while
maintaining or, ultimately, maximizing plant health.
That's no secret.

>>those of us who don't mind trimming our plants.
you crash faster/harder, or whatever, but you can
recover just as fast when your plants grow at the
accelerated level only high ligh can provide.

>>>Maybe some people don't have all the time in the
world to spend getting their hands wet?<<<

So, use less light and/or slower growing plants. Maybe
you didn't read the last paragraph of my original
post. Go back and read it again...

>>>I know I don't, I work a full time job and run a
computer business on the side. My time is precious.<<<

Great. Me too. 

>>>We all maintain what we have the time for.<<<


>>changes in maintenance habits, especially ferts,
show effects much faster and the hobbyist can make
adjustments accordingly and FASTER. The sword has 2
edges after all.... <<

>>>Just be careful how you swing that sword. ;-)<<<

Or what? 

>>So? Show us a picture of what Glosso looks like in a
non-CO2 tank with 1.5-3wpg max. I seriously doubt that
it's anything I'd want in my tank. Maybe you like<<

>>>This isn't just about _your_ tank..<<<

Yeah, no kidding, BUT, this is about trying to
shoehorn folks into running things in your way with
little tolerance or consideration of other ways that
work. You're doing the same thing by trying to stand
up for something that wasn't under attack. I was
SIMPLY saying that high light tanks have an appeal,
they WORK, and the "trend" should not be for less
light whatever that means. If one was to look very
closely, the majority of visible hobbyists are still
using 2-3wpg (granted the trend seems to be moving
toward PC lighting), so less light would be hard to
imagine. If that's what you want due to your lifestyle
then GREAT.  

>>leggy, dark, small, misshaped green globs growing
straight up... I'll pass, thanks. The short story is
that Glossostigma is easier to keep *nice* in a higher
light set-up, as are many other plants. <<

>>>The gauntlet is laid.<<<

Yeah, I guess it is.

>>>I'll back Tom on this one, the LFS just got another
shipment of glosso in. I'll post in 4 weeks how it is
doing in one of my low light tanks.<<<

Make sure you use no CO2 like Tom suggested. I guess
if he can call someone a "stooge" 4-5 times in a post,
then I could call you a "sheep" just once, huh?

>>Poor nutrition will plague folks at any light level.
It's simply a matter of learning, and adjusting.<<


Well, we see eye to eye there...

>>There's alot of bad advice going around out there,
I know this can be a challenge. Hang in there guys!!<<

>>>And what Tom is giving is NOT bad advice.<<<

OMG, I never said that. Hehe-- Relax.... Do you think
that all the current practice is right on (including
Tom's, now that we're on the subject)? I don't care
what works for you. Are you under the assumption that
what is going on now can't be improved upon--
nevermind being the best way? Of course you aren't.
There are alot of old ideas floating around and they
just won't die.... My point. Isn't suggestion
dangerous? I seem to recall, recently, being refered
to as "Most folks" followed by some mild untruths, but
I didn't raise a ruckus...

>>>I've been reading this list for a couple of years
now and chatted with Tom in direct email a few times.
His judgement is sound. He is not advocating one
technique over another, he is merely trying to show
more than one way of having a nice looking planted
tank regardless of light levels.<<<

No that's NOT what is happening. Ushering folks away
from higher light is just as bad as what you're
accusing me of here. I NEVER said that Tom's judgment
isn't sound. 

However, if you continue/go back to read you'll see
what my original point was and maybe you'll read more
carefully next time.

(here it is if you don't wanna go back:|)
>>I'm not suggesting that elevated lighting is right
for everyone-- It's not. However, please don't knock
(read: persuade others not to do it) as it has serious
advantages for those so inclined to try. <<

>>>I don't believe there was any knocking going on,
just the flip side of the coin being stated for those
of us who want a green tank but don't have the time to
maintain a rabid weed tank.<<<

You keep doing what you're doing. Last I heard, this
was a place for the exchange of ideas. So, the "less
light" issue needs to be put to rest. High light
(>4wpg) works and can work well for long periods--
especially for those of us interested in aquascaping.
If you don't like it, use less (that can work, too),
but don't lasso the world into thinking high light is
bad or unbearably difficult.

Very best wishes,
John Wheeler

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com