[APD] Re: RE: Gloss must have high light? Or: Are you nuts?

["Robert H" <robertph3 at comcast_net>]

Vic said
>>> Once again, it's ALL a matter of taste....I could CARE LESS what someone
> thinks of my tank, I and my family just love my Glosso tank that piles up
on
> one another.  <<

Well here is Vics piled up glosso tank, >
http://www.aquabotanic.com/images/vicsglossotank.jpg

I have to admit it is the thickest growing glosso I have ever seen. I also
have to admit I agree with Tom that a low growing glosso carpet is more
attractive from an aquascaping point of view. Artisticaly speaking, for
composition, balance, depth of field, a low, neat looking foreground has a
better visual effect, but if you are not intereted in creating a work of
art, or you just prefer how it looks then thats great too. I don't think you
have to have "low light" in order to have a managable, neatly trimmed glosso
carpet. Excellerated growth allows you to mold it and sculpt it more on
demand instead of waiting months and months for it to fill in.

Tom said
>>Or be willing to pay the price of the ticket.
> Less light should be the trend hopefully, 1.5-3w
> max/gal<<

I am really surprised you would consider 3 watts per gallon low light!!!
George Booth must be having a heart attack from shock!

John said
>>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.
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.... <<

Thank you John! I don't feel so alone anymore. I never go below 2
watt/gallon, I have 3watts /gallon on my 100 gallon, and 4.7 watts/gallon on
my 55s. I like the kind of growth you can only get with higher light levels.
By providing more nutrients in the substrate and less in the water column
and keeping things stable and allowing the substrate to mature, I find
initial algae blooms peter out and become much easier to deal with. But I do
not have to sacrifice the fast and vibrant growth from higher light levels
to achieve this balance that others only find in low tech, low light tanks.
I don't know if we are catching up to anyone, there are lots of different
people doing it lots of different ways all over the world. I only know what
has worked for me and what I like.

Tom said
>>A few things help.
Good reflector, most folks do that, it's a good investment, saves electric
by getting all you can out of the light.
Good spread, not just a tiny strip of light on the back wall etc, a wide
reflector helps spread out the light more.<<

LOL, so basically what you are saying is if you want to grow glosso and
other stem plants considered to be high light plants, under low light, one
of the keys is to try and squeeze as much light out of it as you can! Seems
a little ironic ! :)

>>Many people with low light think, "well since I have low light, I don't
need CO2". But they assume because they do not NEED it, that adding it on a
low light tanks will not help or improve the tank much, well this is not
true. It certainly will help, the results are slower, but MANY folks have
suggested a slower growing tank method or type of method and this is a real
good one.<<

So basicaly elevated C02 levels make up for low light levels. Never tried
that.  Is this another reason for your large water changes or is it still
strictly to keep ferts from building up too high?

Robert Paul Hudson
www.aquabotanic.com

_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants