[Supercoley1]

Strange suggestion there. The guy has algae so lets up the lights???

2.6WPG is a lot I use 1.25WPG LED now and used to use 1.5WPG before with pressurised CO2!!!! Massive growth (see sig)

Your problem is quite obviously 2.6WPG with unstable CO2 and/or poor circulation.

Nutrient defficiencies are easy to erradicate. Dose EI and that rules out the possiblity of nutrient and then you just have CO2 and flow left. Get these sorted out and then you can move onto a lower dosing ferts regime if wished.

You need IMO to either reduce light or improve CO2. either way you need to have good flow (I have 17.6x)

Give each change a month or so to see improvements or not. Going EI most likely won't improve the situation but it will rule out the possibility of defficiency while you sort out the cause of the problems

AC

 

[Supercoley1]

I will just say that I was actually comparing 2.6WPG against the 1.5WPG of fluoros I had before not the 1.25WPG of LEDs I now have!!!

I stick to what I said. This is not a 5G Nano tank and although smaller tanks do need more light I don't think this applies to this size tank. It's basically in the average tank range.

Therefore high light and DIY CO2 makes a nasty mess. I'll leave it there because I don't want to get involved in an argument. I have put my ideas up above already

AC

 

[Supercoley1]

Bryce. That fitch one is one of my favourite chuckles. lol Amano doesn't use that amount of light himself anymore and I won't go into using W for it. lol That calculator suggests even more W than the WPG rule which we know is well out of date and with todays improved more efficient lights then the old low light wattage can be today's high light wattage!!! You can't supply suggestions from a 13 year old article when technology is involved!!!

As an example if I type my tank size in it comes up with 113W. You must be kidding. 60W is the max I've ever used and that was darned bright. The tank you see below in the sig is bright enough with 48W. Not the brightest by far but 113W. Thats beyond a joke. they must be calculated

ADAs own lighting units seem to be lowlight units diguised!!!

Check out the thread!!!:

http://www.barrreport.com/general-p...aqua-forest-nice-low-par-values-who-knew.html

AC

 

[Supercoley1]

I'm going to leave this thread alone after this post as I said before. it was just the 13 year old paper that got me replying earlier.

HOUSE of Cards - That chart is 13 years old and uses T12,T10,T8 and CF. Doesn't take into account that even with T8s for example advances have been made since then to prolong life, maintain intensity for longer etc.

The barrreport thread is measuring the PAR intensities within the tanks and then asking the question 'How are these PAR ratings so low when the lighting units used are supposed to be pretty high light (wattage wise!!!) That's what I was linking to it for.

I have said on other threads that I don't believe in high light/low light plants. There is no such thing as a 'low light plant'. I know you didn't mean it that way but any plant can grow in high light so it can't be described as low light then. there are plants that don't grow well until a certain level is reached but I question the amount that a lot of people seem to think it is and I also question wether it is the high light or the high levels of CO2 that go with the high light actually making the leap from failure to success!!.

Bryce - I'm sorry you see my reply as brash and unfriendly and feel it is insulting. Maybe rushed but not meant in an unfriendly or insulting way. Many apologies.

I understand what you are saying about lower light over smaller tanks but then I don't think a 10gal is small. I was just trying to say as I have put above that with today's advances even in the quality of T8s that we can't use charts of that age for wattage. We shall have to agree to disagree on that one

You've looked through my journal and seen me describing it as low light low maintenance so that others understand what I was aiming at. As you can see it proved anything but low maintenance. I have to prune handfuls out of it weekly from these supposed 'low light, slow growing' plants

I agree one persons demands are different to others and really should consider it a little more and not make assumptions I suppose.

The OP said they had 26W over 10USG which in my eyes even with T8/T10 is high light. I naturally assume that from being on a planted forum the user will have reflectors.

However if my assumptions (that I admit are assumptions) are true then I stand by my suggestion that it is a CO2/flow issue. It is definately not poor light unless the lights are very poor quality with no reflectors and attached into the ceiling!! <----Intended as a joke

So on reflection yes maybeI rushed into assumptions but offer constructive advice. I apologise if I seem rude or insulting but it is not meant that way in the slightest.

Again I offer my aoplogies.

AC