Joined
·
2,072 Posts
My question is why is leaner better?
Examples of bad growth is more common and algae can be found in both cases. But good growth is not hindered by richer N & P.
If you want less growth, add less light.
Why set the system up to crash if that is goal to avoid?
Less light and leaner will be a better mix than high light and lean.
Lots more wiggle room.
Given plant enzyme (both induced and constituative) transporters, I think a high concentration rather than a lower level would grow better plants.
I can also show this in terms of uptake.
I can grow plants just fine at high levels of light and rich N and P.
I just gave away a lot of plants to over a dozen people tonight.
My tanks had no issues. I have not been pampering them at all.
You can limit growth with less but not too little so you can crash either method as easily IME/IMO.
Some folks just have trouble keeping things stable. Some don't.
The issue is getting plants "use" to a routine and then maintaining that routine.
So which is easier to maintain?
Water changes and dosing is easy.
Critical low levels and rich substrates(which can pull junk into the water column when pruning) seems more troublesome.
Less light will help, not adding more.
A good aquascape does not mean a good method either.
If your goal is stabilty and nice manageable growth with plenty of wiggle room, try 2 w/gal, a decent fish load, algae eaters etc, CO2 and relatively consistent maintainance and dosing.
I've had high light tanks for 10 years. Lean works better at lower light.
You can crash easily at high light also.
Well you just try it for awhile and see for yourself.
But try to look carefully at your plants and note the biomass also in the tank.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Examples of bad growth is more common and algae can be found in both cases. But good growth is not hindered by richer N & P.
If you want less growth, add less light.
Why set the system up to crash if that is goal to avoid?
Less light and leaner will be a better mix than high light and lean.
Lots more wiggle room.
Given plant enzyme (both induced and constituative) transporters, I think a high concentration rather than a lower level would grow better plants.
I can also show this in terms of uptake.
I can grow plants just fine at high levels of light and rich N and P.
I just gave away a lot of plants to over a dozen people tonight.
My tanks had no issues. I have not been pampering them at all.
You can limit growth with less but not too little so you can crash either method as easily IME/IMO.
Some folks just have trouble keeping things stable. Some don't.
The issue is getting plants "use" to a routine and then maintaining that routine.
So which is easier to maintain?
Water changes and dosing is easy.
Critical low levels and rich substrates(which can pull junk into the water column when pruning) seems more troublesome.
Less light will help, not adding more.
A good aquascape does not mean a good method either.
If your goal is stabilty and nice manageable growth with plenty of wiggle room, try 2 w/gal, a decent fish load, algae eaters etc, CO2 and relatively consistent maintainance and dosing.
I've had high light tanks for 10 years. Lean works better at lower light.
You can crash easily at high light also.
Well you just try it for awhile and see for yourself.
But try to look carefully at your plants and note the biomass also in the tank.
Regards,
Tom Barr
