Red Plants, Iron Dependant???

[RedForeman ©®]

I've seen/read/heard or guessed, that most red plants, almost require loads
of Iron in the water...

true or false?

--
| RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
| ==========================
| 2003 TRX450ES
| 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
| '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
| ==========================
| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
| ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>
| for any questions you may have....
| www.gmail.com

[Victor Martinez]

RedForeman ©® wrote:
> I've seen/read/heard or guessed, that most red plants, almost require loads
> of Iron in the water...

I don't see why they would need more iron than a green plant. What they
do need is brighter light.

--
Victor Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[[email protected]]

"RedForeman ©®" > wrote in message >...
> I've seen/read/heard or guessed, that most red plants, almost require loads
> of Iron in the water...
>
> true or false?
>
> --

The answer would be false, their iron content is the same as green
plants.
"Eat your reds"..........hehe.

Color has a few parameters that influence it. Our preception of color
is part of it also. Generally high traces/PO4/CO2 and low NO3 gives
the best reds.

But do red plants need more iron than green plants?
Nope.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[RedForeman ©®]

|| "RedForeman ©®" > wrote in message
||| I've seen/read/heard or guessed, that most red plants, almost
||| require loads of Iron in the water...
||| true or false?

|| The answer would be false, their iron content is the same as green
|| plants.
|| "Eat your reds"..........hehe.
||
|| Color has a few parameters that influence it. Our preception of color
|| is part of it also. Generally high traces/PO4/CO2 and low NO3 gives
|| the best reds.

So, it's entirely possible that my 6700k bulbs are just bring out less reds,
than say, a 3500k bulb?

In my eyes, I like a bulb closer to 3500-4200k, it's bluer, greener, and
redder than the 6700k, and THAT is my perception.

|| But do red plants need more iron than green plants?
|| Nope.
||
|| Regards,
|| Tom Barr

Thanks as usual... :-)
--
| RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
| ==========================
| 2003 TRX450ES
| 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
| '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
| ==========================
| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
| ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>
| for any questions you may have....
| www.gmail.com

[[email protected]]

Why would a red plant need more light than a green one?

Red plants are found in deeper waters and also in deep jungles, most
red plants are found in darker regions and are considered shade
plants.

Red Ludwigia is found very deep in some springs, the stuff growing by
the surface might be green. I saw this today as a matter of fact.
If the plant is in the same water, why would one be red at 18 ft and
green at the surface?

Red Wendtii was growing in a very shaded portion of the spring, Red
ludwigia was growing in a very deep section of a river. The green
plants were closer to high light than the red plants.

I can grow red plants just fine at less light, so can most people.

Red plants do not need more light than green plants, nor more iron.
Why are many Crypts red? They do very well in shaded conditions.

Plants often turn red when someone puts more light on them due to
increases in growth rates and lack of Chlorophyll near the active new
growth. The increased growth often lowers the available NO3 and
reduces the Chlorophyll, which is rich in N wewreas anthocyanin, the
red color pigment has no N.
The effect of increased light or slight N limitation will cause the
tips to turn red first.

If you watch a red plant break the surface and grow above the water,
it does in fact, turn green in the higher less filtered light.

I think this myth is very difficult to support and I've not found it
to be true in practical terms in aquariums. Some of the reddest plnts
have come from lower light, 2w/gal of NO FL's in 24" deep tanks. You
certainly cannot claim high light is the cause for red color as
generalization. I wouldn't.

Good nutrients, low N etc will promote red color, not high light and
iron anymore than they do for green plants. Low N is a two edged sword
with higher light also. It's easier to maintain a low stable N level
that does not cause a deficiency, vs a higher light, faster uptake
tank.


Regards,
Tom Barr

[Craig Brye]

Why does the vast majority of the people in the industry claim red plants
need more light?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but merely wondering why 95% of most people
think red plants need more light?

Even the so called "plant bible" (Kasselmann book) claims red plants need
more light to prosper.

Just wondering...

Thanks,

--
Craig Brye
University of Phoenix Online

" > wrote in message
om...
> Why would a red plant need more light than a green one?
>
> Red plants are found in deeper waters and also in deep jungles, most
> red plants are found in darker regions and are considered shade
> plants.
>
> Red Ludwigia is found very deep in some springs, the stuff growing by
> the surface might be green. I saw this today as a matter of fact.
> If the plant is in the same water, why would one be red at 18 ft and
> green at the surface?
>
> Red Wendtii was growing in a very shaded portion of the spring, Red
> ludwigia was growing in a very deep section of a river. The green
> plants were closer to high light than the red plants.
>
> I can grow red plants just fine at less light, so can most people.
>
> Red plants do not need more light than green plants, nor more iron.
> Why are many Crypts red? They do very well in shaded conditions.
>
> Plants often turn red when someone puts more light on them due to
> increases in growth rates and lack of Chlorophyll near the active new
> growth. The increased growth often lowers the available NO3 and
> reduces the Chlorophyll, which is rich in N wewreas anthocyanin, the
> red color pigment has no N.
> The effect of increased light or slight N limitation will cause the
> tips to turn red first.
>
> If you watch a red plant break the surface and grow above the water,
> it does in fact, turn green in the higher less filtered light.
>
> I think this myth is very difficult to support and I've not found it
> to be true in practical terms in aquariums. Some of the reddest plnts
> have come from lower light, 2w/gal of NO FL's in 24" deep tanks. You
> certainly cannot claim high light is the cause for red color as
> generalization. I wouldn't.
>
> Good nutrients, low N etc will promote red color, not high light and
> iron anymore than they do for green plants. Low N is a two edged sword
> with higher light also. It's easier to maintain a low stable N level
> that does not cause a deficiency, vs a higher light, faster uptake
> tank.
>
>
> Regards,
> Tom Barr

[RedForeman ©®]

|| Why does the vast majority of the people in the industry claim red
|| plants need more light?
||
|| I'm not disagreeing with you, but merely wondering why 95% of most
|| people think red plants need more light?
||
|| Even the so called "plant bible" (Kasselmann book) claims red plants
|| need more light to prosper.
||
|| Just wondering...
||
|| Thanks,
||
|| --
|| Craig Brye
|| University of Phoenix Online

So I'm not the only one who's heard that....

--
| RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
| ==========================
| 2003 TRX450ES
| 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
| '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
| ==========================
| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
| ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>
| for any questions you may have....
| www.gmail.com

[Craig Brye]

Yeah... I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I've done "a ton" of research
as I have kept aquatic plants for several years now. I've always heard/read
about red plants requiring more light. It's also been my experience that
red plants I've kept in the past (such as Diandra and E. Rubin) have always
faltered when the lighting wasn't strong enough (while other plants were
able to prosper).

--
Craig Brye
University of Phoenix Online

"RedForeman ©®" > wrote in message
...
> || Why does the vast majority of the people in the industry claim red
> || plants need more light?
> ||
> || I'm not disagreeing with you, but merely wondering why 95% of most
> || people think red plants need more light?
> ||
> || Even the so called "plant bible" (Kasselmann book) claims red plants
> || need more light to prosper.
> ||
> || Just wondering...
> ||
> || Thanks,
> ||
> || --
> || Craig Brye
> || University of Phoenix Online
>
> So I'm not the only one who's heard that....
>
> --
> | RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
> | ==========================
> | 2003 TRX450ES
> | 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
> | '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
> | ==========================
> | ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
> | ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>
> | for any questions you may have....
> | www.gmail.com
>
>

[[email protected]]

"Craig Brye" > wrote in message >...
> Yeah... I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I've done "a ton" of research
> as I have kept aquatic plants for several years now. I've always heard/read
> about red plants requiring more light. It's also been my experience that
> red plants I've kept in the past (such as Diandra and E. Rubin) have always
> faltered when the lighting wasn't strong enough (while other plants were
> able to prosper).

Are you sure that they just did not need more nutrients instead vs the
other plants? The lighting was not it after all?
What kind of research are you referring to?

I've heard all sorts of claims over the years that folks have written.

Things like:
Plants prefer soft water..........not true.
PO4 causes algae(or excess), not true, I add PO4 liberally, I do not
have algae
Fe causes algae(or excess) Again,. I add it liberally, no algae.
NO3 causes algae(or excess) as above
15ppm is the optimal CO2 level(not true, it's 2x this amount, 30ppm
for common aquatic submersed plants, this concentration comes from
Bowes in various research papers and personal communications)

Just because 95% of folks say it, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
I question it because I had findings that certainly suggest otherwise.
No one has suggested any reason or mechanism that refutes the
observations I have stated.

**I think one thing that folks have trouble with is isolation of an
issue.
You have to isolated it and then mess with a range of units that
interest you.

**The other thing is if someone says excess PO4, let's say 1.0ppm
causes algae, why do I not have algae then with high light and
NO3/K/Fe etc?
If this causes algae, where is my algae? Can we still say that is
true?
Why is it true in some cases and not others? Lighting is no
different.

This is a similar situation.
You crank the CO2/NO3/PO4/GH/Traces etc, low light tanks work great.
The Best Eustralis, the best Rotala macrandra, the best D diandra, a
Rubin "Tree", Gloss, Chain swords, Hair grass, mats of Riccia etc, all
did super are 2w/gal of NO FL lighting in a 24" deep tank with 5" of
substrate and good parameters.
The other big issue with lighting, it is the one thing that we cannot
really get a good measure on so it is indirectly measured or grossly
estimated at best. So getting everything else correct and in a good
range that you have chosen will allow you to see how the spectrum and
the intensity influence plant growth.

We went down this about 5-6 years ago on the APD on high light= red
plants.
Neil, myself, Roger Miller, Karen Randall and many others talked about
it.
NO3 at low stable levels seems to be the main trick to redden plants,
not more light was the general conclusion most came to that tested and
tried things out.

You name the plant, I've grown it at 2w/gal of NO FL lights with a
reflector.
There's a few newer stem plants I have not tried, but 99% of the red
plants I have grown very well in moderate to low light by today's
standards.

Take any Ludwigia, or Rotalas and see what color they are when they
break the surface and have far more light.

Karen Randall agrees on this and tells folks that most red plants are
in fact shade low light understory plants. She and I have been at it a
few years too.

The chemical in red, the anthocyanin is mainly considered an anti
herbivory agent in most red plants by Plant Ecologist. The tender tips
of plants(the softer part with the most nutrients) are often red for
this reason.
Some have said the chemical will help protect the plant from high
light also as a possible secondary usage, namely from UV radiation.
Most desert plants are green.....

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Nitesbane]

"Craig Brye" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah... I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I've done "a ton" of
research
> as I have kept aquatic plants for several years now. I've always
heard/read
> about red plants requiring more light. It's also been my experience that
> red plants I've kept in the past (such as Diandra and E. Rubin) have
always
> faltered when the lighting wasn't strong enough (while other plants were
> able to prosper).
>

Like everybody else, I've read this in many many places too. I got a
reddish/purplish plant and it died in my low-light tank within a couple
weeks.

[Craig Brye]

I"m not saying you're wrong.... I used to be a very active part of this
newsgroup, and I know you have a very in depth field of knowledge in this
area. I do, however, know that almost everything I've heard and read says
red plants need more light.

For instance...

The Tropica website lists a ton of plants. You'll see many descriptions
like.... "this specie falls into the 'high light' catergory like other red
plants". I obviously didn't copy this word for word, but generalizations
like that are riddled throughout the Tropica website.

The Kasselmann book also gives many such generalizations. E. Osiris for
example, where she states the red/brown color "...develop under intense
light".

I'm just curious because your statements blew my entire "red plant"
theories! I'm not a chemist, so I take what I read/hear to heart. This is
why I'm fairly confused at the moment.



--
Craig Brye
University of Phoenix Online

" > wrote in message
om...
> "Craig Brye" > wrote in message
>...
> > Yeah... I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I've done "a ton" of
research
> > as I have kept aquatic plants for several years now. I've always
heard/read
> > about red plants requiring more light. It's also been my experience
that
> > red plants I've kept in the past (such as Diandra and E. Rubin) have
always
> > faltered when the lighting wasn't strong enough (while other plants were
> > able to prosper).
>
> Are you sure that they just did not need more nutrients instead vs the
> other plants? The lighting was not it after all?
> What kind of research are you referring to?
>
> I've heard all sorts of claims over the years that folks have written.
>
> Things like:
> Plants prefer soft water..........not true.
> PO4 causes algae(or excess), not true, I add PO4 liberally, I do not
> have algae
> Fe causes algae(or excess) Again,. I add it liberally, no algae.
> NO3 causes algae(or excess) as above
> 15ppm is the optimal CO2 level(not true, it's 2x this amount, 30ppm
> for common aquatic submersed plants, this concentration comes from
> Bowes in various research papers and personal communications)
>
> Just because 95% of folks say it, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
> I question it because I had findings that certainly suggest otherwise.
> No one has suggested any reason or mechanism that refutes the
> observations I have stated.
>
> **I think one thing that folks have trouble with is isolation of an
> issue.
> You have to isolated it and then mess with a range of units that
> interest you.
>
> **The other thing is if someone says excess PO4, let's say 1.0ppm
> causes algae, why do I not have algae then with high light and
> NO3/K/Fe etc?
> If this causes algae, where is my algae? Can we still say that is
> true?
> Why is it true in some cases and not others? Lighting is no
> different.
>
> This is a similar situation.
> You crank the CO2/NO3/PO4/GH/Traces etc, low light tanks work great.
> The Best Eustralis, the best Rotala macrandra, the best D diandra, a
> Rubin "Tree", Gloss, Chain swords, Hair grass, mats of Riccia etc, all
> did super are 2w/gal of NO FL lighting in a 24" deep tank with 5" of
> substrate and good parameters.
> The other big issue with lighting, it is the one thing that we cannot
> really get a good measure on so it is indirectly measured or grossly
> estimated at best. So getting everything else correct and in a good
> range that you have chosen will allow you to see how the spectrum and
> the intensity influence plant growth.
>
> We went down this about 5-6 years ago on the APD on high light= red
> plants.
> Neil, myself, Roger Miller, Karen Randall and many others talked about
> it.
> NO3 at low stable levels seems to be the main trick to redden plants,
> not more light was the general conclusion most came to that tested and
> tried things out.
>
> You name the plant, I've grown it at 2w/gal of NO FL lights with a
> reflector.
> There's a few newer stem plants I have not tried, but 99% of the red
> plants I have grown very well in moderate to low light by today's
> standards.
>
> Take any Ludwigia, or Rotalas and see what color they are when they
> break the surface and have far more light.
>
> Karen Randall agrees on this and tells folks that most red plants are
> in fact shade low light understory plants. She and I have been at it a
> few years too.
>
> The chemical in red, the anthocyanin is mainly considered an anti
> herbivory agent in most red plants by Plant Ecologist. The tender tips
> of plants(the softer part with the most nutrients) are often red for
> this reason.
> Some have said the chemical will help protect the plant from high
> light also as a possible secondary usage, namely from UV radiation.
> Most desert plants are green.....
>
> Regards,
> Tom Barr

[[email protected]]

> The Tropica website lists a ton of plants. You'll see many descriptions
> like.... "this specie falls into the 'high light' catergory like other red
> plants". I obviously didn't copy this word for word, but generalizations
> like that are riddled throughout the Tropica website.
>
> The Kasselmann book also gives many such generalizations. E. Osiris for
> example, where she states the red/brown color "...develop under intense
> light".
>
> I'm just curious because your statements blew my entire "red plant"
> theories! I'm not a chemist, so I take what I read/hear to heart. This is
> why I'm fairly confused at the moment.
> Craig Brye
> University of Phoenix Online

I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going head
to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
observations occured.

Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
at deep depths but green at higher depths and why most red plants are
low light plants.

I have not found any plant that does not do well at 2w/gal which is
often the low end iof the lighting spectrum these days.

Thing is.......2w/gal of NO FL light was "high light" 9-10 years ago!
So when much of the books/species write ups were written, that was the
case.

But people seem to think "more light is better". Not true at all.
There's a range of lighting that is best and easiest to deal with.
This is for all plants. There might be one or two that are finicky
that we may run into, but 99.9% of the time, the needs are similar to
other plants.
At least with most of the 300 or so species we keep right now.
If that is not enough to play with, well, you must have a lot of tanks
and do a lot of work on planted tanks.

I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
issue.
If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
excellent color and health, is high light really required?
No.

Claus said most people's tanks had trace deficencies when he came
here, he did not say "not enough light". I'd been adding 5x the
recommended amounts of traces. People felt 0.1ppm of Fe was a good
amount at the time, I had 1.0ppm depending on which test kit used and
time after dosing etc.
People thought excess traces in and of themselves would cause algae.

These days, people add a lot more traces in their CO2 enriched plant
tanks.
Folks are slow to realize that less light is fine, 2-3w/gal is plenty
for any plant you might want. PC/MH's are going to have even more
light so you can go lower on these.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[RedForeman ©®]

|| I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going
|| head to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
|| observations occured.

lucky guy....

|| Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
|| light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
|| at deep depths but green at higher depths and why most red plants are
|| low light plants.

Here's a 2cent peice... in a 10g, no floro-3500k, my red tiger lotus, is
actually red.... 1.5wpg, whereas, im my 29g, 65W 6700kPCF, Co2, the same
plant, looks less red at times, almost purple other times...


|| I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
|| issue.
|| If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
|| excellent color and health, is high light really required?
|| No.

I'm beginning to see the light... or the lack of....

--
| RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
| ==========================
| 2003 TRX450ES
| 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
| '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
| ==========================
| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
| ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>
| for any questions you may have....
| www.gmail.com

[Harry Muscle]

"RedForeman ©®" > wrote in message
...
> || I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going
> || head to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
> || observations occured.
>
> lucky guy....
>
> || Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
> || light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
> || at deep depths but green at higher depths and why m d plants are
> || low light plants.
>
> Here's a 2cent peice... in a 10g, no floro-3500k, my red tiger lotus, is
> actually red.... 1.5wpg, whereas, im my 29g, 65W 6700kPCF, Co2, the same
> plant, looks less red at times, almost purple other times...
>
>
> || I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
> || issue.
> || If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
> || excellent color and health, is high light really required?
> || No.
>
> I'm beginning to see the light... or the lack of....
>
> --
> | RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
> | ==========================
> | 2003 TRX450ES
> | 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
> | '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
> | ==========================
> | ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
> | ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>
> | for any questions you may have....
> | www.gmail.com
>
>

If I remember my biology correctly, don't red plants use a chemical other
than chlorophyll to absorb light, hence the different color. And apparently
this other chemical is less efficient, meaning you need more light to
produce the same amount of food/energy/etc. So if my memory serves me
right, this would explain why people would think that red plants need more
light, which they do if they have to produce the same amount of
food/energy/etc., but maybe they don't need to produce the same amount,
maybe they are fine with less.

Harry

[Giancarlo Podio]

Same experience here Red, my tiger lotuses, sunset hygro, ozelot and
various other red plants are far more colorful in low-medium light
tanks than high light. High light is really for growing certain types
of plants and to grow them fast, but for many plants that don't
require such strong lighting, low-medium light often gives best
results IME.

Giancarlo Podio


"RedForeman ©®" > wrote in message >...
> || I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going
> || head to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
> || observations occured.
>
> lucky guy....
>
> || Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
> || light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
> || at deep depths but green at higher depths and why most red plants are
> || low light plants.
>
> Here's a 2cent peice... in a 10g, no floro-3500k, my red tiger lotus, is
> actually red.... 1.5wpg, whereas, im my 29g, 65W 6700kPCF, Co2, the same
> plant, looks less red at times, almost purple other times...
>
>
> || I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
> || issue.
> || If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
> || excellent color and health, is high light really required?
> || No.
>
> I'm beginning to see the light... or the lack of....
>
> --
> | RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
> | ==========================
> | 2003 TRX450ES
> | 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
> | '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
> | ==========================
> | ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
> | ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>
> | for any questions you may have....
> | www.gmail.com

[[email protected]]

> Like everybody else, I've read this in many many places too. I got a
> reddish/purplish plant and it died in my low-light tank within a couple
> weeks.

At low light, the effect of CO2 are still great, yet many do not use
it. The lower light slows the growth down a considerable amount while
still maintaining health. While people hear that low light tanks do
not need CO2, they still reap the same great benefits from CO2
additions, something I suggested about a year prior to Tropica. Then I
mentioned that the clear hard water springs in Florida had the best
plant growth in natural systems, not soft water, Claus also show the
same thing in the Mato Grosso, which have identical spring types but
different fish.

The effect is maintaining good CO2 and nutrients and maintenance,
while lowering the light. It takes more than just light to drive plant
growth.
This maximizes the light usage by the plants.
This method shows the max and min levels of light that will produce
good plant growth.

Swords have always done extremely well at 1.5-2w/gal, D diandra has
been grown to very high levels at this range also.
Red Cabomba, Glossostigma etc....

My point is that the plants could have died, not done well for reasons
other than low light. Even proper trimming/over shadowing etc can
cause some plants to not grow well besi9de just the light/CO2 and
nutrient issues alone, there are other factors that are hard to
address unless the person mentions it or you can see their set up in
person.

Unless you address the other parameters that influence growth and
consider them and test for them, you do not know.......you are are
guessing and assuming.

That will cause you to believe that correlation = causation.
That is a huge myth factory that serves to confuse, exacerbate and
muddle plant growth issues with planted tanks. Isolate, go down one by
one to improve your plant growth......this will help you to become a
much better grower even if simply adding another lamp on solves your
immediate problem.

The total effect is the sum of the best levels for CO2, NO3,K,GH, fish
load, mainteance routines/water changes etc.

Yes, you can get away with not doing a couple of things, but if you do
them, the tank will be that much more stable and you can always
improve the growth some generally.

If you cannot improve growth or think you have no room left for that,
then you should be able to produce any design you have in mind with
any plant etc.
If you are having issues, then you can improve the method.

Regards,
Tom Barr






Regards,
Tom Barr

[Craig Brye]

Well... whether you're right or you're wrong... I'll buy into it because
you stated your case well. I just wish I would have participated in this
conversation 2 weeks ago before I bought the lights for my 75 gal. tank. :)

--
Craig Brye
University of Phoenix Online

" > wrote in message
om...
> > The Tropica website lists a ton of plants. You'll see many descriptions
> > like.... "this specie falls into the 'high light' catergory like other
red
> > plants". I obviously didn't copy this word for word, but
generalizations
> > like that are riddled throughout the Tropica website.
> >
> > The Kasselmann book also gives many such generalizations. E. Osiris for
> > example, where she states the red/brown color "...develop under intense
> > light".
> >
> > I'm just curious because your statements blew my entire "red plant"
> > theories! I'm not a chemist, so I take what I read/hear to heart. This
is
> > why I'm fairly confused at the moment.
> > Craig Brye
> > University of Phoenix Online
>
> I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going head
> to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
> observations occured.
>
> Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
> light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
> at deep depths but green at higher depths and why most red plants are
> low light plants.
>
> I have not found any plant that does not do well at 2w/gal which is
> often the low end iof the lighting spectrum these days.
>
> Thing is.......2w/gal of NO FL light was "high light" 9-10 years ago!
> So when much of the books/species write ups were written, that was the
> case.
>
> But people seem to think "more light is better". Not true at all.
> There's a range of lighting that is best and easiest to deal with.
> This is for all plants. There might be one or two that are finicky
> that we may run into, but 99.9% of the time, the needs are similar to
> other plants.
> At least with most of the 300 or so species we keep right now.
> If that is not enough to play with, well, you must have a lot of tanks
> and do a lot of work on planted tanks.
>
> I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
> issue.
> If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
> excellent color and health, is high light really required?
> No.
>
> Claus said most people's tanks had trace deficencies when he came
> here, he did not say "not enough light". I'd been adding 5x the
> recommended amounts of traces. People felt 0.1ppm of Fe was a good
> amount at the time, I had 1.0ppm depending on which test kit used and
> time after dosing etc.
> People thought excess traces in and of themselves would cause algae.
>
> These days, people add a lot more traces in their CO2 enriched plant
> tanks.
> Folks are slow to realize that less light is fine, 2-3w/gal is plenty
> for any plant you might want. PC/MH's are going to have even more
> light so you can go lower on these.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Barr

[Nitesbane]

" > wrote in message
om...
> > Like everybody else, I've read this in many many places too. I got a
> > reddish/purplish plant and it died in my low-light tank within a couple
> > weeks.
>
> At low light, the effect of CO2 are still great, yet many do not use
> it.
<snip>

I have CO2 injection in my tank, and all my other plants (anubia, java moss,
crypts, banana plants, moss ball, water sprite, vallisneria, a couple
unidentifieds and even an aponogeton bulb - still new but HUGE) do just fine
in my tank. Other than changing from normal to full spectrum fluorescent
(before I even put plants in) and trimming dead leaves, I don't do a single
thing specifically for my plants...even my CO2 injection was more for my pH
than the plants. Maybe the plant was doomed before I even took it home.
Who knows.

[Nitesbane]

"Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
...
> "RedForeman ©®" > wrote in message
> ...
> > || I know Claus and Kasslemann personally. So I have no issues going
> > || head to head with them on the issue either. I've stated why their
> > || observations occured.
> >
> > lucky guy....
> >
> > || Now it's time for them or others to say why I have good color at low
> > || light with red plants...................and why I can have red color
> > || at deep depths but green at higher depths and why m d plants are
> > || low light plants.
> >
> > Here's a 2cent peice... in a 10g, no floro-3500k, my red tiger lotus, is
> > actually red.... 1.5wpg, whereas, im my 29g, 65W 6700kPCF, Co2, the same
> > plant, looks less red at times, almost purple other times...
> >
> >
> > || I think the average aquarist can figure things out themselves on this
> > || issue.
> > || If I can do it at moderate to low light consisently, and have
> > || excellent color and health, is high light really required?
> > || No.
> >
> > I'm beginning to see the light... or the lack of....
> >
> > --
> > | RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
> > | ==========================
> > | 2003 TRX450ES
> > | 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
> > | '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
> > | ==========================
> > | ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
> > | ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>
> > | for any questions you may have....
> > | www.gmail.com
> >
> >
>
> If I remember my biology correctly, don't red plants use a chemical other
> than chlorophyll to absorb light, hence the different color. And
apparently
> this other chemical is less efficient, meaning you need more light to
> produce the same amount of food/energy/etc. So if my memory serves me
> right, this would explain why people would think that red plants need more
> light, which they do if they have to produce the same amount of
> food/energy/etc., but maybe they don't need to produce the same amount,
> maybe they are fine with less.

My biology wasn't very involved (just regular high school stuff), but I
remember that Carotene (orange-ish) and Xanthophyll (yellow) were said to be
responsible for the red color we see in plants (and in dying leaves when
chlorophyll breaks down, the other pigments can be seen more clearly)...but
it was high school, and *public* high school at that so the entire statement
may be completely inaccurate. I'm sure someone will promptly point out any
errors in my learning. :-)

[The Outcaste]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:35:36 -0500, "Craig Brye"
> bubbled forth the following:

>Well... whether you're right or you're wrong... I'll buy into it because
>you stated your case well. I just wish I would have participated in this
>conversation 2 weeks ago before I bought the lights for my 75 gal. tank. :)
>
>--
>Craig Brye
>University of Phoenix Online

Think of it this way -- you now have an extra set of lights that need
a new 75 gal. tank to go under them;-)

Jerry

[[email protected]]

> If I remember my biology correctly, don't red plants use a chemical other
> than chlorophyll to absorb light, hence the different color. And apparently
> this other chemical is less efficient, meaning you need more light to
> produce the same amount of food/energy/etc. So if my memory serves me
> right, this would explain why people would think that red plants need more
> light, which they do if they have to produce the same amount of
> food/energy/etc., but maybe they don't need to produce the same amount,
> maybe they are fine with less.

> Harry

This is certainly true also as a reason ro part of the story. Some red
plants grow at break neck speeds. Light transfer is mighty efficent
and extremely fast also. Beta carotene is the main pigment. This is
different and serves a different function than anthocyanin, but
neither colored pigment possess Nitrogen wereas Chlorophyll is rich in
it.

The main point about the plant being "fine with less" is also very
true.

I had a list on the APD I posted some years back about the differences
between a shade plant and sun plant which might be applicable here as
well.

http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200207/msg00293.html

Regards,
Tom Barr

[RedForeman ©®]

<snipped a bunch of stuff I've already saved on my computer>
|| Regards,
|| Tom Barr

Dang Tom... could you adopt me? jk....

--
| RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
| ==========================
| 2003 TRX450ES
| 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
| '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
| ==========================
| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
| ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>
| for any questions you may have....
| www.gmail.com

[[email protected]]

> Dang Tom... could you adopt me? jk....
>
> --
> | RedForeman ©®

Sorry, you are too young for a military deferment:-)

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Craig Brye]

I bought a PC strip... Now have over 3w/gal.

Plants are doing good, however.

--
Craig Brye
University of Phoenix Online

"The Outcaste" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:35:36 -0500, "Craig Brye"
> > bubbled forth the following:
>
> >Well... whether you're right or you're wrong... I'll buy into it because
> >you stated your case well. I just wish I would have participated in this
> >conversation 2 weeks ago before I bought the lights for my 75 gal. tank.
:)
> >
> >--
> >Craig Brye
> >University of Phoenix Online
>
> Think of it this way -- you now have an extra set of lights that need
> a new 75 gal. tank to go under them;-)
>
> Jerry