crypt. parva

[eklikewhoa]

So I started with this plants knowing it would take a lifetime to grow out but it has taken quite a detour.

It has grown flat with the substrate......




Specs.
30g long
2x96w 6700k+10000k
Fluorite substrate
No ferts
No Co2

Anyone else using parva with this kind of growth?

[sunkenmetal]

Interesting...

What is it suppose to look like..

[digitallinh]

The one parva I have seems to do the same thing, I think it's due to too much light, whereas other crypts turn darker. Who knows!

[TexSun]

I agree with digitallinh. I have a C. parva that is in a lower light tank, and its growing little sprigs out. Each one maybe 1/2" tall.

[Totenkampf]

thats some heavy wpg for a 30 (no PAR discussions plz lol)! i dont have parva yet but some other crypts (and even swords) will flatten in a shallow tank with that kind of light. they tend to get even more green to reflect some of the light back when there is too much, the rich reds and browns often come out in the shade with these types, as is my experience

[eklikewhoa]

WPG rule to me is as good as the fish inch per gallon rule or to me... like any rule, meant to be broken and only set for those that stay within them. )

I've had the best luck with overkill... over do it and it all works out.


I have the parva spread across my tank and most of it lays flat and almost looks like it's burying itself while some that are shaded by the floaters are barely poking upwards.

[Totenkampf]

yeah wpg is just a rule of thumb meant to be used for comparing different types of lights and approximating the equipment needed for a new setup. its not a strict rule. i get kinda blah with people correcting me with this new fangled PAR / PUR stuff when none of them have a meter so they can then tell me which fixture is best.

A good example is the LED post from yesterday that had the cool link to many store bought LED fixtures. The TMC GroBeam doesnt have all that impressive of a PAR value. On further research, it is recommended by those that have it because it has a high PUR value and while it doesnt have as many lumens (thus visible light) as some other fixtures the plants apparently do pretty well under it. that being said, could i find any info comparing its PUR rating to my T5HO? not over a lunch I couldnt.

I am going to try the c.parva in an excel doesd eclipse 12 with 22W (maybe 33W?) of T2VHO over it (about 16" from substrate). The T2VHO 6400k lamps are supposed to have sick PUR (AAP recommended 1.5WPG to me). I dont care if it carpets, tho that would be nice, but i do like the scale in a nano setup. I think the smaller leaves will compliment the bonsai tree thing that i want to do.

[digitallinh]

There are par values for almost all hobby-common lights out there if you look hard enough. Distance is variable, but it's not hard to extrapolate what those readings would be. Sure there isn't a industry standard, but who cares -- this is a hobby. Google "light fixture + PAR" and I'm sure someone on planted tank has done the metering, good enough IMHO.

Some lights are better than others and most T5ho light would be good enough to support plant life, but that really isn't the point here. Were trying to mitigate wasting time i.e. trial and error; how can I setup a brand new tank and balance the parameters on paper to give me the least possible chance of failure or algae? You wouldnt be perfect, but youll be a lot closer using googled par data than you would using wpg on anything other than t8s.

I can't really understand why anyone would disregard this information, it's almost akin to old aquarium dogma --where the old establishment holds onto their age old ideals despite the onslaught of new better ideas. As I was navigating through this as a 100% newbie last year, I couldn't help but notice this dynamic at play -- the worst had to be the "OMG fish-in cycling is evil" freaks.

I guess if you learn anything nowadays its that the proliferation of bad information on the Internet is a hurdle to anyone new to the hobby. But as ek said, rules are meant to be broken, embrace it IMO.

[digitallinh]

But let's not have a discussion about PAR

[aquabee]

Is that the same one that was growing tall in Tim's tank and then switched to growing flat alluva sudden?

[Totenkampf]

lulz, okay so why use PAR when PUR is more applicable to aquatic plant growth? I like new info, but a rule of thumb is only good if everyone can associate with it. I am used to the imperial measurment system. Tell me that I should mount my light at 250cm from the substrate and that means nothing to me until I convert it. I have seen Mr. Barr's PAR graph and when i multiply the rating for T5HO times 4 tubes times 0.8 offset then I should have plenty of light in my 75. Well I dont. And of courese LEDs seem to be all over the place in efficiency. I am not sure that the data for PAR is any more useful to someone setting up a new tank.

and despite bees attempt to unjack the thread it remains jacked. funk yo parva, ya hear me? lol

[digitallinh]

Why use PAR instead of PUR? Because one (PAR) is more easily measured, and can feasibly be done by hobbyists.

As far as the PAR graph, I agree if you assume all T5HO fixtures are the same, which they aren't and there is another graph that tries to take that into account.

A huge part of lighting is how well the light is reflected via the reflector. A T5 tube without any reflectors 20 inches away emits about 16 PAR. So look directly into your light; some reflectors reflect 3 images of the tube, others 2, etc. The math is pretty simple, the good reflectors reflect more images of the tube therefore it reflects more light into your tank. You see the variance? 1 T5 tube can emit anywhere from 16 to 50 (16x3) PAR. x watts can give you anywhere from 1 to 3 times the amount of light, while WPG assumes all reflectors are the same, when it has been proven time and time again that they are not.

and PAR readings done by hobbyists are not a "rule of thumb" lol, these are actual measurements (Yes, I do assume the hobbyist measurements are accurate). These aren't "guesses" on how effective your light is, it tells you plainly how effective they are. I don't understand how this cannot be useful when you set up, lol?

I agree that WPG is easier to understand and requires less critical thinking on the part of the hobbyists, but better? There's no way.

[digitallinh]

Here thread discussing PUR vs PAR.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/lighting/78632-par-vs-pur-measurement-light-efficency.html

[eklikewhoa]

Is that the same one that was growing tall in Tim's tank and then switched to growing flat alluva sudden?

Not sure what tim has in his tank, I got a few pots of this from FG a month or so ago.

[eklikewhoa]

You guys killed this thread btw... PAR PUR FU, F it all. use what works best for you, adjust accordingly