As for the ferts I think I will get dry as I plan on using it in both tanks, the set I am looking at getting is this one
http
/www.aquariump...tarter-kit.htmlwhich, I believe, is very similar to what eagles has got.
I am unable to find any information on the ingredients in Neutro T/+ or the CO2, the site says that T is the trace and + is the macros so would need both in order to achieve a complete fertiliser.
I have been dosing the Neutro T for about 4 months along with the CO2 and it doesn't seem to help my plants at all.
OK, something else has to be understood now that you are going down this road (dry ferts, which I personally do not recommend for reasons I will momentarily give, but it is your decision and I will try to set out the facts as best I can to your questions regardless so you can at least make an informed decision).
Starting with your last sentence...is this the nano tank (which I thought was still being set up) or the larger? If the larger, I've no idea what your lighting is, and this may be the issue here. Neutro T is supposedly trace elements, but again I cannot find a list. But in a low-tech method planted tank [if you don't understand this, ask] it could be all you need.
To the micro/macro issue...maybe. A planted aquarium with live fish will have some macro nutrients in abundance, or at least likely sufficient for those plants. Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen occur naturally. Calcium usually comes via water changes, depending upon the GH of your source water (presume tap water). Magnesium the same. So with these two, we need to know the GH. Then there is potassium, phosphorus, and sulphur. That's it for the macros. Phosphorus in fish foods will be more than sufficient (in low-tech), leaving potassium and sulfur. So, as you can no doubt see, many of these may be there at sufficient levels, which depends upon the plant species (some needing more than others) and lighting intensity. So this leaves the micro nutrients, which are boron, iron, chloride, nickel, copper, manganese, molybdenum, and zinc. All of these will likely be entering via fish foods and water changes, but sometimes not, so generally they are the nutrients that may need to be supplemented.
Dry ferts work best in high-tech systems because there will not be sufficient of any of these, macro or micro, to provide the plants' requirements. You just cannot have enough fish in the tank to provide these nutrients in sufficient quantity when you have fast-growing plants in such numbers needing so much. Adding macro nutrients like nitrogen can be risky; nitrogen for aquatic plants comes in the form of ammonia/ammonium, produced by fish respiration and the breakdown of organics, and again in low-tech systems there is almost always going to be sufficient. If you start adding nitrogen, it often causes algae problems, at the very least. I have a 20g that is lightly planted with culls from the other tanks, and used as my QT for new fish. It can sit for months with no fish, yet the plants continue to grow--not as fast or a luxuriant as in the other tanks certainly, but the point is that I only add a 1/2 tsp of a comprehensive fert once a week at it is sufficient. I have never had algae issues in this tank (or the 10g pictured earlier).
You linked to the EI method in your last post. This is definitely a high-tech method, and one I do not support whole-heartedly. It involves over-dosing nutrients, deliberately beyond what the plants probably require, then doing water changes to get rid of what is not used. On the face of it, this sounds fine, but remember that all this stuff entering the water is entering the fish. And, in a low-tech system with less light and no diffused CO2, this is a real recipe for algae soup. I certainly would not recommend this for someone trying their first planted tank. As my photos earlier showed, good plant growth does not depend upon all this. But you do need to understand the basics, and achieve that balance.
Would you say that the current bulb I have on my tank is too bright? If so when looking at buying CFL's do I base the wattage on what it uses or what it is equivalent to?
Now that I know the tank size, I would say it may be too much or maybe OK. I have two 9w CFL bulbs over my 10g and my 20g, but a cube tank is a bit deeper.
By the way, I missed an issue you mentioned back a couple posts, on the watts/litre. This is useless these days. Back when we only had one type of fluorescent tube lighting, T12 (which is now T8), it was a fairly good guide. But today the tubes are better made, producing more light intensity for less energy, and watts is simply the measurement unit for the amount of energy (electricity) a tube or bulb requires. Watts is not relevant to the light output, exscept when comparing identical tubes/bulbs. For example, the CFL bulb you are using, here the higher the watts the more intensity. But aside from this, no. I have T8 tubes, and over my largest tank, a 5-foot 115gallon, I have two 32 w tubes, for a total of 64 watts. This is way below the "recommended" level of 2w per gallon [you mention an even higher level of 2w per litre], yet my plants are thriving and growing like weeds. However, only certain plant species will manage with this moderate light, some would never last. Back to that balance again.
Byron.
