# Confused about lighting on new planted tank....



## JBHoo05 (Sep 23, 2009)

I bought a 36 gallon bowfront and it's been up and running for about 2 weeks. The aquarium was part of a Aqueon starter kit and came with a hood. From researching on this site, I knew the bulb that came with it was going to be useless for a planted tank. My LFS sold me a Zoo Med Flora Sun bulb: http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=4479

They said it would be good for plants. I had read about watts per gallon and all that, but for a 24" bulb (which is what my hood takes and it only takes one bulb), there wasn't anything in the Zoo Med line that came close to 36 watts which would be 1 watt per gallon. The Flora Sun bulb is only 17 watts. Am I going to get any plant growth at all?? If not, what are my options?? Can I modify my hood to take 2 bulbs or can I find a single bulb somewhere else that has more wattage? (I couldn't find any in the store.) Or do I need to buy a new hood all together that takes 2 bulbs? This is a low tech setup so I don't want to mess with CO2. I dose Flourish Excel daily per the LFS's recommendation.

If it helps, here are the plants I have in there currently:
- 2 java fern
- 1 anubias
- 1 melon sword
- 1 micro sword
- 1 banana plant
- 1 cherry hedge (yes I goofed on this one apparently - researched it on this site after I bought it!! oh well)

Any help is appreciated!


----------



## justin182 (Aug 19, 2009)

I believe general consensus is ~1.5-2wpg for low light, low tech tank.. I have had a 15w fluorescent light hood (10g) before and my red rubin sword and microsword were growing fine but SLOW. Right now, I am waiting to get the Current Satellite 1x40w once it becomes available.

Every ballast is rated to work at a certain Wattage max. You need to check yours to find it out. If the wattage doesn't suit your needs, you probably would need to replace the hood and get a separate lighting fixture.


----------



## topfrog007 (Dec 30, 2007)

Agreed,

You'll need to get a new hood, something that has a little higher wattage.


----------



## JBHoo05 (Sep 23, 2009)

*Thanks for the advice....*

Well, guess I'll have to shell out for a new hood. How about this one, anyone have any experience with it?

http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=3578+3733+11418&pcatid=11418

It looks like it will give me 65W on a single bulb which will be almost 2W per gallon. There is also a lunar light which seems like a cool feature. Anyone think this is too much light if I'm not using a CO2 system??

Thanks again for being willing to help out a new guy!


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Is that a 21 inch high tank? If so, I think the single 65 watt bulb will do fine, and at most you might want to use legs to hold it a few inches above the tank. The fixture doesn't appear to have a great reflector, because it isn't as wide as really great ones are, so that should keep it from giving you too much light for a non-CO2 tank.


----------



## justin182 (Aug 19, 2009)

JBHoo05 said:


> Well, guess I'll have to shell out for a new hood. How about this one, anyone have any experience with it?
> 
> http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=3578+3733+11418&pcatid=11418
> 
> ...




It should be good enough. Good luck on your tank!!


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

JBHoo05 said:


> Well, guess I'll have to shell out for a new hood. How about this one, anyone have any experience with it?
> 
> http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=3578+3733+11418&pcatid=11418
> 
> ...


That Satellite fixture comes with a 50/50 saltwater bulb that you may want to replace. The actinic part is not useful for plants aand it may make your aquarium look ugly.

Current has a 65w sq. pin dual daylight 6700K/10,000Kbulb that is quite good. 
(SunPaq Dual Daylight 6700ºK/10000ºK 65W, CD-16962 $29.99 $23.99): http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=3578+3733+8068+11422&pcatid=11422

There are cheaper alternatives too. Look for 55w/65w square pin 5000K to 10,000K 21"/22" PC's.

Pet Solutions has that same fixture $34.00 cheaper: http://www.petsolutions.com/Default.aspx?ItemID=42901001


----------



## JBHoo05 (Sep 23, 2009)

*One more question....*

To answer the question above, yes my aquarium is 21" deep, so guess I'm good to go.

Thanks for the advice on the bulb. I didn't really know anything about what an actinic bulb was, so I wouldn't have known any better. I'll be sure to also place an order for the bulb that will be better for a freshwater setup. 

Thanks also for finding it $34 cheaper! Wow, that's a big difference.

Last question.....I just have the standard Aqueon top that came in the starter kit with the basic hood I currently have. It looks like the dimensions of this Current hood will fit on the top I already have. This is a much more powerful hood (I see it has a cooling fan), so is there any need to be cautious about what kind of top it sits on? Basically, just making sure there shouldn't be a concern of melting the plastic top or something like that. Probably a dumb question, but I'm new to planted tanks and how much light is required. Thanks again.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Most people remove the stock hood completely. The Satellite fixture has legs that raises it a few inches above the aquarium. See the link below for pictures and information.
http://current-usa.com/satellite.html

Aqueon has a glass cover for your 36 bow. It is called a Versa-Top and the part # is 29603.


----------



## husonfirst (Sep 12, 2009)

justin182 said:


> I am waiting to get the Current Satellite 1x40w once it becomes available.



The Satellite line is being discontinued.


----------



## justin182 (Aug 19, 2009)

husonfirst said:


> The Satellite line is being discontinued.



yeah. i figured that out. so i'm researching for a different one........


----------



## firstman (Sep 26, 2009)

Left C said:


> That Satellite fixture comes with a 50/50 saltwater bulb that you may want to replace. The actinic part is not useful for plants aand it may make your aquarium look ugly.


.

Actually, photosynthesis peaks in the red and blue spectrum. The Actinic bulb in the Current Satellite setup peaks at 420nm. Blue light promotes growth, while the red promotes flowering. However, the blue end of the spectrum may make your tank a little dim and throw the colors of your plants off some. But if you like it, use it.:wink:


----------



## Fishedout (Sep 19, 2009)

Firstman - _*This text has been Moderated.*_
Check out the link I put up in the other post where you reckon Kelvin ratings are total BS. You will learn somethings you clearly don't know.

Sorry to anyone who thinks I am being harsh on Firstman but he has made several posts about lighting & none of them have been even close to correct about anything. Someone needs to tell him.


----------



## firstman (Sep 26, 2009)

Fishedout said:


> Firstman - _*This text has been Moderated.*_
> Check out the link I put up in the other post where you reckon Kelvin ratings are total BS. You will learn somethings you clearly don't know.
> 
> Sorry to anyone who thinks I am being harsh on Firstman but he has made several posts about lighting & none of them have been even close to correct about anything. Someone needs to tell him.


Here you go again. Tell me what? 

First off K ratings aren't exactly accurate. Which is what I was saying. They are a way of expressing what color of the spectrum that a particular bulb is 'supposed' to represent. Secondly, K ratings don't induce algae as you claim, improper nutrient balances do. And not excess nutrients like you posted either. 
Read this:http://www.aquariumalgae.blogspot.com/

And this: http://www.barrreport.com/estimative-index/62-estimative-index-dosing-no-need-test-kits.html

I understand that they put K ratings on bulbs to show you what the color spectrum the bulbs are. But you don't need to use a so called 'plant growth' bulb or a particular K rating. Plants use the same visible light spectrum that we do (wavelengths measuring between 400 and 700 nanometers). This is why I say get a bulb that is pleasing to your eyes as an individual. If an individual wants to use a dual 10,000k/420nm Actinic bulb, go for it. The plants will use it. The misconception is that Actinic is for saltwater use only, not true. As you can see by the Absorption Spectrum file in my other post, 420nm falls well within the range of Visible light and also is right there at the peak of absorption on the blue spectrum. The reason they use it in reef setups is because the blue wavelength is very strong and penetrates deep. But that does not mean that it is limited to reef.

http://www.agriworld.nl/public/file/pdf/20060504-fltcs7.2.pdf

And if I remember correctly, it was you who said that the green wavelenghts were the most effecient in photosynthesis. And that blue wavelengths were the least effecient. You can see the error of this by the Absorption Spectrum file I posted earlier.
Or here:
http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/1120
Or here:
http://www.succulent-plant.com/light.html

So please Fishedout, grow up and stop following me around the forum finding my posts and acting like a child. The only thing I am doing is giving proven information which is widely used by many.


----------



## Fishedout (Sep 19, 2009)

Actually Firstman you didn't just say that Kelvin ratings are inaccurate. What you said is "Kelvin ratings are totally & completely meaningless. In fact bulbs are not even accurately ratedd with the correct kelvin rating. It's actually a joke".
I didn't claim tht kelvin ratings cause algae. I said that the more blue light the tube puts out the more likely you are to have algae problems. Get it right or don't tell other people what I have said. Plants don't only use light from the visible spectrum as you have claimed either. They are very adept at using UV light as well as other parts of the spectrum. Just because you cannot see it does not mean it isn't there pal.
Your theories about light & the way plants use them is fine for plants that are not grown in water or are grown hydroponically, which is where I believe you are getting your information from. A hydroponic book. However light changes as it passes through water & plants from an underwater environment have evolved to use light in a totally different way to terrestrial plants.

I'm not following you around either. I simply believe that when someone is handing out advise that is so bad, others should be made aware of it. I checked out your links & didn't find anything to support your claims. I bet you never even went to my link, let alone looked around at what is regarded as one of the best sources for information on aquarium lighting.
How about you go learn what you are talking about buddy because your the one getting snooty like a little child & you cannot back up your claims. What ever though. If you think you are so good that you can't learn anything, that is your problem but don't try to get others to follow your bad advice. Point them to a couple of links seeing as you don't know any better & then let them learn for themselves.
BYE, BYE. I won't bother with you again until you are prepared to listen to other peoples views as well as present your own. We all have different ideas about the wrong & right things in aquariums but if you are not willing to even bother listening to other peoples opinion, you are not going to learn anything. If you won't listen to the opinion of others & let them share thier own views, not just your own, what are you even doing on a forum of any sort?


----------



## firstman (Sep 26, 2009)

roud:


Fishedout said:


> I didn't claim tht kelvin ratings cause algae. I said that the more blue light the tube puts out the more likely you are to have algae problems. Get it right or don't tell other people what I have said.





Fishedout said:


> Kelvin is important when selecting tubes. The higher the k rating of a tube the more likely you are to get algae problems for a start. I won't go into great detail about it but sufficent to say that you really want to try & get tube/s that are rated between 5-10,000k.


ok. 



Fishedout said:


> Plants don't only use light from the visible spectrum as you have claimed either. They are very adept at using UV light as well as other parts of the spectrum. Just because you cannot see it does not mean it isn't there pal.


"Pal"? Give me a break.

*'Visible light* is the range of wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans can see, a mixture of wavelengths ranging from 380 nanometers _(def)_ to 760 nanometers. It is this light that is used in photosynthesis.' 
Found this here: http://student.ccbcmd.edu/biotutorials/photosyn/photo.html
If they are wrong take it up with them.

'*UV* on the other hand has too much energy, and in a sense can't be controlled by plants. UV light intercepted by plants (and us) can create free radicals, which can break chemical bonds in an organism. This is detrimental to the plant. Plants in fact have pigments to protect them from UV light.'
Here: http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/botf99/photo/l2inature.htm




Fishedout said:


> Your theories about light & the way plants use them is fine for plants that are not grown in water or are grown hydroponically, which is where I believe you are getting your information from. A hydroponic book. However light changes as it passes through water & plants from an underwater environment have evolved to use light in a totally different way to terrestrial plants.


I know that light is refracted. But does this change wavelength? What effect does it have? 



Fishedout said:


> How about you go learn what you are talking about buddy because your the one getting snooty like a little child & you cannot back up your claims. What ever though.


" Buddy"? I gave resources to back up what I said about 'excess' nutrients not inducing algae. The Barr Report and Aquariumalgae.com. I also gave proof that 420nm is in the absorption peak of photosynthesis. And gave links to sites stating that plants use the 'visible' light the same as we do. Even added a new one on this post. If you want proof that K ratings aren't exactly accurate. That when it says 6,700k then it is exactly 6,700k. Well, you got me there. I can't give that. It is not reasonable for each and every bulb to be of exact standards. So it may not be BS. Bad use of terminology. 



Fishedout said:


> If you think you are so good that you can't learn anything, that is your problem but don't try to get others to follow your bad advice. Point them to a couple of links seeing as you don't know any better & then let them learn for themselves.
> BYE, BYE. I won't bother with you again until you are prepared to listen to other peoples views as well as present your own. We all have different ideas about the wrong & right things in aquariums but if you are not willing to even bother listening to other peoples opinion, you are not going to learn anything. If you won't listen to the opinion of others & let them share thier own views, not just your own, what are you even doing on a forum of any sort?


Actually that is where you are wrong? I am not so good that I can't learn anything new. If you can give me solid proof that I am wrong about something, then give it to me. I appreciate any chance to learn something new. It will help me as well as others. 
And as far as not being willing to listen to other peoples opinions and sharing views. It was you who had to have your 'very first' reply to me removed by a moderator for the way you had replied to me and had one other edited. What's that about? I think this is the pot calling the kettle black.

But anyway, you won't have to worry about my 'opinions without fact' any more.:icon_roll So far being on this site has been nothing but a hassle with close-minded Hicks. Who,even when you provide proof, still regurgitate the same out-dated information. I will stick to the sites that truly share opinions, thoughts, and experiences like adults and are interested in 'furthering' our hobby.roud:


----------



## Fishedout (Sep 19, 2009)

Now your being a sook again. No-one wants you to run away, least of all me. All peoples opinions & theories are valuable & help look at things a different way.

I don't know what post you reckon I had removed because as far as I am aware none of my posts have been removed at all. I had one reply to you modified Firstman because it contained a reference to a hydroponically grown plant that is used for it's hallucinagenic properties (hope that's worded ok mod), & as I have since discovered, references to such things are a no no on this site.

If we are all a bunch of hicks or what ever it was you called us that are basically telling you that you are wrong, then maybe it might occur to you that you are being told your wrong by so many, (if anyone else has told you you are wrong), because you are indeed wrong.

I read your links & I'm afraid I remain unconvinced about your theories. There is simply way too much evidence out there that has been proven by the test of time.
Firstman, by all means continue to present your views to us. As I said earlier, this forum is all about sharing ideas & theories. If you throw up something new, there will always be some who question it, such as myself, & some who agree. That does not mean you should stop posting your ideas. It also does not mean that people should stop questioning your ideas. It's bouncing ideas & theories off each other to help all of us learn. You obviously are not completely wrong about everything & some of what you have had to say is spot on. That does not mean people have to take your word, or mine as gospel & just leave it at that. When we post up on forums, we are opening ourselves up to be questioned about our opinions. There is no need to run away because someone has a different opinion to yourself or asks why you think what you do. It just means that people have taken an interest in what you have to say & would like to see how you have come to your conclusions. You are being questioned because we are all on here to learn. You need to open yourself up to the fact that not everyone shares your opinion & questions will be asked.

If you feel you have to run away to where no-one questions your info, then that's your business. It is however not needed & IMO just goes to show that the other sites you speak of don't have many people willing to share thier ideas or question anyone elses ideas & theories. This is by far the most helpful & informative site that I have found that deals with planted tanks specifically & I think that it is a valuable tool in my learning experience. It is a shame that you apparently do not feel the same way.


----------



## Guns286 (Sep 17, 2009)

WOW! Just to prove the wonders of this forum, I learned more about lights just reading this argument, then I have in my research! Thanks guys!


----------



## firstman (Sep 26, 2009)

Fishedout said:


> I don't know what post you reckon I had removed because as far as I am aware none of my posts have been removed at all.


It was the post stating that I apparently had no idea what I was talking about and that you had been a Horticulturalist for twenty years and knew more about light than I will ever know. It was indeed removed. 



Fishedout said:


> If we are all a bunch of hicks or what ever it was you called us that are basically telling you that you are wrong, then maybe it might occur to you that you are being told your wrong by so many, (if anyone else has told you you are wrong), because you are indeed wrong.


Again, I admitted that saying that K rating is a 'joke' was bad verbage and what I meant was that they aren't exactly accurate. I admit that. But as far as everything else,i.e. 'excess' nutrients not promoting algae, 420nm being in the Chlorophyll Absorption Spectrum and 'visible' light range that plants utilize for photosynthesis. How am I wrong? I gave the appropriate links to the info.



Fishedout said:


> I read your links & I'm afraid I remain unconvinced about your theories. There is simply way too much evidence out there that has been proven by the test of time.


What theories? Are you talking about using an Actinic bulb in conjunction with other bulbs over a planted tank? Using a bulb that is aesthetically pleasing to you because the plants will utilize the light because they use the same 'visible' light spectrum for photosynthesis? 
I gave references to all of this info. And if you have evidence that I am wrong about something, put it up so that I can read it and make an informed decision. So far all you are doing is telling me that I am wrong, not telling me about what I am wrong about, and not giving me proven supporting evedence of your claims.



Fishedout said:


> Firstman, by all means continue to present your views to us. As I said earlier, this forum is all about sharing ideas & theories. If you throw up something new, there will always be some who question it, such as myself, & some who agree. That does not mean you should stop posting your ideas. It also does not mean that people should stop questioning your ideas. It's bouncing ideas & theories off each other to help all of us learn.


It's not about questioning my ideas. It is about how someone gets treated when they make a statement. There is a way to have a debate without belittling someone or questioning their intelligence. 



Fishedout said:


> If you feel you have to run away to where no-one questions your info, then that's your business. It is however not needed & IMO just goes to show that the other sites you speak of don't have many people willing to share thier ideas or question anyone elses ideas & theories. This is by far the most helpful & informative site that I have found that deals with planted tanks specifically & I think that it is a valuable tool in my learning experience. It is a shame that you apparently do not feel the same way.


It has nothing to do with people questioning info. It is about how they, even when they disagree with you, don't feel the need to disrespect eachother. You want to disagree, disagree. I am not running away from people questioning or disagreeing with me. I am capable of handling adversity. But if you think for one second that I am going to stay here and be flat out disrespected when I express my views, by you or anybody else for that matter, you're wrong. Things like telling me you know more about it than I will ever know, calling me 'pal' or 'buddy'. No, that's ok. Call it what you want.


----------



## NJAquaBarren (Sep 16, 2009)

JBH, If you're buying new, consider T5 HO. A watt of T5 light is equal to 1.5, or 2 watts of std flourescent. Bulbs supposedly last longer too, though I can't prove that personally yet. Still too new to have reached that point.

If I was buying new, I would probably buy a glass lid and a T5 fixture with a tilting mount so you can tilt it out of the way for maintenance.

Have fun.


----------



## Fishedout (Sep 19, 2009)

How about this then Firstman - You have your opinion, I have mine. We are both entitled to them & we both have the right to post them. Let the others make up thier own mind what they want to take from it.
Is that soft enough for you?


----------



## SlicedUpBeef (Aug 23, 2010)

Alright I'm new to these forums but I've followed the same problem, with having to change the lighting fixtures cause I have the same kit


----------



## SlicedUpBeef (Aug 23, 2010)

Anyone tried these out? 

http://www.petsmart.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2754543#prodTab1

They LOOK as if they fit on the stock hood. This is 2 watts less than the coralife but seems good cause I have a low tech set up


----------

