# Should several T5HO bulbs be avoided by the hobbYist?



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

I have been thinking about this lately as I have struggled to maintain a tank with T5HO bulbs since day one. I started out with T8's, moved up to Power Compacts and then to 4 x 54watt T5HO at the advice of the company (stupidly). It's a teeter-totter. I've went down from 4 to three, to two, and one bulb. I'll get the co2 high enough for each setting, start pumping out the fertlizers, and if one thing gets out of whack (say I neglect my filter cleanings, overfeed, run out of co2), the plants start looking like they've been in a war, the algae takes over and I am sitting disappointed looking at my tanks.

I went able to grow this in a lower lights:





And when I switched to t5ho 4x54 watts, I had to face this often:





Now mind you, I had some great times with this high light (and it started my great fascination with algae):






But at that lighting, the tank took a lot of work, the growth was out of control, I was trimming weekly, the plants never stayed pretty for long. One wrong move and it was a disaster. From algae to gassing the fish.

So the ultimate question becomes, which is more beneficial in the long run for the hobbiest? High light or lower light? True, there will be some plants that won't be as beautiful as they could, but most of these plants aren't even worth it to begin with. 

I can't believe I of all people am going to say this; but as I am lowering my light from the highest T5HO x 4 (54 watts each bulb) down to T5NO x 2 (28 watts each) to see if my theory is correct. I can say, I am anticipating the results. Could this be the ultimate cure? (Yes, these are going in a t5ho ballast, so this may overdrive them a bit, I honestly don't know for sure). I will update this thread in a few weeks with my results.

Moral of this story? Think twice before you buy those bright shiny bulbs. Research a _lot_ and ask yourself why you feel compelled to buy them in the first place. Is it more growth? Or is it a beautiful tank? I have proven to myself there is an abundant amount of growth from lower lights when combined with co2 and adequate fertilizers. What is great is the fact this simple exercise can be done without owning the fancy PAR meters or other equipment. Some food for thought.


----------



## zachary908 (Feb 12, 2011)

I'm very interested to see your results, Sara! I've seen some amazing low light tanks.

Personally I use 4x T5HO, however that is mostly because I like the abillity to mix and match different types of bulbs. I also does PPS-Pro, so the growth isn't that fast.. it's quite manageable.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Zach, how long have you been running 4 x 54 on your 75 gallon? The tank I am talking about is a 55. Also, what happened to your plants when you ran out of co2 recently? And what happens if you forget or don't dose for a week? What happens and how fast when you forget one little piece of the puzzle? These are the needed details for the newer members, much more important than the success stories of high lit tanks. After all, do we ever fully manage the light or are we chasing our tails? 

You are using PPS-Pro, so in effect, you are limiting your plants of nutrients. I say this because that high of light often requires much more nutrients than what PPS provides. I say this because of past experience. What would happen to your tank if you added more nutrients with that lighting? 

Now take a tank with less lighting and apply the same scenarios. You will often not even see the effects for several days, weeks and months even. I've had complete meltdown of plants in 72 hours from high light tanks running out of co2 on a holiday weekend.

I've been on both spectrums for years now, and where I do strongly believe high light can be done and have argued this point several times. But recently, I am now able to realize that it is really not necessary and is overall a disservice to encourage people to move onto high light before they fully understand the hobby. Not for an etlist point of view, but to prevent the discouraging effects when things rapidly go south.


Really trying to get a discussion going on this subject.


----------



## zachary908 (Feb 12, 2011)

Honestly I'm not sure, Sara. I haven't always ran all 4, but can't remember when I started. When I ran out of Co2 I had some die off on the downoi and a fair amount of green spot algae on the plants. Now that the co2 is back on, and I added amanos the algae is quickly going away. Algae is definitely a big issue in high light tanks, with out co2 it will happen extremely fast. I actually recently raised my lights up to decrease the intensity.

I guess I don't exactly dose per PPS-Pro guidelines. Let me correct myself. I use the PPS-Pro solution, however I over dose it. According to the PPS-Pro guidelines you are to dose 1ml per ten gallons which would put me at a little over 7ml when you count my sump. I actually dose 10 sometimes 15ml of solution, depending on how my plants are doing. In my opinion plants are the best indicator for practically anything

I completely agree with you Sara, and have actually been thinking about going low light. For a while I just wanted growth, but now I don't like the maintenance and would just like to have healthy plants.

I'll help it along. I love a good discussion!


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

T5HO is pretty much the best lighting out there right now. I argue for metal halide as #1 because of the shimmer effect and the small hanging pendant instead of a huge fixture, but T5HO is far less volatile.

T5HO is quite strong, but also very controllable. It's actually made me consider switching from metal halide... but I haven't budged. Whats great is you can use 2x54 for say 3 hours, a 2 hour burst of 4x54, then a 3 hour cooldown of the other 2x54 that weren't used in the beginning of the day. It wakes the plants up, then when that 4x54 comes on they're ready for it. It's like a sunrise/sunset type thing. Plants in the wild dont actually get much of a photoperiod, as the sun's rays mostly refract off the water unless it's around high noon where the sun is at a 90 degree angle to the water, or perpendicular if you prefer.

IF T5HO isn't giving you good results its not the fixture, because nearly every high tech tank out there uses it, with the occasional using halide... us metal halide users are dying out because T5HO is so much easier to control and grows plants just as fast and healthy.

By the looks of it you just don't have enough CO2 for the plants to keep up with the output of the T5's, I'd never let my CO2 drop below 35ppm. I purposely don't put any sort of livestock in the tank until it has really taken off so I can keep my CO2 far past 40ppm.


----------



## zachary908 (Feb 12, 2011)

CmLaracy,

The OP (Sara) Is not saying T5HO is a bad lighting choice. I believe she is trying to get the point across that you can still have an amazing healthy looking planted tank without the use of such high itensity lights, high co2, and high ferts.

If you can balance high light, ferts, co2, etc. Then great. However for a lot of people it is a struggle and often algae becomes an issue. Especially for beginners.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I didn't read the whole thread, but these t5ho lights with only one switch IMO harder to deal with. Not everyone has the luxury of changing the height so they just deal with it and end up with issues. Much easier to get one with dual switches so you can get the light that works best for your situation.


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

zachary908 said:


> CmLaracy,
> 
> The OP (Sara) Is not saying T5HO is a bad lighting choice. I believe she is trying to get the point across that you can still have an amazing healthy looking planted tank without the use of such high itensity lights, high co2, and high ferts.
> 
> If you can balance high light, ferts, co2, etc. Then great. However for a lot of people it is a struggle and often algae becomes an issue. Especially for beginners.


agreed, you can get great growth with low light, her pictures prove it.

there is a learning curve for high light, wasn't sure if she was a beginner or not, didn't want to make any assumptions


----------



## zachary908 (Feb 12, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> I didn't read the whole thread, but these t5ho lights with only one switch IMO harder to deal with. Not everyone has the luxury of changing the height so they just deal with it and end up with issues. Much easier to get one with dual switches so you can get the light that works best for your situation.


Yeah, multiple switches help a ton. I have no luxury... I use 2x4's :hihi:


----------



## BruceF (Aug 5, 2011)

I’ve kept plants in low light non co2 tanks for decades. It isn’t hard at all. With a good substrate you can grow quite a few rooted plants. Often I don’t add anything at all. I have a tank right now that has no substrate. For the last few years I grew some anubias, java fern, java moss, Cryptocoryne(in pots) and anacharis(floating) in that tank along with a colony of Endler’s livebearers. All I did was feed the fish (sometimes I skipped that). I almost always had some green algae on the glass and at one point had a very bad outbreak of string algae. I used spiral bulbs on that tank. I’ve been running an eheim aquaball for the filter. It is a 29G tank. 

Part of my point is that it is easy to keep certain plants alive and things general y under control but there are still problems with algae blooms and such. One does find that a certain level of maintenance is important. The other part is that you don’t need high light and you don’t need co2 to keep a planted aquarium. You may be a bit restricted in the plants you can grow but there ARE plants you can grow.


----------



## Daximus (Oct 19, 2011)

I was thinking about going out an buying a fancy high light setup...but everything is going so well with my tank I'm leaving it alone. Read all these threads fighting algae and whatnot...I've not had any of these issues. I'm sticking with my pair of crappy 17w T8s, lol.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I suspect everyone who gets started in planted tanks wants to try high light. I went through that phase, for sure, and I enjoyed it immensely for about 3-6 months, then, like Sara, I made a few small mistakes, and began a BBA aquarium. From then on my aquarium experience was mostly a war with BBA, which I never did win.

Then I learned that Amano uses low light, even the high wattage lights he sells still give low light when used as he does. So, I made the switch. Now my whites are whiter, my colors are brighter, and my laundry smells better, and.....oops, wrong testimonial. Seriously, I found I could enjoy an aquarium a lot more with low light, so no more high light for me.


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

Hoppy said:


> Now my whites are whiter, my colors are brighter, and my laundry smells better, and.....oops, wrong testimonial. Seriously, I found I could enjoy an aquarium a lot more with low light, so no more high light for me.


haha!

I'm in the same boat. Its just more enjoyable when things are easier to maintain.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Zach, I am wondering where you will end up as far as lighting? Giving you are already thinking in the direction of lowering your light makes me wonder if you are thinking along the same lines as myself. I've been able to grow plants in all situations: high light, high co2, low light, low co2, high nutrients, low nutrients, etc. Algae comes and goes and what kind is present determines what needs adjusted. 

CM, you mentioned these are probably the best bulbs out there, but are they really? I am not talking in terms of growth and output, but in terms of for the newest of members, those just learning the ropes. How beneficial are they, ultimately? We want more, the best and the brightest. Yet, then time and time again, there are threads popping up in which a person with T5HOs has nothing but issues. Look at Daximus here. He says to have great sucess with T8's. I am not at all surprised as I am starting to see a long term trend that the lower lit, lower tech planted tanks are overall more sucessful than high tech, higher lit tanks. 

My goal of this is to test my own perpetual myth of higher light is better. I've clung to this for the duration of the hobby and it hasn't been until recently that I have been ready to challenge this idea.

What is my point? It seems that it would be beneficial to guide the newer members into the lower lighting and let them ease their way up the ladder a rung at a time. The biggest mistake I made early in this hobby was jumping from DIY co2 and low light to high light and pressurized co2. The learning curve was so steep that I nearly quit on several occassions. Not that it isn't great to have these tools, but wouldn't we all be much happier if we took the the time to master low light, medium light and then higher light? Then we could determine what method was best for our needs/desires.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Hoppy said:


> I suspect everyone who gets started in planted tanks wants to try high light. I went through that phase, for sure, and I enjoyed it immensely for about 3-6 months, then, like Sara, I made a few small mistakes, and began a BBA aquarium. From then on my aquarium experience was mostly a war with BBA, which I never did win.
> 
> Then I learned that Amano uses low light, even the high wattage lights he sells still give low light when used as he does. So, I made the switch. Now my whites are whiter, my colors are brighter, and my laundry smells better, and.....oops, wrong testimonial. Seriously, I found I could enjoy an aquarium a lot more with low light, so no more high light for me.





nonconductive said:


> haha!
> 
> I'm in the same boat. Its just more enjoyable when things are easier to maintain.


Ninja'd.  I think you guys completely get where I am coming from. I loved tinkering with the high light, enjoyed it throughly, but life happened and I couldn't keep up. Co2 would run out or a diffuser clogged and then I got algae woes and poor plant growth. Turned down the lighting, the co2 and set back and watched. Plants they told me wouldn't survive in low lights thrive and those that didn't? Oh, well. They are primadonnas anyway. Over all, I think there is definitely a place for high lit tanks, but it seems what ultimately has driven most of us toward this hobby was some of the lowest lit tanks out there. Not for everyone, but for many.


----------



## zachary908 (Feb 12, 2011)

Sara, I actually agree with you completely. To be honest the reason I'm doing high light is because welll... that's all I know, ha! My very first planted tank ( My 75 is only my second tank) Was a 65g with 175w of metal halide and 96w of PC lighting w/ pressurized co2. So in other words, that's all I've ever tried. Ultimately I will probably go lower light just by raising up my fixture. I don't think I will go with less bulbs purely because I like the color multiple types of bulbs give. However, my next tank will be completely low tech. I've actually seen more low techs that I like than high techs.

I love the idea of low tech, and in due time I'm sure I'll head that way. When people talk to me about setting up a planted tank at work I always tell them to go low tech.

Bottom line is lowtech if done properly can look just as good if not better than a high tech tank. It's also less cost, less headache, less time involved etc.


----------



## Eldachleich (Jul 9, 2011)

I'm really interested to see where this thread goes.
After alot of research I decided to go against a high maintenance tank. I decided against fertz and Co2. I wanted a heavily planted tank with zero maintenance. Which, I'm assuming.. Is entirely possible.. I just dont see it often on here.
I have to say... In my humble little tank everything is growing lush and great. Not fast.. But great.. I don't want it to grow fast though.. Once it reaches the point I want it at it will be nice just to sit and enjoy my planted tank. My plant choices are far from complicated. I'm hoping maybe one day though, I'll figure it out. And maybe I'll learn to grow more complicated and exotic things in the same conditions. 
It think that would be cool..
Its always fun to keep track of you experts on here. You learn alot. Even if you don't use what they have to say it still helpful for something. 
I'm Excited to see where this goes.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Yay for missing Y's! (bwahahahaha <- wicked laugh)

And I think My Evil Agenda to covert Sara to a Low Light Planted Tanker MAY just be working... *rubs hands*


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Hoppy said:


> I suspect everyone who gets started in planted tanks wants to try high light. I went through that phase, for sure, and I enjoyed it immensely for about 3-6 months, then, like Sara, I made a few small mistakes, and began a BBA aquarium. From then on my aquarium experience was mostly a war with BBA, which I never did win.
> 
> Then I learned that Amano uses low light, even the high wattage lights he sells still give low light when used as he does. So, I made the switch. Now my whites are whiter, my colors are brighter, and my laundry smells better, and.....oops, wrong testimonial. Seriously, I found I could enjoy an aquarium a lot more with low light, so no more high light for me.


To each their own, but the trick there is to only use high light for a very short time span. Much more manageable and allows a non-limiting approach in terms of plants and growth. 

BTW How did you determine that Amano uses lowlight? He recommends a 150MH fixture for a 60p tank. For stem-based tanks without limit he sets the distance from the surface at 30cm plus the height of the tank would put the light about 66cm from the substrate. That is around 26". How is that low-light?


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

As someone who has made the switch let me say that once you go low you'll never come back up. The maintenance is a lot less and growth is much more manageable. You actually get to keep the same scape for more than 4 days without having to do a 2 hour trim. It's pretty amazing.

Needless to say CO2 worries are pretty much nonexistent in that it's pretty easy to maintain an adequate level and that goes the same for ferts no matter if you like EI, PPS, ADA or whatever. Someone mentioned earlier that Amano uses low light. If you check out the data on ADA's tanks and calculate CO2 based on KH and pH, ( yes, I know, the calculation is not without it's limitations ) you'll find their CO2 level is around 12-14 ppm. A bit lower than the 30 ppm we read so much about. Lower light, lower CO2 demand.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> To each their own, but the trick there is to only use high light for a very short time span. Much more manageable and allows a non-limiting approach in terms of plants and growth.
> 
> BTW How did you determine that Amano uses lowlight? He recommends a 150MH fixture for a 60p tank. For stem-based tanks without limit he sets the distance from the surface at 30cm plus the height of the tank would put the light about 66cm from the substrate. That is around 26". How is that low-light?


I think Amano varies the amount of light used based on plant types, particular goals for a set up, etc. The current Book of ADA, mentions using metal halides for a portion of the lighting period and lower lighting for the remainder of the viewing period.

Of course you already know this, but I thought it was worth mentioning for everyone else.


----------



## Jim Miller (Dec 24, 2002)

I use a maximum of 4x T5NO when using "high light" on my 90g to get things to fill in quickly and normally run only 2x T5NO at all other times. The 4x is always a challenge to keep everything in balance and I need to trim every week. 2x is a much more relaxed pace and everything grows and colors up fine. I have a Catalina fixture which has good reflectors. See my blog for pics of growth.

IMO, the HO craze is driven by the availability of HO lights for salt tanks.

Jim


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Jeff5614 said:


> I think Amano varies the amount of light used based on plant types, particular goals for a set up, etc. The current Book of ADA, mentions using metal halides for a portion of the lighting period and lower lighting for the remainder of the viewing period.
> 
> Of course you already know this, but I thought it was worth mentioning for everyone else.


On the bigger setups yes, since the Grand Solar has a MH and CF bulb combo so yeah, but on the Solar 1 it only has a one MH Bulb so you can only lower or raise the light. In fact in the Book of ADA pg 53, it stats that the 30cm height above the water surface is the standard height, which is the 66cm from base. The other heights are recommended but with limitations.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> On the bigger setups yes, since the Grand Solar has a MH and CF bulb combo so yeah, but on the Solar 1 it only has a one MH Bulb so you can only lower or raise the light. In fact in the Book of ADA pg 53, it stats that the 30cm height above the water surface is the standard height, which is the 66cm from base. The other heights are recommended but with limitations.


Yes, and they also recommend making adjustments in height based on the type of plants you have. I think they suggest a height of 50cm or so for a scape that's predominantly crypts, ferns, etc.

Pretty much a common sense approach based on plant types.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Jeff5614 said:


> Yes, and they also recommend making adjustments in height based on the type of plants you have. I think they suggest a height of 50cm or so for a scape that's predominantly crypts, ferns, etc.
> 
> Pretty much a common sense approach based on plant types.


Yep, that's pretty much it.

I think the only low-tech tanks I've ever had are my really small nanos. No co2, no filter, minimal light. Funny thing is that I "got off stems" in order to decrease trimming time, etc, but am still high-tech and if you call 1-2 hrs a day of intense light high-light than so be it. I find low light a little to static, although easier to take care of. It's a personal thing and both work.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> To each their own, but the trick there is to only use high light for a very short time span. Much more manageable and allows a non-limiting approach in terms of plants and growth.
> 
> BTW How did you determine that Amano uses lowlight? He recommends a 150MH fixture for a 60p tank. For stem-based tanks without limit he sets the distance from the surface at 30cm plus the height of the tank would put the light about 66cm from the substrate. That is around 26". How is that low-light?


A couple of years or so ago, Tom Barr took his PAR meter to the Aquaforest store in San Francisco to measure the light levels in the tanks, which are copies of Amano tanks. He was surprised to find that the tanks are low light tanks - 40-50 micromols of PAR. Even though the lights would seem to give high light they are made to give much less light than typical T5HO and/or MH lights used for reef tanks. And, the lights are all suspended above the tank, not right on top of it.

When Tom reported that data I started questioning my search for high light, and when I negotiated a surrender to the BBA in my tank, I gave up using high light entirely. But, I kept fudging the PAR, running 60 micromols at times, and still had some BBA problems. At 40 and lower the BBA finally became a non-issue.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Here's a low light thread on APC.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...s/81247-tank-defies-some-common-believes.html


----------



## Jim Miller (Dec 24, 2002)

BTW, in addition to running exclusively T5NO I don't mess around with different spectrum lighting. Right now the lights are 6700K Coralife T5NO in all four sockets which means as I raise and lower lighting the color rendition remains the same. 

Simple, easy...

Jim


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

I really like the direction of this thread. However, on my tank, I can't bring out any reds at all, which I really want to do. I just have a huge forest of green plants, even though some of then have the capability of turning red (L. aromatica, R. rotundifolia, L. repens all stay completely green, even at the tips when only 4-6 inches from the light). This is the main drawback of low light to me. You just can't get those nice shades of red and you are stuck with all green. Otherwise, I completely agree with staying in the lower light range. I run 1 T5HO bulb on legs on my 55G, and it works just fine.


----------



## Jim Miller (Dec 24, 2002)

With my 18" front to back spacing I just run my 1&4 position lamps and leave the 2&3 position off. It gives me a good spread of light with the Catalina fixture with its good reflectors.

jim


----------



## BruceF (Aug 5, 2011)

What bulb do you run in the t5ho on the 55?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Hoppy said:


> A couple of years or so ago, Tom Barr took his PAR meter to the Aquaforest store in San Francisco to measure the light levels in the tanks, which are copies of Amano tanks. He was surprised to find that the tanks are low light tanks - 40-50 micromols of PAR. Even though the lights would seem to give high light they are made to give much less light than typical T5HO and/or MH lights used for reef tanks. And, the lights are all suspended above the tank, not right on top of it.
> 
> When Tom reported that data I started questioning my search for high light, and when I negotiated a surrender to the BBA in my tank, I gave up using high light entirely. But, I kept fudging the PAR, running 60 micromols at times, and still had some BBA problems. At 40 and lower the BBA finally became a non-issue.


OK, yes I remember hearing something about this. 

To be honest, Aquaforest is a LFS that sells ADA product. It doesn't mean they are doing exactly what ADA is doing. They might be setting up their tanks for less issues/maintenance based on their personnel. Surely they don't have as many people doing the 10 minute tidy as the ADA Gallery does. I don't think a trip to Aquaforest is a solid indicator what ADA does. I know the lights are suspended. As mentioned it's on page 53 of The Book of ADA. On that page it states the general distance from light to the surface of the water is 30cm add in 36 cm for the height of a 60p and you have around 66cm without accounting for substrate height so it's actually less. YOUR chart says 66cm (26") is around 160 PAR for a 150MH at that height. Are you saying the ADA fixture (which is a 150MH) is only around 1/4 of that? I'm not trying to pick on your graph, but I would like to know where your coming from.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

I posted something similar in another thread but I'd like to add to this thread.

Hoppy got me thinking about a week back when he mentioned that high tech/ low tech terms are kinda ridiculous. There is a point where you have enough light that co2 and fertz are no longer options. People claim they can run 4xt5ho with no co2 or fertz, but I think they are dancing with the devil. I haven't seen too many experienced aquatic plant keepers claim to have done so on a long term basis. It's usually explained by old bulbs, terrible reflectors or some other logical reason.

Tom has pointed out time and time again that about 50umol of par is the point at which he has been able to successfully keep any plant he has tried. So instead of low light, med light, blah, blah, blah, I propose that there is simply sufficient light (50umol at the substrate) to grow any plant. If you have more you have more light than required, and if you have less you have limiting light. Of course you can grow plants down to very low light levels, and even lower if you add co2 to the mix, but if you are aiming to grow whatever you want without waste, 50umol seems to be the sweet spot.

If you feel like trimming all the time, walking a tightrope and wasting energy, fire more light on your tank. If not, talk to your therapist about your high light syndrome, and fight the urge to keep adding more light.

If your goals are to keep only cypts, anubias, ferns, etc. you can get away with less light. 

I'm all for t5ho, because they are pretty efficient overall. I haven't done the math, but I'd hazard a guess that a single t5ho raised up a bit might be cheaper over time than a pc or t8 setup. T8 may be cheaper because bulbs are cheap.

Another thing is people's reluctance to use co2. If you use co2 you can get away with less light. Co2 allows plants to use more of the available light that is provided. A tank without co2 may have lighting that is too dim to grow a certain species. By adding only co2 you may be able to grow the same plant with the same lighting. CO2 is the 'wonder drug' of planted tanks.

Hoppy, Tom, myself and others keep preaching and preaching these same propositions, but we all know how hard it is to bring it into the mainstream thinking. It's also getting complicated with the different types of lighting, especially with LED becoming popular. There are also the issues that have been pointed out with the par reading among types of lighting, and the spectral graph differences between florescent and led. We really need to do some research.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> OK, yes I remember hearing something about this.
> 
> To be honest, Aquaforest is a LFS that sells ADA product. It doesn't mean they are doing exactly what ADA is doing. They might be setting up their tanks for less issues/maintenance based on their personnel. Surely they don't have as many people doing the 10 minute tidy as the ADA Gallery does. I don't think a trip to Aquaforest is a solid indicator what ADA does. I know the lights are suspended. As mentioned it's on page 53 of The Book of ADA. On that page it states the general distance from light to the surface of the water is 30cm add in 36 cm for the height of a 60p and you have around 66cm without accounting for substrate height so it's actually less. YOUR chart says 66cm (26") is around 160 PAR for a 150MH at that height. Are you saying the ADA fixture (which is a 150MH) is only around 1/4 of that? I'm not trying to pick on your graph, but I would like to know where your coming from.


I rely a lot on Tom's experience, and observing his tanks. Plus, I have seen a lot of PAR data from many different lights, and measured several myself, mostly my own tanks as I tried different lights. That, along with some engineering analysis of light and how to "normalize" the data from different lights, so as to make some sense of the data, is where I am coming from. 

I agree that one can succeed with a lot more light than 40-50 mms of PAR, if one has the experience and discipline to maintain the tank well. Also, it is just a lot of fun to play with high light tanks, until you run into too many algae problems, so anyone who wants to do that should do it. But, if it finally gets too frustrating, instead of dropping out of the hobby, first just reduce the light and try it that way.

My goal is to help people pick a lighting scheme that comes reasonably close to what they want to use. In addition I continue to learn more about this as time goes on and probably always will. I started this only because I knew for sure that "watts per gallon" couldn't possibly be a meaningful measurement of light, and I knew there had to be a method that would be a meaningful way to select lights for an aquarium. When I started I had no idea at all what the result would be.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Hoppy said:


> I rely a lot on Tom's experience, and observing his tanks. Plus, I have seen a lot of PAR data from many different lights, and measured several myself, mostly my own tanks as I tried different lights. That, along with some engineering analysis of light and how to "normalize" the data from different lights, so as to make some sense of the data, is where I am coming from.
> 
> I agree that one can succeed with a lot more light than 40-50 mms of PAR, if one has the experience and discipline to maintain the tank well. Also, it is just a lot of fun to play with high light tanks, until you run into too many algae problems, so anyone who wants to do that should do it. But, if it finally gets too frustrating, instead of dropping out of the hobby, first just reduce the light and try it that way.
> 
> My goal is to help people pick a lighting scheme that comes reasonably close to what they want to use. In addition I continue to learn more about this as time goes on and probably always will. I started this only because I knew for sure that "watts per gallon" couldn't possibly be a meaningful measurement of light, and I knew there had to be a method that would be a meaningful way to select lights for an aquarium. When I started I had no idea at all what the result would be.


Well you didn't answer the question, but that's OK.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider a tank that runs 2 hrs of 'highlight' or even 1 hr and the rest 'low/med light'


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Eldachleich, please feel free to comment on any thread I post. This isn't just for the experts, especially since I am not an expert by any means. This is a discussion for the members regardless of your skill level. I actually encourage newer members to participate. I actually enjoyed reading your insight on the subject and would encourage more to come out of lurking. :wink:



jcgd said:


> People claim they can run 4xt5ho with no co2 or fertz, but I think they are dancing with the devil. I haven't seen too many experienced aquatic plant keepers claim to have done so on a long term basis. It's usually explained by old bulbs, terrible reflectors or some other logical reason.


Great point! This is what I have found for the majority of the planted tankers out there. It isn't impossible by any means, but who can keep up schedules like this long term? Let's be fair and even add back fertilizers (any method) and co2, and show me long term examples. It takes A LOT of work to maintain. I was in the tank every day at 4 x 54w (55 gallon) trimming, maintaining. It got old fast. Human nature alone makes these tanks even more difficult. I became lazy, didn't watch the tank closely, and something ultimately would run out, get clogged, or stop working. I view these high light tanks as a newborn. You don't rest, you worry, you baby it, and yet sometimes it cries for no reason. It was great for a while, but eventually I ended up resenting the work put into the tank. Not all was lost as it did lead me to my love of all things algae!

Jim, excellent example of a planted tank without the high lights! Thanks for sharing your experience.

Laura - one only has to look at your tanks to covet lower lighting. You are evil for trying to convert me. :icon_twis:icon_wink

Everyone, this is a great discussion! I am going to let you guys run with it and hope the conversation continues as such. Thanks to all participating as I am learning lots and I am sure others are as well.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> Well you didn't answer the question, but that's OK.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what do you consider a tank that runs 2 hrs of 'highlight' or even 1 hr and the rest 'low/med light'


I have never tried a split lighting period, and I haven't given it enough thought to have any opinions about it. The most I can say is that I have yet to read where such a lighting scheme has been found to be harmful. I have no desire to try it, but not because I think it is a bad thing to do, I just like a constant light level.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Hoppy said:


> I have never tried a split lighting period, and I haven't given it enough thought to have any opinions about it. The most I can say is that I have yet to read where such a lighting scheme has been found to be harmful. I have no desire to try it, but not because I think it is a bad thing to do, I just like a constant light level.


Lots of benefits to the split period, some practical and some directly related to growth.

Many of the popular T5HO fixtures today don't have dual switches, especially for the common 2x24" size. So people end up running the full wattage for the whole lighting period and many times results in algae issues. Raising the fixture is fine, but not always doable for a lot of people depending on the physical space of the setup. I'm pretty confident the majority of newbies place the light on the tank or on the light's stand and hanging a fixture is not viable. Running the lights on a split schedule with only one bulb going for the majority of time can reduce algae issues on one end and provide some additional growth on the other end depending on setup. 

I'm not going to argue the PAR numbers that are needed for growth since I haven't taken my own readings, but it doesn't mean that running for sake of argument 'high light' for an hour or two doesn't result in additional growth that can uptake more organics and actually keep the tank cleaner of algae vs less robust growth from providing let's say the bare minimum amount of PAR that's deemed acceptable.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

houseofcards said:


> Lots of benefits to the split period, some practical and some directly related to growth.
> 
> Many of the popular T5HO fixtures today don't have dual switches, especially for the common 2x24" size. So people end up running the full wattage for the whole lighting period and many times results in algae issues. Raising the fixture is fine, but not always doable for a lot of people depending on the physical space of the setup. I'm pretty confident the majority of newbies place the light on the tank or on the light's stand and hanging a fixture is not viable. Running the lights on a split schedule with only one bulb going for the majority of time can reduce algae issues on one end and provide some additional growth on the other end depending on setup.
> 
> I'm not going to argue the PAR numbers that are needed for growth since I haven't taken my own readings, but it doesn't mean that running for sake of argument 'high light' for an hour or two doesn't result in additional growth that can uptake more organics and actually keep the tank cleaner of algae vs less robust growth from providing let's say the bare minimum amount of PAR that's deemed acceptable.


I think that if your tank is properly balanced with non limiting fertz and co2, and then you up the light for a period, you could now swap that relationship and the lighting would no longer be the limiting factor, theoretically helping algae flourish during this period. 

If you have enough light to grow whatever you are aiming to grow, why not just keep it simple? I'm not saying your wrong, or shouldn't do the burst; just adding to the discussion.


----------



## zenche (Feb 9, 2011)

so, please indulge my naivety, but how does one run 'low' light but still have it 'look' like higher light?

my issue with low light is that...colors just don't look as vibrant? would love to avoid having to go high light in my new 75G. trying to avoid CO2 on it...and maybe just use the single t8 48" that came with the setup.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

How bright the tank looks depends a lot on what you are used to seeing. If you see a lot of reef tanks, you will find planted tanks, even with high light, look relatively dim. But, in your own house, if that is the only tank you have, you will soon find a low light tank looks very well lit. There is a bottom limit though, and a single T8 bulb over a 75 gallon tank is below that low limit. Also, I think 6500K light looks a lot brighter than 4000K light, so it depends a little on what bulbs are used.


----------



## jcgd (Feb 18, 2004)

Hoppy said:


> How bright the tank looks depends a lot on what you are used to seeing. If you see a lot of reef tanks, you will find planted tanks, even with high light, look relatively dim. But, in your own house, if that is the only tank you have, you will soon find a low light tank looks very well lit. There is a bottom limit though, and a single T8 bulb over a 75 gallon tank is below that low limit. Also, I think 6500K light looks a lot brighter than 4000K light, so it depends a little on what bulbs are used.


This, and I believe humans see green light the most. If your bulb is higher in green spectrum it should look brighter to you.


----------



## zenche (Feb 9, 2011)

thanks. i've got 4x T5HO over my 56G with 2x 6500K, a rose and a blue...it's a good mix that provides very nice, vibrant colors in my tank, so I'm guessing I'm going to at least need another T8 over the 75G.

would 2xT8s be above the low limit hoppy?


----------



## forddna (Sep 12, 2007)

Great thread, as I am about to ditch my T5HOs. I can't believe I swapped from AH Supply PCs for this...mess...I quit. 

You better be 1000% dedicated to your tank, with no other major hobbies or job taking up your time if you are going to attempt T5s. I had two 24w T5HOs plus a 70w HQI to fill in a back corner. I cut the HQI out of the equation and now with just 48w T5HO over a 54g tank, it's still a damn mess. I give up!

Back to PCs or CFLs.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

zenche said:


> thanks. i've got 4x T5HO over my 56G with 2x 6500K, a rose and a blue...it's a good mix that provides very nice, vibrant colors in my tank, so I'm guessing I'm going to at least need another T8 over the 75G.
> 
> would 2xT8s be above the low limit hoppy?


Two T8 bulbs, with no reflector other than the white background is likely to be very marginal, but should grow mosses, anubias, etc. The trouble is, with such a deep (front to back) tank you really need the light spread out over the top of the tank, and that would mean perhaps 4 T8 bulbs or two 2 bulb shop lights, for example. These, http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc...splay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 would work very well, and have more effective reflectors than others.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

forddna said:


> Great thread, as I am about to ditch my T5HOs. I can't believe I swapped from AH Supply PCs for this...mess...I quit.
> 
> You better be 1000% dedicated to your tank, with no other major hobbies or job taking up your time if you are going to attempt T5s. I had two 24w T5HOs plus a 70w HQI to fill in a back corner. I cut the HQI out of the equation and now with just 48w T5HO over a 54g tank, it's still a damn mess. I give up!
> 
> Back to PCs or CFLs.


Feeling the same way here as I two upgraded thinking this would make all things better. I literally quit working on my tanks for over 5 weeks at the end of August and let them just do as they may. My low tech 10, with no fertilizers, no co2, no attention but top offs thrived, plants grew. My PC lit tank without adding fertilizers, co2 and not even topping off took 3 weeks of neglect to show plants even hurting. However, my T5HO tank was destroyed within a few days. Only the strongest of plants survived barely.

For someone that doesn't want to be tied down to her tanks, I'm finding other alternatives. There has to be a happy medium, as I was enjoying the hobby for quite a long while.


----------



## darkoon (Nov 11, 2010)

Hoppy said:


> Two T8 bulbs, with no reflector other than the white background is likely to be very marginal, but should grow mosses, anubias, etc. The trouble is, with such a deep (front to back) tank you really need the light spread out over the top of the tank, and that would mean perhaps 4 T8 bulbs or two 2 bulb shop lights, for example. These, http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc...splay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 would work very well, and have more effective reflectors than others.



same light that I am using, http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/plants/152874-tank-defies-some-common-believes.html
and you get 2x 32 w 6500k T8 bubls for $7.49 at home depot, for less than $50 you can get a nice light fixture.


----------



## zenche (Feb 9, 2011)

thanks for that. i'll probably swing by the HD to look at them in person this weekend.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Darkoon, your tank is seriously a dream come true. I noticed you said you create your own all in one fertilizer. Do you care to share the details? Either way, I am inspired by your tank. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Jim Miller (Dec 24, 2002)

In a couple of years as LEDs become more mainstream we won't need all this fiddling. LEDs are very easy to dim without changing their spectrum so you'll just be able to dial in the PAR you want.

Jim


----------



## darkoon (Nov 11, 2010)

sewingalot said:


> Darkoon, your tank is seriously a dream come true. I noticed you said you create your own all in one fertilizer. Do you care to share the details? Either way, I am inspired by your tank. Thanks for sharing.


I actually got the formula from a friend, i add the followings into 1000ml of tap water premixed with 1000mg of vitamin C, and dose 20ml 2-3 times a week. and i do add some small amount of Ca and Mg as well as Baking soda after every water change since we have very soft water here in NYC. 

KNO3 34.29g
KH2PO4 1.57g
CSM+B 3.57g
K2SO4 0.14g
MgSO4.7H2O 12.14g
Fe Gluconate 3.57g
Iron EDTA Fe 3.57g


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Good point Jim. LEDs will make this coversation moot. I wonder though if it'll be affordable for most hobbyists?

Thanks for the information, darkoon! I am going to try it out for my 55, especially since the plan is to use as little light as possible.


----------



## darkoon (Nov 11, 2010)

sewingalot said:


> Good point Jim. LEDs will make this coversation moot. I wonder though if it'll be affordable for most hobbyists?
> 
> Thanks for the information, darkoon! I am going to try it out for my 55, especially since the plan is to use as little light as possible.


i personally think the light is more important than the ferts. i could never get L aromatica to turn red until I changed from 2x54w T5 to 2x32w T8. and personally i like to keep my water a bit lean, so that I don't have to "reset" every week.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

How long do you keep your lights on? One thing that I am surprised about is the fact I'm using less light and my red plants are doing better. They aren't as leggy as they were and are growing more compact. Used to dose lean in the beginning and had great success. Really it wasn't until I tried putting in more co2, more lights, more fertilizers that I started to resent my tank.


----------



## darkoon (Nov 11, 2010)

sewingalot said:


> How long do you keep your lights on? One thing that I am surprised about is the fact I'm using less light and my red plants are doing better. They aren't as leggy as they were and are growing more compact. Used to dose lean in the beginning and had great success. Really it wasn't until I tried putting in more co2, more lights, more fertilizers that I started to resent my tank.


my lights are on for 9 hours.


----------



## Doc7 (Apr 7, 2011)

I am running 4 x 21 Watt T5NO , between 2 dual-bulb Coralife 36" fixtures on my 40 Breeder.


I am having an interesting dynamic in my tank, which runs pressurized CO2 somewhere under but approaching 30 PPM and full EI dosing; my red plants are green except the underside of leaves which have a hint of red, and my stems are EXTREMELY leggy (my Egeria Densa / anacharis / elodea all of which are names for the same plant, look almost like Rotala with nodes .75" apart!!!) , but I have a growth rate of nearly an inch a day...

Unsure why this is happening - fast growth that requires me to trim (not "down to the rocks" but a few inches) weekly but it's not dense bushy growth.

Either way - between those lights which I have suspended 1" off the top of the tank and an 8" distance from the front most bulb to the rear most bulb, and 9 amano shrimps, algae problems are nearly non existent. For the first 4 weeks, while I also had dying Cabomba (turning to mush), and the lights were directly on tank rim, I had lots of Beard Algae and a TON of string algae (places where it was ~6" long); since raising the lights and adding amanos, my driftwood looks like it was the day I bought it dry off the store shelf!

I may, or may not, spend some extra money I have on a Catalina fixture with 4 evenly spaced T5NO bulbs and their better reflectors, but I clearly am above the low-light threshold for growing plants. Now it's a matter of finding out how to get some color in the tank and if I need different plants or better lighting. I am almost afraid to mess with what's now a good thing - I wish I had a PAR meter so I could know for sure.

Hoppy has been great with his suggestions to use and stick with this light. DaveH (i think was the username) had a thread a few months back on PAR readings from these fixtures and it was something less than 20 mm 16" away. That's part of the reason I want to see if I can get my hands on a PAR meter and see what I actually have in my tank.


This is still mostly "start-out stem plants" and I will be making a bigger foreground lawn likely with Lillaeopsis very shortly - the big green leaves in the middle/back are Red Ludwigia that was VERY red in the LFS and now is a bright green. And that's elodea in the front left. Doesn't look like it does it? : ) So leggy lol.


----------



## tbarabash (May 18, 2011)

Oh man, reading this thread kinda sucks to see all you guys hating on your t5ho's haha. I just set up a new high tech 36g bowfront with 4x24"x24W bulb t5ho 2x6000k 1x6700k 1xroseate (the 6000s and roseates came w/ fixture) with all 4 bulbs running 9h/day to try get my HC carpet growing well. 20" or so from lights to HC will this give me enough light to put me in high light and grow a carpet? I lost about 1/3 of it from melting when I moved it from my previous tank I ripped down to this one  But might just pick up some more tonight and plant that too so I don't have to wait cause I'm impatient.. thus the high amount of light haha. EI dosing and yellow Co2'd drop checker with a close eye on the tnak and no signs of algae yet.. we'll see how it goes 

I'm getting decent growth on my ludwigia, about 1/2-2/3" a day I'd say now that all the lights and co2 and ferts are running correctly. And my crinium has grown about 3" in the 4 days or so I've had it in the tank :icon_eek:


----------



## forddna (Sep 12, 2007)

Really being honest with yourself, your lifestyle, your dedication to this particular hobby does not equal hate.


----------



## zenche (Feb 9, 2011)

i don't hate my T5's at all, just don't see a need for it all the time.

here's my 56G tallboi with 4xT5's. It's on for 7.5 hrs, 2x6500, 1x rose, 1x blue.

edited to add, no CO2 for the last 2 months, if not longer. 










I could probably leave it for a week and it'd be fine.


----------



## Doc7 (Apr 7, 2011)

HO or NO?



zenche said:


> i don't hate my T5's at all, just don't see a need for it all the time.
> 
> here's my 56G tallboi with 4xT5's. It's on for 7.5 hrs, 2x6500, 1x rose, 1x blue.
> 
> ...





Sent from my BlackBerry 9650 using Tapatalk


----------



## zenche (Feb 9, 2011)

HO - oops, should have made that clear.


----------



## londonloco (Aug 25, 2005)

I like my T5HO fixtures, but I do check with Hoppy's chart to make sure I don't have what is considered high light before setting up a tank (all HO's are suspended from the ceiling but the 26g). I had catalinaaquarium.com put each bulb on a separate switch, and run one light for 4 hours at a time on my 26g bow and 125g tanks, pfs, root tabs and daily excel dosing. Cleanest tanks in the house. I do have 2x54W T5HO's on a 75 gallon with pressurized co2, PPS Pro dosing, and just recently root tabs, that tank has recently had a small algae problem, but nothing I'm too concerned over yet. I also have two 20g longs set up with T5NO's, have more problem with algae on those tanks than the HO tanks. Thinking I might have to change the bulbs as they have been set up for years now. Until LED prices lower, I'm staying w/HO's on my larger tanks.


----------



## Sharkfood (May 2, 2010)

I think the whole problem with high light disease stems from the inferior flourescents available before the availability of T5HO lighting. T12 bulbs have such a pitiful lumen output that you basically had to cover every square inch of the water surface with them unless you had a tank that was only 12" deep. T8's were marginally better, but still couldn't light up the depths since the inverse square law eats up intensity so quickly. Traditionally all of these bulbs were placed in fixtures with pitiful reflectors as well.

Then there's the reef community who needs much higher lighting for their application, and brings some of the lighting misconceptions with them when they move into aquatic plants.

People growing hydroponic plants or terraponic vegetables use much more light also since, if they are growing anything other than lettuce, are growing outdoor crops that typically perform best under full sun. In a terrestial setting, you don't worry much about algae, so unless you burn the plants or light them to the point of chlorosis, more light is usually better.

Unfortunately bad advice is often coming from LFS or chain store employees as well, who may be well meaning, but simply don't have adequate knowledge or experience to give reliable advice on such a specialized topic.

The simple fact of the matter is that there just aren't a tremendous number of experienced aquatic plant gardeners out there, so lighting advice is usually being given by those who grow plants under other conditions where they are more likely to have problems with lighting being too low.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Couldn't have said it better, Amanda! We don't hate the T5HO bulbs, it's the idea of not realizing how powerful they really are. A lot of the time, it's too much light for our needs. We buy them to bring out the reds more (that's why I did) or better growth. I think we should learn the basics before buying one of the brightest bulbs in the hobby. We should ask ourselves how much work we want to dedicate to our tanks. At one time I loved to tinker in the tanks everyday trimming and whatnot. Now, I like to sit back and watch them run themselves.

Update: Not a full week in and I must say I am very pleased with the difference! I went from dosing way too much to _only dosing a bit of K on water changes and relying once again on the substrate_. (I finally added in the fertilizers to the substrate like I should have in the beginning.) Growth is great and not only are the plants looking better, but they are _not_ loosing color. If anything, they are developing more color, especially the didilpis diandra.

It must be emphasized that I am using to T5NO in a T5HO ballast, so I am sure they are being overdriven some. However, this is going from 4 T5HO bulbs, so I am at least running half the light I was using.


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

sewingalot said:


> It must be emphasized that I am using to T5NO in a T5HO ballast, so I am sure they are being overdriven some. However, this is going from 4 T5HO bulbs, so I am at least running half the light I was using.


You were using 4x54W over your 55 before? =O


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

At one time, I was. I did recently back off to three bulbs. And now just the two. You can actually see the beginning of my downfall on post #111 in my journal when I purchased the lights. Between that and trying to use methods of fertilization I didn't understand at the time just created ebbs of great growth and LOOK OUT FOR THAT ALGAE! growth. It took me a long time to realize not every method works for everyone, and that you should start from the ground up. I literally tore my tank down and rebuilt it for a good foundation. In my opinion, the substrate is the most important tool you have have, you need dirt, root tabs, or some sort of fertilizer in your tank's bed. After that, it's up to you on whether or not you want to add to the water column. It's really all about what *you *want out of the hobby. Once you understand that, it's easy to find your way. We all learn at our own pace and it's important to remember that when starting out. Best thing that happened to me was to finding out most of the hobbyist fight with algae at one point in their lives and a little algae here and there isn't an indication of failure. Not all tanks will be 100% free of algae, and that doesn't make your tank inferior. It's all a learning process. I say have fun along the way and celebrate your bad and good times. Tanks are much like life, they don't always give the results you expect.

Don't be afraid to start over or try new things.


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

This is a really great thread, and I draw inspiration from the 90 gallon low-light tank with brilliant reds, but I'm testing a different theory here:

Theory: Algae problems are caused not just by an over-abundance of light, but by a combination of light and fertilizer in the water column.

I began to think critically about this while studying both the Walstad method as well as the ADA method and seeing the similarities. While most would consider Walstad tanks the polar opposite of Amano tanks, there are quite a number of similarities:


Both methods have a nutrient rich substrate (AquaSoil or potting soil).

Both methods believe in keeping excess nutrients out of the water column. Amano doses fertilizers very lightly and they are almost immediately absorbed by the plants. Walstad uses nutrient soaking plants such as frogbit to scrub nutrients from the water column, while fertilizing through fish food and waste in the substrate.

Both methods focus on establishing a healthy bacterial colony to aid in the natural processes that fertilize healthy plants.

The only real differences between Walstad's and Amano's methods are the amount of light and whether the carbon source is from the soil in substrate or Co2 in the water column.

To test my theory I've started a 17 gallon tank (ADA 60P) with AquaSoil as the substrate, high light, and Co2. My light is probably too high, 24"x2 T5HO - 48 watts total for 8 hours daily, about 16" from the substrate. My plants are DHG (belem) and rotalas (colorata and green sp. "narrow leaf").

I plan on dosing almost no fertilizers (none so far) and I have been using heavy amounts of frogbit as a nutrient soak, especially to remove ammonia from the water column while cycling the AquaSoil.

So far I am in week 3 of my experiment and I have yet to have any algae problems (knock on wood), while I am still seeing impressive growth in the rotalas and brilliant pink leaves in the r. colorata. They are receiving 100% of their nutrients from the substrate only, as no ferts have been dosed. Obviously 3 weeks is not enough time to test this theory, as it will take some time for this tank to become established.

My theory is that people put too much stock in EI/PPS dosing, and keeping nutrients in the water column combined with too much light is a recipe for algae every single time. In nature, nutrients are not normally suspended in the water column. When they are, we experience algae blooms. For example, every year the rainwater washes heavy crop fertilizers into the Mississippi river, which creates huge algae blooms in the gulf of Mexico. Plants are used to taking in nutrients from their roots, and dosing in the water column is playing with fire. Add high light to the mix and you are asking for algae.

I hope this hasn't been too long to read. I appreciate any feedback. I will link to my tank journal as soon as I have a chance to update it with new pics (last pics were over a week and a half ago).


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Storm, 

Your experiment sounds very promising! I especially agree with your last part and many of us have thought the same thing. There are quite a few of us out there that do agree with much of what you are saying. I do encourage you to continue the experiment and to give us updates regularly. These types of experiments are what will ultimately drive this hobby further along than it has been in years. Ultimately, I often wonder if we will finally draw the same conclusions that for a stable tank, substrate is the key. 

Many have often found in these tanks if you stop water column dosing, the plants suffer rather quickly. Yet in nature, there isn't a person dumping in chemicals and there are numerous beautiful aquatics throughout the world. It's usually when man interferes (such as farm run-offs) that algae becomes unbearable in nature. Algae is a normal and important cycle when it does occur if you pay attention. There are times when it becomes important for the survival of the whole eco-system of a stream, lake, pond.

At any way, it's great to see new experiments popping up and many of us will be following yours closely. Regardless of the outcome, I encourage you to post your results. Always remember unexpected results are often as valuable if not more valuable in science.


----------



## forddna (Sep 12, 2007)

I wasn't dosing ferts for many months and had the black spotty algae pictured by the OP as well as the bright green hard to remove kind on the glass. I'm using several year old Eco Complete.

I added ferts thinking that was my reason for losing plants.

Then I added DIY co2. (2 liter bottle method)

I still can't keep crap alive or doing well because I can't keep up with that stuff regularly.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

It is a fact that plants can and do absorb nutrients from both the foliage and from the roots. Aquatic plants can do this far easier than terrestrial plants since the foliage is in the water. You can also feed terrestrial plants by spraying nutrients on the foliage. (This is true for nitrogen, and possibly for some of the other nutrients, but possibly not for all of them.) It is also true that nutrients in the substrate leach out into the water, so a nutrient filled substrate will necessarily mean nutrients in the water - again, it may not be the case for all of the nutrients.

It is also well known that algae require extremely tiny amounts of nutrients to grow well, so tiny that it isn't possible to starve algae. In any tank the algae have an abundance of nutrients.

Any experiments need to take this stuff into consideration in evaluating the results.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

You can definitely get in way over your head with T5HO, exceeding the limits of your nutrients/CO2, skills, or even photosynthesis.

And it's hard to know exactly how much usable light a fixture will really give you. Hoppy's charts are one of the best things ever to happen to this hobby. Some factors can't be accounted for, but at least it provides a reasonable estimate; short of getting an expensive PAR meter, and even that won't help you before the fixture is delivered to your doorstep. Sometimes as little as a 10% change can make the difference whether a certain algae grows, or a plant doesn't grow satisfactorily.

I didn't ever want to find I had too much (or too little) light, nor did I want raise a fixture and use the extra electricity to light the room rather than the tank, so my first foray into T5HO was to build a dimmable fixture. I can dial in any lighting I want. I'll never need another fixture or upgrade, regardless of how my needs might change. I'm quite surprised that many people are using T5HO, and DIY'ers are building both T5HO and LED fixtures, but to my knowledge no one else has ever built a dimmable T5HO; despite it being only a little more difficult than standard T5HO, and about the same price if you know where to look for ballasts. I considered doing a write-up, but after many mentions of it to gauge interest, no one has even asked for further details.

I run that tank between medium and high light, at 50-85% of max light output. More often than not, I run at 85%. I simply like the appearance of that tank under high light, and am willing to put in the extra effort in maintaining proper CO2/nutrients to gain the extra enjoyment.

But it's absolutely true that maintenance and skill requirements go down, as light goes down. I have some low light tanks too. Although the plants don't grow the same as in my high-light tanks, with differences beyond just growth rate, they still look very nice. Maintenance is super easy.

However, I do think there's some misleading claims being tossed around by some supporters of low light tanks.

Some show off amazing tanks, with growth patterns that you normally see only above low light. They post their lighting specs, and say look what you can do with low light. What they neglect to mention is that their tanks also receive sunlight from a window part of the day, which is encouraged for Walsted-type tanks. Sorry to burst the bubble, but even if your electrical lights are low, when sunlight is involved it's not truly a low light tank as far as plants are concerned!

Another notable person who regularly says high light isn't needed, further elaborated in one post, saying that he recommends lower light because he saw no better growth at 400 PAR than 200. Most people consider 120 PAR to be both the upper limit of high light and photosynthesis! This person must have a very odd definition of low light.

While you see much debate over high light vs. low light, and many people coming out in support of one or the other, the merits of medium light seem to be mostly overlooked. Polar opposite philosophies may make for enjoyable debates, but not necessarily enjoyable tanks.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Dimmable T5HOs? That sounds very promising! I would love to see that idea. Being that I now have a basic understanding of wiring when I tore apart my light fixture, I'd love to see the specs to that. Would it be as simple as adding a dimmer switch or would a ballast have to support the dimming? 

My goal is to create a tank that can be walked away from but still have great growth. I think my using less light and little to no water fertilizers will be a great contrast to Storm's high light and originally no water dosage. Do these substrates leach into the water column? Most likely, but the point is I will not be adding water column fertilizer with the exception of K. I love the experimenting in the hobby. I _think_ the only true way of understanding anything is to find out for yourself. And if all you ever discover is something that was discovered decades ago, who cares? It means you actually _learned _something. I think too often people are told what to think and don't have a chance to learn it for themselves. Too often we loose site of the fact we are all at different levels in this hobby.

My thinking is the light I am driving will be low medium even if there were two T5HO bulbs given the distance from the substrate to the height of the bulbs. Since sunlight isn't a factor (we keep blinds drawn, I think this is a valid assumption. I am going to take readings on a killawatt meter to see the difference in bulbs as well. Not a high tech device, but it'll definitely show if the T5HO are being over driven and what percentage by putting in the T5HO bulbs and then the T5 bulbs.

Now will I go around and claim my methods to be superior? No, I won't. Every method has a place in the hobby, but some are more tedious than others.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I agree that many get in over their heads when running several T5HO bulbs. As I stated earlier many don't have two switches and alot of newbies are running these bulbs for the full light duration. 

DarkCobra what is your take on running keeping the tank at low/med light for most of the period with a short burst. The one thing I haven’t seen explained (or I missed it) is that if you run low lighting for most of the day and a burst in the middle. Does that extra light create more algae issues or does the burst create more uptake and a cleaner tank and give the robust growth some prefer. I’m still not convinced that strictly running 40-50 PAR all day works for all situations.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

sewingalot said:


> Dimmable T5HOs? That sounds very promising! I would love to see that idea. Being that I now have a basic understanding of wiring when I tore apart my light fixture, I'd love to see the specs to that. Would it be as simple as adding a dimmer switch or would a ballast have to support the dimming?


You do need a special ballast. They're expensive if you purchase through normal suppliers, but frequently go on Ebay for the same or less than standard retail ballasts; because there is no demand. I've purchased four at this point and not a single person has bid against me.

There are three different control standards for dimming ballasts. "Digital" is useless for DIY, because you need a specialized controller. "Three Wire" also uses a specialized controller, which _resembles_ a standard dimmer switch, but a truly standard one from any hardware store can be used if you attach a parallel load; although a bit inelegant from an electronic geek point of view, it can be as simple as an incandescent nightlight. "Control Voltage" uses a DC control voltage, usually from 0-10V; the ballast supplies the 10V and you supply a $2 potentiometer dial from Radio Shack.

That pretty much sums it up in a single paragraph. If you have a little basic electrical knowledge, you could do it with that alone. Otherwise, anyone who can handle a standard T5HO build can do this too with a little one-on-one guidance, which I would be happy to provide.

I went with "three wire", and instead of a dimmer, I used an X10 lamp module; keeping with my theme of controlling all my tanks via central computer. But that's a whole 'nother topic.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Hey, would you care to send me a link to one of the ballast through pm? I did a quick search and wasn't certain I was finding the correct one. So with the pontentiometer dial, you could in reality measure each notch and get a great hands on approach to controlling your lighting. That's pretty amazing. This sounds like a fantastic idea. And from what I'm reading, doesn't seem much more difficult that rewiring the ballast and adding new sockets and power cords like I did when I made the canopy. I could see a lot of people liking the idea. 

Have you built it yet? I'd love to see pictures.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

jcgd said:


> There is a point where you have enough light that co2 and fertz are no longer options. People claim they can run 4xt5ho with no co2 or fertz, but I think they are dancing with the devil. I haven't seen too many experienced aquatic plant keepers claim to have done so on a long term basis. It's usually explained by old bulbs, terrible reflectors or some other logical reason.


I agree with this 100%, and this is certainly in line with my own 4 years' worth of experience running T5HOs over my 90gal low tech. I can only run 2x54 watts for a shortened photoperiod without running into serious algae issues. 6-7 hours/day is it. I may some day either get a T5NO fixture or rig up a suspension setup to raise the fixture higher off the tank just so I can enjoy a longer photoperiod.

A dimmable T5HO ballast would be a MAJOR improvement!


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

houseofcards said:


> DarkCobra what is your take on running keeping the tank at low/med light for most of the period with a short burst. The one thing I haven’t seen explained (or I missed it) is that if you run low lighting for most of the day and a burst in the middle. Does that extra light create more algae issues or does the burst create more uptake and a cleaner tank and give the robust growth some prefer. I’m still not convinced that strictly running 40-50 PAR all day works for all situations.


The simplest explanation is that plants just total up all the PAR they receive in a day. Using a burst is roughly equivalent to dimming your lights, averaged over time. 40 PAR for six hours, plus 80 PAR for two hours, is (40*6+80*2)/8 = 50 PAR.

Of course, nothing is ever quite that simple. 

Bursting over 120 PAR is pointless. Plants generally can't utilize any more light than that. If you do this, you're just courting algae.

If you do not have CO2 injection, a high/long enough burst can consume whatever natural CO2 is present from fish or equilibrium with the atmosphere. That also is courting algae, by the ultimate limitation of CO2=0. Some folks use a siesta for the exact opposite effect, to let natural CO2 levels recover. Even with CO2 injection, a severe burst may cause a significant CO2 fluctuation; while the effects are debatable and I think a bit exaggerated, it's probably still better avoided.

The final caveat is more interesting. Plants have different minimum light requirements. Let's say a plant has a minimum of 30 PAR.

Up to 10 PAR, the plant may receive no energy at all, with the light too weak to trigger any photosynthesis.

Between 10-30 PAR, the plant receives less energy than is required to maintain its existing tissues. Some will selectively starve much of their lower leaves, in a desperate attempt to reduce maintenance costs and fuel just enough growth to reach better light; others go into near-hibernation. Either way it's dying, whether slow or fast. And furthermore attracting algae in the process _despite_ the low light.

Above 30 PAR, the plant has enough energy to maintain its tissues _and_ grow, though up to a point it may still opt to starve out a few lower leaves in order to grow faster.

In this case, crossing the threshold from below to above the required minimum PAR, either through constant lighting or the average PAR of a burst, can have a dramatic positive effect; as the plant is finally able to grow, rather than just subsist or fade away. It's no wonder you hear glowing reports about bursts in some tanks.

Personally, I'd rather just stick with constant and proper lighting. But bursts, if used properly, are a valid alternative to get the most out of non-optimal equipment you've already got.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

DarkCobra said:


> .. Using a burst is roughly equivalent to dimming your lights, averaged over time. 40 PAR for six hours, plus 80 PAR for two hours, is (40*6+80*2)/8 = 50 PAR. Of course, nothing is ever quite that simple. .


So I have T5HO wth a dimmer switch? Pretty cool. :biggrin:

Thanks for your insight. It sounds like we just don't know. I mean if I'm running around 30 PAR most of the day and do a burst for an hour or two, it might well be feeding algae, but might also be fueling additional robust growth that on the other hand could be curtailing algae. I know my plants pearl late afternoon with the burst and usually don't without it. Again not evidence that the additional photosythnesis is helping but I sure enjoy it. I also still feel the burst can expand the plant possibilities without the tank having to deal with it all day long. I don't think my setup is antiquated in anyway. I just feel low light all day is limiting.


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

I would also be interested in a dimmable T5HO fixture. Do you think you have the time to post some pics or maybe just a diagram of one?

According to Hoppy's very informative T5HO chart I'm running about 120 PAR at the substrate, which is pretty insane to be honest. I've thought about lifting the fixture up, but it's tough to find a good wire hanging kit for my fixture.


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

Hoppy said:


> It is a fact that plants can and do absorb nutrients from both the foliage and from the roots. Aquatic plants can do this far easier than terrestrial plants since the foliage is in the water. You can also feed terrestrial plants by spraying nutrients on the foliage. (This is true for nitrogen, and possibly for some of the other nutrients, but possibly not for all of them.) It is also true that nutrients in the substrate leach out into the water, so a nutrient filled substrate will necessarily mean nutrients in the water - again, it may not be the case for all of the nutrients.
> 
> It is also well known that algae require extremely tiny amounts of nutrients to grow well, so tiny that it isn't possible to starve algae. In any tank the algae have an abundance of nutrients.
> 
> Any experiments need to take this stuff into consideration in evaluating the results.


Everything you say is totally correct. My "experiment", if you want to call it that, is not a very good experiment because I don't have a control tank where I can test an inert substrate and water column dosing.

In my case, I'm trying to keep as few nutrients in the water column as possible. I use Frogbit to soak them up, and I was doing daily water changes for the first 2 weeks just to keep ammonia out of the water column while the Aquasoil is leaching.

There must be some value to keeping nutrients low in the water column, as far as prevention of algae goes. Once the plant mass is large enough, I plan on removing the frogbit and hopefully my plants will eat any nitrates long before algae has a chance to form.


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

Storm said:


> Everything you say is totally correct. My "experiment", if you want to call it that, is not a very good experiment because I don't have a control tank where I can test an inert substrate and water column dosing.
> 
> In my case, I'm trying to keep as few nutrients in the water column as possible. I use Frogbit to soak them up, and I was doing daily water changes for the first 2 weeks just to keep ammonia out of the water column while the Aquasoil is leaching.
> 
> There must be some value to keeping nutrients low in the water column, as far as prevention of algae goes. Once the plant mass is large enough, I plan on removing the frogbit and hopefully my plants will eat any nitrates long before algae has a chance to form.


The problem that I can see with doing that is that if you are always keeping nitrates at 0, you are effectively limiting your plant's nitrogen intake, which may or may not induce algae in that way, especially taking into account what Hoppy said of algae needing a very small amount of nutrients to grow. It would be more likely that your plants starve themselves before they starve the algae. That would be my guess.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

VeeSe, that isn't entirely correct. Storm will be using ADA which is a nutrient rich substrate. For quite a while, it'll leach ammonia into the water, the prefered Nitrogen source for plants. Many tanks can be kept a long time on just substrate fertilization. ADA has been running small amounts of nutrients in the water for years and they are considered to be the best in the hobby by many. 

However, since Storm's running the lights at such a high amount, the plants will deplete the sources faster than if he used lower lighting. If you want to talk about fertilizer in detail, I encourage you to participate in the fertilizer thread I started a few days ago as there are a lot of people more knowledgeable on the subject discussing the what method of fertilization and why. This thread is mainly geared toward lighting driving the need for fertilizer and co2, not any particular method.


----------



## darkoon (Nov 11, 2010)

DarkCobra said:


> Some show off amazing tanks, with growth patterns that you normally see only above low light. They post their lighting specs, and say look what you can do with low light. What they neglect to mention is that their tanks also receive sunlight from a window part of the day, which is encouraged for Walsted-type tanks. Sorry to burst the bubble, but even if your electrical lights are low, when sunlight is involved it's not truly a low light tank as far as plants are concerned!


no need to be a hater when you can't grow good looking plants with low light while others can. high light is not necessary, or it is not the only way to bring out the redness in plants. People who have been to Win aquariums in Manhattan or Royal Aqua in Brooklyn can probably testify that these stores have no direct sun light what so ever, and they use some pretty dim single T8 or T12 over their tanks, yet their plants always show off some good redness. i personally think getting the right bulb with the right spectrum is the key. when I had T5HO, i could grow plants without issues or deficiencies, but i had trouble getting the redness out of L aromatica, it didn't matter how much co2, iron and other ferts i added until i made switch to 6500k Phillips T8 bulbs.


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

LOL, where has this interest in dimmable T5HO been hiding until now? 

Your wish is my command. To avoid further thread hijacking, all your questions answered here:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/diy/153619-my-dimmable-t5ho-hood.html


----------



## DarkCobra (Jun 22, 2004)

darkoon said:


> no need to be a hater when you can't grow good looking plants with low light while others can.


No hating. I've seen your tanks, good stuff, and I have no doubt you do it exactly as described. But there are some others who I believe are "cheating" by using sunlight, and not mentioning it. And if you think I can't grow nice plants in low light, you're quite mistaken.


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

This is my "experiment" so far - it occurred to me that the frogbit could be cutting light which would help prevent algae, however, the rotala colorata in the center is only about 5-6" from the bulbs and the leaves have no algae. The spraybar keeps the frogbit clear from the center.


----------



## barbarossa4122 (Jan 16, 2010)

Storm said:


> I would also be interested in a dimmable T5HO fixture. Do you think you have the time to post some pics or maybe just a diagram of one?
> 
> According to Hoppy's very informative T5HO chart I'm running about 120 PAR at the substrate, which is pretty insane to be honest. I've thought about lifting the fixture up, but it's tough to find a good wire hanging kit for my fixture.


My wife bought great hanging stuff from HD. She hanged the lights for our 3 tanks........very handy lady I must say.


----------



## VeeSe (Apr 16, 2011)

sewingalot said:


> VeeSe, that isn't entirely correct. Storm will be using ADA which is a nutrient rich substrate. For quite a while, it'll leach ammonia into the water, the prefered Nitrogen source for plants. Many tanks can be kept a long time on just substrate fertilization. ADA has been running small amounts of nutrients in the water for years and they are considered to be the best in the hobby by many.
> 
> However, since Storm's running the lights at such a high amount, the plants will deplete the sources faster than if he used lower lighting. If you want to talk about fertilizer in detail, I encourage you to participate in the fertilizer thread I started a few days ago as there are a lot of people more knowledgeable on the subject discussing the what method of fertilization and why. This thread is mainly geared toward lighting driving the need for fertilizer and co2, not any particular method.


Oh yeah that's true. I forgot about the aquasoil.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

Dark Cobra, that is an awesome right up! I've read it twice now. I am so wishing for the days that I wasn't poor. 

Storm, brilliant tank! I look forward to seeing progress. The rotala colorata is very pretty. Everything looks very healthy to me so far. Keep us updated!

Veesee- I figured you might have missed that point as I had the first time I read Storm's proposal. 

Oh, I just realized I forgot to add my photos. Here are just a few days into starting the project:









And here is now:









The second picture is overexposed a bit even though I thought I used the same settings. (I really need a class on photography basics. ) One thing I have noticed is the diandra and ludgwigia sp 'red' (a palustris hybrid) is now turning into richer colors. Much more pleasing to the eye. Subtle differences so far, but the pictures are only three days apart! I can't wait to see what happens in the next few months. (Knowing how many of my experiments go, I can only imagine that it'll be a total algae fest in no time. :wink Still, it's fun to try new (to me) ideas.


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

Looks great sewingalot! I think once you get your plant mass up to where they are filling out the whole tank, algae will never have a presence in your tank. The stem plants seem to really keep algae at bay once they fill out into bushes.

Good luck!


----------



## Church (Sep 14, 2004)

This is a fantastic thread Sara! I have been experimenting with both high and low light tanks for a few years now, and I have to say that, while I do like the idea of low light and slow growth and stuff, I always keep a high light tank around.

And for me, I have to say, as much as I appreciate Hoppy's chart and all the work he's done, it doesn't seem to shine true for me. All I know is, using 2 x T5HO (with individual reflectors) over my 20 long is supposed to be way too much light, but I never have any bad algae outbreaks or anything. I keep to my EI schedule, and I do my 50% water changes.

I really love T5HOs. I recently experimented with putting a single 31w (with a crappy reflector) over the tank, resting on the glass lid, and it slowed everything down to a crawl. That was fine for a little while until I got bored, and went back to my 2 x 24w T5HO fixture, suspended 6 inches above the water. Now the growth is quick enough to see pearling and stuff, without causing green water or other algae.

Maybe it's the amanos, maybe it's the snails. Or maybe, T5HO isn't too much light when you keep the CO2 up and ferts going. I don't know. But I definitely find the tank to look better under 2 T5HOs rather than a single one. It spreads the light front to back better. And I like watching my plants grow. It's part of the fun to me. I like filling things in, taking pictures for posterity, and ripping it out to start over again. At least, on this tank.

Anyway, here's my tank:


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Storm said:


> Looks great sewingalot! I think once you get your plant mass up to where they are filling out the whole tank, algae will never have a presence in your tank. The stem plants seem to really keep algae at bay once they fill out into bushes.
> 
> Good luck!


Agreed! Fast growing stems really suck up nutrients so they're not floating around for.... Oops! What am I saying?! ( slaps self in an effort to come back to reality ).


----------



## Surgeon (Jun 17, 2011)

Ive got a new 6x2x1.6 tank with a 2ft T5HO+4ftT5HO that was running 10 hours a day (with a blackout time in the middle of the day). Was starting to get some GSA and my fish couldnt figure out when dawn was (feeding time) so i've scavenged a 4ft Dual T8 fixture and switched to 5Hours to T5HO and 5 hours of 5 hours of T8.

We'll see how it works and it gives a nice sunrise/sunset darkness feel to the tank and the loaches seem to know when morning is again. The tank is not old enough to draw any serious conclusions from unfortunately.


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

I haven't been on the forum much, so I do have new information on the bulbs. The Normal Output bulbs were not lasting much more than a month from being overdriven. Since I still haven't fixed the other two lights, this 55 gallon tank has been running on one bulb.

The large ludwigia went from dark red to a sickly orangish green until it hit the top 1/3 of the tank. Limnophilia Aromatica dropped all its lower leaves due to shading and was a boring green color. Both these plants were eventually removed and some crypts added. The ludgwigia sp 'red' is a freak of nature. It became darker red. Plants took off. Here is a basic photographic timeline.


----------

