Low maintenance planted tank ... 48" bulbs x2 or x3 over 55G?
 

In my quest to finally get my 55G planted tank up and running, I'm
going to shell out the cash and just buy the hood that maches my
All-Glass tank instead of making one. However, I'm not sure if I
should choose the twin tube (2 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast)
or the triple tube (3 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast) strip
light.

I would like to achieve a fairly low maintenance tank (ie: prune once
every month or two). I won't be using any CO2, however, I was planning
on using Excel and fertilizers on a regular basis. I'm perfectly happy
sticking to low and medium light plants but I definately want enough
growth to not get much algea.

But I can't decided on how much lighting. If I go with 2 bulbs I get
1.45wpg (counting 40 watts per bulb ... I know they only use 32 watts,
but they are equivalent to a 40 watt T12 bulb in light output which is
what was around when the wpg rule first started, so I'm assuming
counting them as 40 watt bulbs makes more sense). However, is 1.45 wpg
a little on the low side?

If I go with three bulbs I get 2.18wpg (again counting 40 watts per
bulb), which makes me think that I might have to start using CO2 in
order to avoid problems in the long term.

So what would you recommend?

Thanks,
Harry

Low maintenance planted tank ... 48" bulbs x2 or x3 over 55G?
 

Harry Muscle wrote:

In my quest to finally get my 55G planted tank up and running, I'm
going to shell out the cash and just buy the hood that maches my
All-Glass tank instead of making one. However, I'm not sure if I
should choose the twin tube (2 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast)
or the triple tube (3 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast) strip
light.

I would like to achieve a fairly low maintenance tank (ie: prune once
every month or two). I won't be using any CO2, however, I was
planning on using Excel and fertilizers on a regular basis. I'm
perfectly happy sticking to low and medium light plants but I
definately want enough growth to not get much algea.

But I can't decided on how much lighting. If I go with 2 bulbs I get
1.45wpg (counting 40 watts per bulb ... I know they only use 32 watts,
but they are equivalent to a 40 watt T12 bulb in light output which is
what was around when the wpg rule first started, so I'm assuming
counting them as 40 watt bulbs makes more sense). However, is 1.45
wpg a little on the low side?

If I go with three bulbs I get 2.18wpg (again counting 40 watts per
bulb), which makes me think that I might have to start using CO2 in
order to avoid problems in the long term.

So what would you recommend?

Thanks,
Harry

Those hoods are quite inefficient, especially the three tube models. If
you consider that much of the light is trapped above the lamps or
bouncing between the lamps, you can see that most of the light will not
reach the water. The three lamp fixture is worse because the lamps are
spaced too close together. This would be a low light situation with
either fixture.

An efficient design would have the tubes more widely separated, and a
partial wrap-around reflector associated with each one.

Given that you prefer to purchase rather than build, perhaps you could
consider using a clear glass versatop, and a power compact hood sitting
on top of it. The price may not be much different, but this solution
would put much more light into your aquarium. The Coralife Aqualight
48" with two 65W power compact lamps is a nice modern design. Just over
$100 at HelloLights.com.

George

--

Low maintenance planted tank ... 48" bulbs x2 or x3 over 55G?
 

But wouldn't a compact lamps hood like the one you mention put me close
to Medium-High lighting, getting ever closer to requireing CO2 and more
work in order to keep things balanced?

I've always assumed that in order to have a farily low maintenance tank
I should be sticking with Low-Medium lighting.

Thanks,
Harry

Low maintenance planted tank ... 48" bulbs x2 or x3 over 55G?
 

Harry Muscle wrote:

But wouldn't a compact lamps hood like the one you mention put me
close to Medium-High lighting, getting ever closer to requireing CO2
and more work in order to keep things balanced?

I've always assumed that in order to have a farily low maintenance
tank I should be sticking with Low-Medium lighting.

Thanks,
Harry

The 130 watts of PC lighting over a 55 gallon tank would be just a
little over 2 WPG, so lighting-wise that is in the medium range. It
would increase the variety of plants that you could grow successfully
compared to the stock hood. It would also make the colors of everything
in the tank look more vivid.

The downside is that anything you do to increase light can also spur
the growth of algae. That is not to say that you will have an algae
problem, just that it will be more of an issue with any increase in
light.

If you want to scale back the amount of light, you might find a T5 or
even a 2 lamp T8 fixture that at least has a decent reflector. Then at
least you will get your money's worth from the electricity that goes
into firing up these lamps.

As far as adding CO2, it is not necessary to do so to keep things in
balance. Just imagine a natural pond under direct sunlight. That would
have even more light and yet it maintains a nice balance without added
CO2. We usually add CO2 to increase the rate of growth, because the CO2
level in the water is limiting in almost all cases with this amount of
light. If you are satisfied with the plant growth that you get then
this is a perfectly good condition to maintain.

George

--