I'm starting to turn against ferts...

[jetajockey]

I agree. I think the main issue at hand is high lighting without co2. Glut dosing helps but its not a direct replacement for injected co2.

People don't typically use mh on planted tanks because it's usually not necessary. There's other options that often use less wattage or cost less to purchase.

Sent from Peabody's rabbit hole.

 

[Sk3lly]

I agree. I think the main issue at hand is high lighting without co2. Glut dosing helps but its not a direct replacement for injected co2.

People don't typically use mh on planted tanks because it's usually not necessary. There's other options that often use less wattage or cost less to purchase.

Sent from Peabody's rabbit hole.

Completely agree +1


Sent from my iPad using Aquarium Advice

 

[MMantelli]

:thumbup:

Sent from my HTCEVODesign4G using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[lectraplayer]

As a electrician, I would probably argue the point about MH being more expensive than fluorescent, which is used more commonly at the equivalent lighting level. ...or at least for general lighting. I also know my dual F40LTT hood I was using before cost me more to build than did my current arrangement, which used general lighting components. The aquarium lighting doesn't appear that different except for the spectra of the bulb and the housing.

Anyway, I've shortened my photoperiod to 5 hours until I flush all the algae away with daily 60%+ water changes.

 

[jetajockey]

I was talking about t8/t5 type fluorescents rather than compact fluorescent lighting.

Even if they are equivalent, 175 watts of anything on a 29 is a lot of light, even at 2 feet above the tank. Not that it can't be done, as I've seen it done on many tanks, but the amount of light can make it tricky to balance everything out.


I'm not in the electrician field, so I can't really give any extra input on comparisons. This looks like an interesting read on comparison between MH, T8, and T5 options in high bay lighting. Commercial Lighting Tax Deduction