9.6 Watts per gallon too much?

[Rxblade123]

I went to Hellolight.com and saw a 20 inch Lightning Hood. 1 x 96 Bulb. Costs around 80 and for an extra bulb that is 6500k for freshwater plants it costs about 30 more dollars. Together it would cost about $130 including shipping. Should I get it? It costs a lot, but I don't know if I should get it. It would probably promote lots of growth in my plants. Well if I provide enough macro and micro nutrients. Just wondering, but would the 9.6 Watts per gallon be too much?

 

[SnyperP]

heh i've heard of 6+watts, but never 9+. I imagine if you had the nutrients and co2 anything would be possible..

 

[savga]

Your fish would have nice tans, too

 

[Rxblade123]

Hahahaha, but if I upped the nutrients and Co2 I would have a dense forest of plants exploding from my tank XD.

 

[Bearfan]

Or an algae problem to beat all. Plants probably have a point on a curve that growth declines, and I would bet that would be past it.

 

[hashbaz]

I would have to agree with what Bearfan had to say. You might also have a problem with the tank overheating.

But hey if you have the money and time go for it! If you find it is too much light then that is a great excuse for a bigger aquarium.

 

[BASSNMAN]

I usually just poach salmon , not tropicals. Do you know if this is a square or straight pin bulb. I think a 65 watt bulb would be a lot for a 10 gal. Try to find out if you can use lower watt bulbs with that ballast.

 

[malkore]

there's no reason to exceed 3.5wpg on a standard 20gallon.

 

[travis simonson]

I would tend to agree that anything over 3-4 wpg is overkill. Compare it to your car - do you really need 900- 1000 hp if it's a daily driver? Wouldn't that just tend to get you into trouble? That said, Luis Navarro, one of the top AGA contestants year after year, regularly goes up into the 8-10 wpg range with his planted tanks. He is, however, an expert at what he does, and can control algae at those wattages. I would have pea soup in no time if I tried it though :?

 

[madasafish]

Yeah, a few problems (some repeats)...

1) Algae
2) CO2 levels would have to be really high for plants to keep up
3) Dosing would have to be very frequent/great, also.
3) Perhaps most importantly, your fish would be scared out of their minds. Lighting over 4-5 wpg is usually too bright for fish, and they tend to hide if they feel really exposed. Who knows, their eyes might even hurt...

Nice idea, though. I expect the plants would grow incredibly fast. Just impracticable.

 

[michealprater]

I would tend to agree that anything over 3-4 wpg is overkill. Compare it to your car - do you really need 900- 1000 hp if it's a daily driver? Wouldn't that just tend to get you into trouble? That said, Luis Navarro, one of the top AGA contestants year after year, regularly goes up into the 8-10 wpg range with his planted tanks. He is, however, an expert at what he does, and can control algae at those wattages. I would have pea soup in no time if I tried it though :?

I have 5.3 watts per gallon, but my 150 is 36 inches high. (dual 400 watt halides). Is that too much?

 

[travis simonson]

With a 36" depth I don't think 5.3 wpg is going to be a problem. In fact it might be exactly what you need to get down to those plants 3' from the light source. I'm anxious to see some pics of this tank when you get it up and running

 

[michealprater]

It all hinges on when I can afford Co2.

 

[malkore]

Michael,
be sure to check www.aquariumplants.com for their CO2 regulator. Its' the cheapest vendor I've found.

 

[michealprater]

He quoted me a entire setup. It was still a pretty good chunk of change. I will have to save up. It's just a little tight right now because I am finishing out my unfinshed basement. Building materials are really high right now.

 

[BeerBotia]

U'd have to wrap your tank in a chiller...then how'd you see your fish?



(nice bosemani madasa)