# Minimum Lighting (watts) for a 125 Gallon???



## FishPlantsNYC (Jan 27, 2008)

I've heard anywhere between 2-5 Watts per gallon..I was interested in a Nova Extreme fixture (Two 36") which had 4 bulbs @ 39Watts each fixture..That would total 312Watts..Is that enough light to have to start planting in my fish aquarium?..Thanks


----------



## Questin (Sep 30, 2007)

I grew everything I wanted with 1.7 watts a gallon in my 125. That included a Glosso carpet, and an HM bush. I have, only one month ago gone up to 2.5 watts a gallon, and that was to have a differnt light spectrum in the tank, not to have more light.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/aquascaping/44668-125-gallon.html


----------



## FishPlantsNYC (Jan 27, 2008)

Thanks for the info, and by the way nice tank & plants


----------



## gibmaker (Jan 3, 2007)

I use four 36" compacts on my 125. 440 watts total.


----------



## kitfoxdrvr (Dec 29, 2007)

I have four 96 watt CF on my 180 and almost wish I could tone it down a little. My experience has been that the 2-3+ watts per gallon breaks down at about 90 gallons, and lower wattages become "high light" levels. I run mine until the R. wallichii folds up (10 hours) and I am getting heavy pearling from about two hours after lights-on until the lights cut off. If I take photos, I have to take them in the morning because they are cloudy with ox bubbles the rest of the day!

I would say your 2.5 watts per gallon would be plenty as I am happy with my 2.1 wpg. The only wild card would be your reflectors (not familiar with Nova Extreme), as they are important in actually delivering over half the light into the tank. But I think you will be very happy with that light level..

Good luck!
Steve


----------



## angel_fish (Jan 25, 2007)

I have 384watts on my 125. I have to say that I have a constant struggle with algae with this high of lighting. I am seriously considering backing down to 1.5watts per gallon by only running two 96watt bulbs instead of four. 

I think that 312watts is definitely enough light. If you go with this high of lighting, I do recommend that you invest in a pressurized CO2 setup if you don't already have one. Otherwise, you will likely be running into algae issues.


----------



## David Hui (Dec 10, 2004)

I had 2 x 96 ahsupply on a 72" 125 and pressurized CO2.


----------



## jay973 (Aug 14, 2007)

I have an Oceanic 120 Gal. which is 60inx18inx28in with auto pressurized C02, 4x55 ahsupply light kit which gave about 1.8wpg (10hrs a day). I've been able to grow Wenditii, different types of Ludwigia, Water Wisteria, Bacopa Monnieri, Dwarf Saggitiaria, Foxtail and something called Parrots Feather usually a pond plant. It took almost a year for it to fill in mostly because I was constantly disturbing the plants, battling algae at my fail attempts of aquascaping  now I have to clip it back every 1 to 2 weeks. 

None of my attempts to keep more demanding light plants have worked out. I was thinking of getting the wpg to around 2.5 since the tank is so deep all the foliage looks best closet to the lights.

Oh and heavily packed with fish mostly different types of Tetra rummy nose x30, cardinals x15, black neon x9, otto x7, bushy nose pleco x2, clown pleco x1, SAE x1, cory x4, and my favorite x6 Blue rams, but you wouldn't even know they were in there unless its feeding time when they huddle together. I like to play find the Cory cats with the kids for spare change. If I find them 1st I don't have to pay up.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

angel_fish said:


> I have 384watts on my 125. I have to say that I have a constant struggle with algae with this high of lighting. I am seriously considering backing down to 1.5watts per gallon by only running two 96watt bulbs instead of four.
> I think that 312watts is definitely enough light. If you go with this high of lighting, I do recommend that you invest in a pressurized CO2 setup if you don't already have one. Otherwise, you will likely be running into algae issues.


I must have the same fixtures that Angelfish does because that is what I have on my 125g. In watts that works out to 3.07 wpg. Of course since my tank is 21" deep I think it's kinda hard to get that light down to the bottom of the tank. I don't usually have algae issues. I have had these lights for almost 4 years (in June). If I have CO2 issues then I have algae issues. If I would forget to dose my fertilizers I would have algae issues. If I don't do water changes I get algae. Otherwise I'm pretty good. That doesn't mean that there isn't a spot here or there. It's like Hoppy said in one of the threads, there is never going to be zero algae - but then our otos would starve! 

I have had a hard time getting foreground plants to grow. I have had a hard time getting the reds in my plants. I believe it's a function of light and getting the right mix of ferts. Without this much light it would be worse. I guess the answer depends on what you want to grow in your tank. :mrgreen:


----------



## cleek (Jan 24, 2008)

Ya , man. Dont put more watts in! Around 1.5-2 wpg is plenty for big tanks!


----------



## cleek (Jan 24, 2008)

Ya , man. Dont put more watts in! Around 1.5-2 wpg is plenty for big tanks!


----------



## bradac56 (May 9, 2007)

Tex Gal said:


> Of course since my tank is 21" deep I think it's kinda hard to get that light down to the bottom of the tank.:mrgreen:


I've always considered that to be a bit of a myth. To get water deflection (less light at the bottom)
you'd have to go down several feet - as in 5 to 10 instead of inches just like a real pond or lake and
we rarely have the water column silt that a pond/lake/river does in our aquariums tho some us us
put in dense plants or scapes that can reduce light at part of the bottom.



Tex Gal said:


> I have had these lights for almost 4 years (in June). If I have CO2 issues then I have algae issues. If I would forget to dose my fertilizers I would have algae issues. If I don't do water changes I get algae. Otherwise I'm pretty good.


That sounds more like a well run hi-tech/hi-light tank than a tank without enough light depth.

- Brad


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

bradac56 said:


> I've always considered that to be a bit of a myth. To get water deflection (less light at the bottom)
> you'd have to go down several feet - as in 5 to 10 instead of inches just like a real pond or lake and
> we rarely have the water column silt that a pond/lake/river does in our aquariums tho some us us
> put in dense plants or scapes that can reduce light at part of the bottom.
> - Brad


Yes I have read that, but then - why do my reds and pink only red and pink when they get to the top of the tank? (without any shading issues to cloud the light out) Why can't I grow foreground plant (Yeah, maybe my road gravel has _something_ to do with it....) I just can't seem to come up with any answer to these questions.


----------

