# Question about lighting for a 'repurposed' tank



## dominic (Feb 28, 2006)

Hi,

I'm just about to redo a tank that has been housing Piranha for the last 6 years - I inherited them from someone else, but they are sadly all gone now, and the only inhabitant is a large plec.

I intend to take the fully planted route and ideally would like to try it out with the Diana Walstad type method (low-tech, rich substrate). Though to be on the safe side, I'm planning on having CO2 and PMDD on standby.

Anyhow, on to the question. The tank is 6'x2'x2'. Since it is deep I'm assuming that I'm going to need some pretty powerful lighting. I was thinking of getting two of these:

http://www.thecoralgarden.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=15_35&products_id=605 (each takes 4 x 80w T5 lamps - though the units are very cheap in comparison to to the others on the market, so I hope they're OK).

Would this be overkill for my tank, or about right? Ideally I'd like to have dwarf hairgrass in the foreground, for the grassy look, then a variety of stuff in mid to background (any suggestions welcome here!).

One other question, not related to lighting. But I've just ordered an RO-Unit. Does anyone have suggestions on what products are 'best' to remineralise the water?

Many thanks.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

I'm not familiar with those fixtures specifically, but I can tell you that T5 lights will be more than sufficient. If you are going to use that much light, CO2 and ferts I dont recommend using the Walstad method. Her method is meant for no dosing and medium lighting. You will have some serious algae issues if you try combining the two. 

If you truly want to stay low-tech and use the Walstad method I suggest you only use one fixture and CO2 with no other dosing. Growing the dwarf hairgrass may be difficult in that setup though. You may have to consider a higher tech setup.

Most people are using Seachem's Equilibrium for reconstituting their RO water in planted tanks.


----------



## dominic (Feb 28, 2006)

Many thanks AaronT... I've just got to decide which route to take I guess 

One thing that did concern me was that in Walstad's book, she says that one shouldn't use a tank > 18" deep unless there is natural sunlight available - there isn't where my tank is located because the house opposite blocks any sun from reaching the window that the tank is next to. I'm pretty sure she said that it was because the flourescent's didn't have the punch to reach the lower levels of the tank well. If true then that would apply regardless of whether I go hi or low tech. Then again, I'm sure I've seen hundreds of people with tanks of 24" (maybe even deeper?) that grow plants really well. With the increased depth, is it the amount of lighting that counts, or simply the capability of the individual tubes? I'd guess that if one tube can't reach the bottom of the tank then it wouldn't make any difference with 2 tubes (you'd just have double the light at the depth that you could reach). If this is so, then won't it affect the ability of the foreground plants to grow successfully regardless of tech level?

Having said all of that, I'd also heard that the T5's were able to penetrate deeper than the regular T8's

The only planted tanks I have used so far have been a maximum of 18" deep (running for 3 years with DIY CO2 and PMDD), and T8 lighting. They've done reasonably well - well the plants survived and I didn't have too many algae problems


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

Good reflectors will help any flourescent tube to reach the bottom of a 24" deep tank. Look for a fixture that has parabolic reflectors to help direct the light properly.

Here's my suggestion. Start off with one fixture, CO2, and DO NOT use the Walstad method your first time. Once you get a feel for some of the easier plants with lower lighting levels then you can add a second fixture later. If you do it this way you won't have to replace any soil in your tank when you decide to up the lighting. Does that make sense?


----------



## dominic (Feb 28, 2006)

Yes, makes good sense AaronT, thanks. Start simple and work up - I guess, the less there is to keep track of the easier it should be


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

I'm glad to help out.


----------

